Allow Illegal Aliens to Vote?

[Seth]

Not really. You pay in and it goes directly to someone else, so it's a redistributionist tax levied on the PROMISE that when you retire, someone else will be taxed to support you. Problem is it's inherently unfair, particularly these days, because retirees are living longer and longer and they don't just get what they paid in, they get benefits for LIFE, which means they can get much MORE than they paid in, at someone else's expense. It's a government subsidy paid for by taxing current workers, no matter what you care to call it, and it's a Ponzi scheme that cannot be sustained in a world where the retirement class is larger than the working class.

That may or may not accurately describe what the government is ACTUALLY doing with the money, but it isn't what the deal is legally supposed to be.

Wrong. That's exactly how it works, and was intended to work, from the very beginning. What happened is that the government has been flatly lying to the people ever since FDR started the whole shebang and has been trying to convince them that it's a "retirement fund" when it's not.

And, it's o.k. if retirees get more than they paid in.

Not if the government is taking out of MY pocket it's not.

The idea is that interest was to be made on the money,

Which lie lasted about 10 minutes after the legislation was signed, at which point Congress immediately began raiding the Trust Fund and issuing non-interest-bearing IOUs, so no, it's not okay. False promises, lies and obfuscation don't make it acceptable. I judge the system on how it ACUALLY works, not on how bureaucrats and politicians have tried to tell us it is supposed to work.

and also that some folks will collect less than they paid in, because they get hit by buses and whatnot before they turn 65.

And that's stealing from them and their heirs. If I put $300 per month into a retirement account for 40 years and then get hit by a bus before I can draw on it, that's MY FUCKING MONEY and it goes to my designated heirs, not the federal government, and certainly not some OTHER retiree.

It's kind of like how some folks pay in to the unemployment compensation fund, but never collect, but others get to collect because they are unemployed. It's a lot like insurance.

Nope, it's nothing like insurance because it's COMPULSORY, and the money you pay doesn't benefit YOU at all, it benefits someone else, because that's how the government does redistribution. Even "unemployment compensation" is not "insurance," it's yet ANOTHER government scam to redistribute money from the productive class to the dependent class, and that's simply wrong, no matter how you try to smear it with glitter and perfume. It stinks like shit and looks like shit all the same.

If you want money coming in in the event you get fired, then buy your own private unemployment policy and pay the premiums yourself. Same for retirement.

And if you decide to buy beer and a flat-screen TV instead of paying into your retirement account, then you can beg for charity and live in a cardboard box when you get fired or old. If you are contrite and obsequious enough, maybe some charity will take pity on you and give you some stuff or money or a place to live.

But you don't get to use the jackbooted thugs of the government with their machine guns to come and rob ME to support you in your indolence and indigence. You can ask, and I might help, but if you come at me with a gun and demand my money, I'll just shoot you dead, no matter how old or desperate you are, and I'll do the same to government agents engaging in armed thuggery as well.

And, anyone who takes a tax deduction, like on a home mortgage interest, is effectively getting a subsidy. So, the only persons who'd be voting in your twisted world would be those that own property free and clear.

Wrong. A tax deduction is simply taxes not paid, not a government subsidy. Your argument fails on the premise that all income generated by an individual belongs to the government, and that as a result that income which is not taxed is an income loss to the government and a "subsidy" to the individual. That's a hoary old Democrat/Progressive canard that has no basis in reality or economics.

No, my premise was not that.

That's the premise of every tax liability reduction from Democrats and Progressives.

A tax deduction says that person X, who makes $50,000, pays more in taxes than person Y, who makes $50,000, but pays a mortgage with interest. To be fair, they both should pay the same. Giving Y a deduction for the mortgage interest is no different than having him pay the full tax, and then writing him a check for the mortgage interest deduction amount.

Wrong. A tax deduction reduces the tax liability for those who have mortgages because the government wishes to encourage and facilitate people buying homes. Now, that's something that government should not be doing in the first place, but it's not the same as giving them a government "subsidy." This is because it's up to Congress to set tax rates and define taxable income and may define or exclude whatever income it deems appropriate from income taxation. Congress has decided that a person's taxable income should be reduced by the amount they pay in home mortgage payments, therefore there is no gift or subsidy from the government, it's merely determining that for the amount of otherwise taxable income that equals the mortgage payment, the tax rate is zero.

Big difference.

Again, your argument is based on the notion that all income is taxable regardless of its source, as a default condition, but that's not what the law says. The law (the Sixteenth Amendment) says, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived..." It does NOT say, "All income, from whatever source derived, is subject to taxation."

Only that income that Congress decides shall be subject to income tax levy is subject to taxation, and if Congress sees fit to exclude an amount equal to a home mortgage payment, then that amount of income is NOT SUBJECT TO TAXATION, and it is not a "subsidy" or benefit received from the government, it is simply an exclusion of income from the tax calculation.

[Jason]

and put preggers ladies from visaless countries back on the plane?

Yup, you betcha.

Birthing mothers? Out!

Mail them the placenta with appropriate charges for shipping and handling of course.

[Seth]

and put preggers ladies from visaless countries back on the plane?

Yup, you betcha.

Birthing mothers? Out!

Mail them the placenta with appropriate charges for shipping and handling of course.

Just get them out to sea or into international airspace before the child is fully delivered. I'd even go for a hospital ship outside territorial waters to which imminently pregnant women would be flown by helicopter so they can deliver their child, which will be a citizen of their home country and not a citizen of the US.

[eXcommunicate]

Only people who pay federal taxes should be allowed to vote, and citizenship shouldn't matter. Good bye Democratic Party :twisted:

The Democrats would just push a law through that provides federal funds to people to pay their federal taxes. Problem solved.

Such political retards. The Democrats would simple shift their platform to accommodate the new paradigm and maintain a roughly 50/50 split with the Republicans. We'd have 2 right-leaning parties, kinda like what we have now.

[Tyrannical]

Is it wrong that I agree with Tyrannical?

I mean, giving special rights to kids brought in as toddlers, as kids to illegals, feels like a window for all kinds of traffics and fraud, just involving younger people.
Same way, I'd deny citizenship to kids born on the Soil of mothers illegally present there, if only to avoid any kind of anchor baby phenomenon.

Well, I couldn't support, in good conscience, sending a 13 year old to Mexico who had been brought without her consent to the US as a 2 year old. I could certainly see imposing criminal and civil penalties against the parents who committed the offense, though.

By the same logic you could not allow a child to be deprived of material benefits by imposing monetary fines on their parents to punish criminal activity.
Countries have the right to decide who is allowed to become a citizen and who is not.

[Coito ergo sum]

Is it wrong that I agree with Tyrannical?

I mean, giving special rights to kids brought in as toddlers, as kids to illegals, feels like a window for all kinds of traffics and fraud, just involving younger people.
Same way, I'd deny citizenship to kids born on the Soil of mothers illegally present there, if only to avoid any kind of anchor baby phenomenon.

Well, I couldn't support, in good conscience, sending a 13 year old to Mexico who had been brought without her consent to the US as a 2 year old. I could certainly see imposing criminal and civil penalties against the parents who committed the offense, though.

By the same logic you could not allow a child to be deprived of material benefits by imposing monetary fines on their parents to punish criminal activity.

Of course you can impose criminal penalties on parents for their criminal behavior. Happens all the time. If that sends the kids into poverty, then the State helps out.

Countries have the right to decide who is allowed to become a citizen and who is not.

Countries don't have rights.

The US government has the lawful authority to send a 13 year old girl to Mexico because she was illegally brought here when she was 2 years old, through no fault of her own. My view on it, though, is that the US government ought not do so, because punishing someone for something they had no control over is un-Ameircan. That would be like locking you up for assault and batter after I grabbed your hand and smacked someone else across the face with it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Not really. You pay in and it goes directly to someone else, so it's a redistributionist tax levied on the PROMISE that when you retire, someone else will be taxed to support you. Problem is it's inherently unfair, particularly these days, because retirees are living longer and longer and they don't just get what they paid in, they get benefits for LIFE, which means they can get much MORE than they paid in, at someone else's expense. It's a government subsidy paid for by taxing current workers, no matter what you care to call it, and it's a Ponzi scheme that cannot be sustained in a world where the retirement class is larger than the working class.

That may or may not accurately describe what the government is ACTUALLY doing with the money, but it isn't what the deal is legally supposed to be.

Wrong. That's exactly how it works, and was intended to work, from the very beginning. What happened is that the government has been flatly lying to the people ever since FDR started the whole shebang and has been trying to convince them that it's a "retirement fund" when it's not.

And, it's o.k. if retirees get more than they paid in.

Not if the government is taking out of MY pocket it's not.

The idea is that interest was to be made on the money,

Which lie lasted about 10 minutes after the legislation was signed, at which point Congress immediately began raiding the Trust Fund and issuing non-interest-bearing IOUs, so no, it's not okay. False promises, lies and obfuscation don't make it acceptable. I judge the system on how it ACUALLY works, not on how bureaucrats and politicians have tried to tell us it is supposed to work.

So, you do agree with my statement, "That may or may not accurately describe what the government is ACTUALLY doing with the money, but it isn't what the deal is legally supposed to be." You just don't care how it was supposed to work. Fair enough. But, then your statement above that I was "wrong" is, well, wrong. You're wrong, and you just admitted it because you just admitted that what the law says should have been the case with Social Security is not the case, because the Congress began wrongfully raiding the trust fund and that the initial promises were "false promises."

and also that some folks will collect less than they paid in, because they get hit by buses and whatnot before they turn 65.

And that's stealing from them and their heirs. If I put $300 per month into a retirement account for 40 years and then get hit by a bus before I can draw on it, that's MY FUCKING MONEY and it goes to my designated heirs, not the federal government, and certainly not some OTHER retiree.

That depends what the plan says. There is absolutely nothing wrong with setting up a plan where 100 people pay in $X a month with the expectation that they will collect money after they reach a certain age, but that if they die early they won't collect anything. If a plan is set up that way to begin with, then that is the way it is set up. There is nothing that "requires" plans to be set up the way you want them set up.

Certainly, it would be perfectly fine to set up the plan where if people die, their heirs collect the social security when that person would have turned 65. But, that's not how it is set up, and that's not what the law says. The voters and the legislature made a political decision. You'll have to change the law to change it. But, don't try to claim that your preferred scheme is the "required" scheme. It isn't.

It's kind of like how some folks pay in to the unemployment compensation fund, but never collect, but others get to collect because they are unemployed. It's a lot like insurance.

Nope, it's nothing like insurance because it's COMPULSORY, and the money you pay doesn't benefit YOU at all, it benefits someone else, because that's how the government does redistribution. Even "unemployment compensation" is not "insurance," it's yet ANOTHER government scam to redistribute money from the productive class to the dependent class, and that's simply wrong, no matter how you try to smear it with glitter and perfume. It stinks like shit and looks like shit all the same.

So is paying into unemployment compensation. That is compulsory to.

Money paid into the system doesn't have to benefit the person paying in. Like insurance policies in general. The money you pay in doesn't benefit you at all, it is paid out to others who file claims. And, you may pay one premium and yet still collect $1,000,000, receiving far more than you pay in.

Yes, it's compulsory - like almost everything else a government does. A draft in the military is compulsory, and that's legal. Taxes are compulsory. You pay into a school system that you may never use, and you may never even have kids that might use it. Lots of compulsory payments going on, and lots of "other people" benefitting from your payments.

If you want money coming in in the event you get fired, then buy your own private unemployment policy and pay the premiums yourself. Same for retirement.

That is one way to do it. But, the States have the constitutional authority to set up unemployment compensation regimes, and a political decision has been made to do so. If your claim is that these programs are unlawful or unconstitutional, well you're wrong. If you're claim is that you don't prefer them because you don't think they're fair. Well, I disagree.

And if you decide to buy beer and a flat-screen TV instead of paying into your retirement account, then you can beg for charity and live in a cardboard box when you get fired or old. If you are contrite and obsequious enough, maybe some charity will take pity on you and give you some stuff or money or a place to live.

Again, that is one way to do it. Another way is to set up a system that all employees have to pay into.

But you don't get to use the jackbooted thugs of the government with their machine guns to come and rob ME to support you in your indolence and indigence. You can ask, and I might help, but if you come at me with a gun and demand my money, I'll just shoot you dead, no matter how old or desperate you are, and I'll do the same to government agents engaging in armed thuggery as well.

Yes, actually, the government has the authority to create unemployment compensation systems and social security, and they aren't jackbooted thugs.

And, anyone who takes a tax deduction, like on a home mortgage interest, is effectively getting a subsidy. So, the only persons who'd be voting in your twisted world would be those that own property free and clear.

Wrong. A tax deduction is simply taxes not paid, not a government subsidy. Your argument fails on the premise that all income generated by an individual belongs to the government, and that as a result that income which is not taxed is an income loss to the government and a "subsidy" to the individual. That's a hoary old Democrat/Progressive canard that has no basis in reality or economics.

No, my premise was not that.

That's the premise of every tax liability reduction from Democrats and Progressives.[/quote]

Not my premise. My premise was that the home mortgage deduction is no different in character than a credit, or a refund.

A tax deduction says that person X, who makes $50,000, pays more in taxes than person Y, who makes $50,000, but pays a mortgage with interest. To be fair, they both should pay the same. Giving Y a deduction for the mortgage interest is no different than having him pay the full tax, and then writing him a check for the mortgage interest deduction amount.

Wrong. A tax deduction reduces the tax liability for those who have mortgages because the government wishes to encourage and facilitate people buying homes.

LOL, yes of course. That doesn't rebut anything I wrote. The government's purpose is irrelevant to this issue. They're still doing the same thing.

Now, that's something that government should not be doing in the first place, but it's not the same as giving them a government "subsidy." This is because it's up to Congress to set tax rates and define taxable income and may define or exclude whatever income it deems appropriate from income taxation.

It's not defining income, or setting up exclusions from income here. It's saying "whatever interest you pay on your house, you just won't be taxed on."

Congress has decided that a person's taxable income should be reduced by the amount they pay in home mortgage payments, therefore there is no gift or subsidy from the government, it's merely determining that for the amount of otherwise taxable income that equals the mortgage payment, the tax rate is zero.

The end result is the same - as between two taxpayers, the one with a mortgage gets to pay less than the one without a mortgage. There is no difference between that and making them both pay the same initially, but having the government write a check back to the homeowner.

Big difference.

Conceptual, rhetorical difference only. Effectively, in actual fact, it's all the same shit upside down.

Again, your argument is based on the notion that all income is taxable regardless of its source, as a default condition, but that's not what the law says. The law (the Sixteenth Amendment) says, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived..." It does NOT say, "All income, from whatever source derived, is subject to taxation."

Well, my argument is not based on that notion at all. I've explained it twice. That notion is irrelevant to my argument.

Moreover, there really is no difference between Congress having the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived and all income being subject to taxation. In both phrasings, all income is subject to Congress' power to lay and collect taxes on all incomes. Can you explain the supposed difference? What's the difference?

Only that income that Congress decides shall be subject to income tax levy is subject to taxation, and if Congress sees fit to exclude an amount equal to a home mortgage payment, then that amount of income is NOT SUBJECT TO TAXATION, and it is not a "subsidy" or benefit received from the government, it is simply an exclusion of income from the tax calculation.

As between two taxpayers, though, the homeowner gets a gift, because the other taxpayer has to pay more in tax just because he doesn't own a house. No matter how you slice it, that's the result.

[Seth]

Not really. You pay in and it goes directly to someone else, so it's a redistributionist tax levied on the PROMISE that when you retire, someone else will be taxed to support you. Problem is it's inherently unfair, particularly these days, because retirees are living longer and longer and they don't just get what they paid in, they get benefits for LIFE, which means they can get much MORE than they paid in, at someone else's expense. It's a government subsidy paid for by taxing current workers, no matter what you care to call it, and it's a Ponzi scheme that cannot be sustained in a world where the retirement class is larger than the working class.

That may or may not accurately describe what the government is ACTUALLY doing with the money, but it isn't what the deal is legally supposed to be.

Wrong. That's exactly how it works, and was intended to work, from the very beginning. What happened is that the government has been flatly lying to the people ever since FDR started the whole shebang and has been trying to convince them that it's a "retirement fund" when it's not.

And, it's o.k. if retirees get more than they paid in.

Not if the government is taking out of MY pocket it's not.

The idea is that interest was to be made on the money,

Which lie lasted about 10 minutes after the legislation was signed, at which point Congress immediately began raiding the Trust Fund and issuing non-interest-bearing IOUs, so no, it's not okay. False promises, lies and obfuscation don't make it acceptable. I judge the system on how it ACUALLY works, not on how bureaucrats and politicians have tried to tell us it is supposed to work.

So, you do agree with my statement, "That may or may not accurately describe what the government is ACTUALLY doing with the money, but it isn't what the deal is legally supposed to be." You just don't care how it was supposed to work. Fair enough. But, then your statement above that I was "wrong" is, well, wrong. You're wrong, and you just admitted it because you just admitted that what the law says should have been the case with Social Security is not the case, because the Congress began wrongfully raiding the trust fund and that the initial promises were "false promises."

No, I don't agree because the fund was "legally" set up to allow precisely what Congress is doing with it. Therefore it was NEVER INTENDED to be an income-generating trust fund, it was ALWAYS intended to be a slush fund for Congress and it was always a blatant lie with a nefarious Progressive agenda behind it that had less to do with protecting people's retirements than advancing the unconstitutional Progressive agenda of central power and control.

and also that some folks will collect less than they paid in, because they get hit by buses and whatnot before they turn 65.

And that's stealing from them and their heirs. If I put $300 per month into a retirement account for 40 years and then get hit by a bus before I can draw on it, that's MY FUCKING MONEY and it goes to my designated heirs, not the federal government, and certainly not some OTHER retiree.

That depends what the plan says. There is absolutely nothing wrong with setting up a plan where 100 people pay in $X a month with the expectation that they will collect money after they reach a certain age, but that if they die early they won't collect anything. If a plan is set up that way to begin with, then that is the way it is set up. There is nothing that "requires" plans to be set up the way you want them set up.

If the plan were voluntary, and one could choose to participate or not, I would agree. But that's not how it is, which makes it nothing less than theft.

Certainly, it would be perfectly fine to set up the plan where if people die, their heirs collect the social security when that person would have turned 65. But, that's not how it is set up, and that's not what the law says. The voters and the legislature made a political decision. You'll have to change the law to change it. But, don't try to claim that your preferred scheme is the "required" scheme. It isn't.

Appeal to authority fallacy. Just because it's "legalized" theft doesn't mean it isn't theft.

It's kind of like how some folks pay in to the unemployment compensation fund, but never collect, but others get to collect because they are unemployed. It's a lot like insurance.

Nope, it's nothing like insurance because it's COMPULSORY, and the money you pay doesn't benefit YOU at all, it benefits someone else, because that's how the government does redistribution. Even "unemployment compensation" is not "insurance," it's yet ANOTHER government scam to redistribute money from the productive class to the dependent class, and that's simply wrong, no matter how you try to smear it with glitter and perfume. It stinks like shit and looks like shit all the same.

So is paying into unemployment compensation. That is compulsory to.

And it too is a scam. It's Progressive redistributionism, nothing more.

Money paid into the system doesn't have to benefit the person paying in.

It does if its to be anything but socialist redistributionist theft.

Like insurance policies in general. The money you pay in doesn't benefit you at all, it is paid out to others who file claims. And, you may pay one premium and yet still collect $1,000,000, receiving far more than you pay in.

But because it's voluntary, you get to make a contract agreeing with those terms. Neither SS nor Unemployment is voluntary, so both are nothing more than government theft for redistribution.

Yes, it's compulsory - like almost everything else a government does.

That's what makes it theft.

A draft in the military is compulsory, and that's legal.

Non sequitur.

Taxes are compulsory.

And all just taxes provide some benefit to the individual paying the tax. Redistributionist taxes do not provide any benefit to me. I get nothing from paying for someone else to be unemployed. But I get to drive on the highway for the fuel tax I pay.

You pay into a school system that you may never use, and you may never even have kids that might use it.

And that's theft too.

Lots of compulsory payments going on, and lots of "other people" benefitting from your payments.

And all of it is theft.

If you want money coming in in the event you get fired, then buy your own private unemployment policy and pay the premiums yourself. Same for retirement.

That is one way to do it. But, the States have the constitutional authority to set up unemployment compensation regimes, and a political decision has been made to do so. If your claim is that these programs are unlawful or unconstitutional, well you're wrong. If you're claim is that you don't prefer them because you don't think they're fair. Well, I disagree.

Saying that the states or the federal government have the "authority" to steal from one person in order to give the money to another person and so it's okay for them to do so is classic begging the question, which is whether it is moral or ethical for government to do so. Yes, we all know that governments CAN do many things because they have the raw power to do them, but the question at the bar is whether they have any moral or ethical foundation for doing some particular thing, and you are just being evasive by resorting to an appeal to common practice.

And if you decide to buy beer and a flat-screen TV instead of paying into your retirement account, then you can beg for charity and live in a cardboard box when you get fired or old. If you are contrite and obsequious enough, maybe some charity will take pity on you and give you some stuff or money or a place to live.

Again, that is one way to do it. Another way is to set up a system that all employees have to pay into.

Yes, theft by force is always "another way." But it's immoral and unethical.

But you don't get to use the jackbooted thugs of the government with their machine guns to come and rob ME to support you in your indolence and indigence. You can ask, and I might help, but if you come at me with a gun and demand my money, I'll just shoot you dead, no matter how old or desperate you are, and I'll do the same to government agents engaging in armed thuggery as well.

Yes, actually, the government has the authority to create unemployment compensation systems and social security, and they aren't jackbooted thugs.

Trust me, refuse to pay into either system long and hard enough and they will send out the jackbooted thugs with machine guns to take your money from you.

And, anyone who takes a tax deduction, like on a home mortgage interest, is effectively getting a subsidy. So, the only persons who'd be voting in your twisted world would be those that own property free and clear.

Wrong. A tax deduction is simply taxes not paid, not a government subsidy. Your argument fails on the premise that all income generated by an individual belongs to the government, and that as a result that income which is not taxed is an income loss to the government and a "subsidy" to the individual. That's a hoary old Democrat/Progressive canard that has no basis in reality or economics.

No, my premise was not that.

That's the premise of every tax liability reduction from Democrats and Progressives.[/quote]

Not my premise. My premise was that the home mortgage deduction is no different in character than a credit, or a refund.

And its a false premise, as I point out.

A tax deduction says that person X, who makes $50,000, pays more in taxes than person Y, who makes $50,000, but pays a mortgage with interest. To be fair, they both should pay the same. Giving Y a deduction for the mortgage interest is no different than having him pay the full tax, and then writing him a check for the mortgage interest deduction amount.

Wrong. A tax deduction reduces the tax liability for those who have mortgages because the government wishes to encourage and facilitate people buying homes.

LOL, yes of course. That doesn't rebut anything I wrote. The government's purpose is irrelevant to this issue. They're still doing the same thing.

No, they aren't. Money not collected by the government is not government money granted to an individual.

Now, that's something that government should not be doing in the first place, but it's not the same as giving them a government "subsidy." This is because it's up to Congress to set tax rates and define taxable income and may define or exclude whatever income it deems appropriate from income taxation.

It's not defining income, or setting up exclusions from income here. It's saying "whatever interest you pay on your house, you just won't be taxed on."

That's defining "taxable income." You can't be taxed on what you pay under an INCOME tax system, so it's not at all the same thing. As I said, income that is not collected by the government in taxes, for whatever reason, is not government money that it's giving to the taxpayer. It's the taxpayer's money and remains the taxpayers money at all times, the government merely provides a calculation that reduces the amount of tax due on that income.

Congress has decided that a person's taxable income should be reduced by the amount they pay in home mortgage payments, therefore there is no gift or subsidy from the government, it's merely determining that for the amount of otherwise taxable income that equals the mortgage payment, the tax rate is zero.

The end result is the same - as between two taxpayers, the one with a mortgage gets to pay less than the one without a mortgage. There is no difference between that and making them both pay the same initially, but having the government write a check back to the homeowner.

There is a substantial difference. The money never belonged to the government to begin with, so it's not the same as the government writing a check. The result is merely that one person's full income is not subject to tax, and one's is.

Big difference.

Conceptual, rhetorical difference only. Effectively, in actual fact, it's all the same shit upside down.

Nope, not even a little. Again, your model presumes that all income is subject to taxation and that not taxing it is a "loss" to the government, but that's not the case.

Again, your argument is based on the notion that all income is taxable regardless of its source, as a default condition, but that's not what the law says. The law (the Sixteenth Amendment) says, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived..." It does NOT say, "All income, from whatever source derived, is subject to taxation."

Well, my argument is not based on that notion at all. I've explained it twice. That notion is irrelevant to my argument.

Moreover, there really is no difference between Congress having the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived and all income being subject to taxation. In both phrasings, all income is subject to Congress' power to lay and collect taxes on all incomes. Can you explain the supposed difference? What's the difference?

The difference is that you claim that Congress' decision not to tax that portion of a homeowner's income that represents an amount equal to their mortgage interest payment is the same thing as the government giving that person a subsidy, which is clearly not the case. The government cannot give a subsidy by not collecting a tax. In order to give a subsidy, the government has to confer a monetary benefit to an individual payable against the government's account. To say that not taxing some income is a subsidy is to say that if the government decides not to collect ANY tax, it's providing a subsidy to everyone, which is utter nonsense.

Government cannot provide a subsidy using something that doesn't belong to the government in the first place, like taxes not owed on income not taxed.

Only that income that Congress decides shall be subject to income tax levy is subject to taxation, and if Congress sees fit to exclude an amount equal to a home mortgage payment, then that amount of income is NOT SUBJECT TO TAXATION, and it is not a "subsidy" or benefit received from the government, it is simply an exclusion of income from the tax calculation.

As between two taxpayers, though, the homeowner gets a gift, because the other taxpayer has to pay more in tax just because he doesn't own a house. No matter how you slice it, that's the result.

No, the other homeowner pay the same rate of tax on his income as the other person, it's just that his taxable income is reduced somewhat. Congress has decided not to levy tax on that portion of his income represented by his home mortgage interest payment. Is that a benefit to him? Sure it is, but it's not a subsidy, it's a tax break anyone can take advantage of by buying a house...and paying the PRINCIPAL on the loan, which is far more than the interest deduction on his income taxes. So in reality the non-homeowner has more disposable cash left after taxes because he doesn't have to make a house mortgage payment.

[apophenia]

Horrors! The tl;dr titans are at it again!

I think you may have a point, Coito. Everybody who doesn't belong here should just go back to where they came. That means all you Europeans, Africans — and yes, Asians too — should hop in a boat and go home! Ausgehen sie, Juden! Only Native Americans... oh wait! There was a time when the Native Americans weren't here, and they arrived from Siberia. Everybody, everywhere, leave now! Das ist verboten! Coito speaketh, so let it be written, so let it be done.

I confess to some sympathies with Seth, but he reflects one aspect of conservatism I don't sympathize with. It is a conservatism which is basically fairness run amok, as if nothing else mattered. Dying in a hospital waiting room? Doesn't matter, so long as it's fair. And the statistics show that basically half the population doesn't pay taxes, and likely a large share of those that do receive more than the real equivalent of their taxes in services such as schools, police, roads, health organizations — anything the government does, is a benefit — and on that standard, very few aren't on the dole. One definition of politics is the business of redistributing resources. And under that definition, it's clear, we're basically all on the dole — even the Koch brothers.

[Coito ergo sum]

Horrors! The tl;dr titans are at it again!

I think you may have a point, Coito. Everybody who doesn't belong here should just go back to where they came. That means all you Europeans, Africans — and yes, Asians too — should hop in a boat and go home! Ausgehen sie, Juden! Only Native Americans... oh wait! There was a time when the Native Americans weren't here, and they arrived from Siberia. Everybody, everywhere, leave now! Das ist verboten! Coito speaketh, so let it be written, so let it be done.

I think you should be ashamed of yourself for posting such nonsense about how I want to kick all the Jews and others who "don't belong" out of the country. You owe me a sincere apology for the shitheel allegations you just made.

Even if that's meant metaphorically it's fucking nasty-ass slur, and bears no resemblance to any view I have ever expressed or implied on this website or any other. So, you fucking just made shit up and attributed it to me because you falsely think I'm some sort of arch-right-wing conservative - apparently, with your "out with the Jews" reference, I'm as bad as the fucking Nazis.

Now as for who should go back to where they came from, I was very clear that not even all illegal aliens should be sent back. I gave the example of small children brought here, who did nothing wrong themselves, but whose parents brought them hear at a young age, and they as a result have no connection with their country of birth. Others here advocated shipping them out, but not me. I suggested that certain illegal aliens should be permitted to stay. Now, yes, I do think that if someone comes to this country illegally, or comes as a visitor and decides to just stay and live here, that since they're breaking the law, they ought not be allowed to stay if they are caught. That is no different than England, France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland do, by way of examples. Our borders are, if anything, MORE open than most countries in the world, and I like that about the US.

Some of the supposedly more liberal group of forum contributers were the ones suggesting a test put together by poli-sci professors or some other "unbiased" group to test the intelligence or education of voters before they are allowed to vote. Me, the big mean "conservative" as you have decided to falsely label me, DISAGREED, and I OPPOSE any such measure. I guess that is why you accused me, basically, of being a Nazi, maybe?

I am, also, VERY pro immigrant. I am the child of immigrants - two of them - mom and dad - both immigrants. My significant other is herself an immigrant. My entire family are either in a country other than the US, or are immigrants here or first generation or second generation, and all of She Who Must Be Obeyed's family are similarly either immigrants to the US, or living overseas (on a different continent than my family).

I have about 2 dozen friends who are immigrants to the United States (and many more acquaintances on top of that). I have been MANY TIMES, not just once or twice, but close to 10 times, to citizenship ceremonies for family members and friends. I have witnessed the joy and catharsis that occurs when a room full of people who have wanted nothing more for the better part of a decade or more to become American citizens finally achieve that goal. They worked for it. They studied for it, and many burst into tears of joy when they achieve it. I watched my parents proudly become citizens of their adopted country, and tears rolled down my face as I watched their expressions of pride and happiness.

I think you'd find that among legal immigrants, the vast majority are against ILLEGAL immigration for the very reason that legal immigrants worked hard to get here, played by the rules, and took it very seriously. They felt it was an important and worthwhile thing, and they see folks they know skirting the system. They don't like it, by and large, and anyone I know (which is a lot of people) who became US citizens and EARNED the fucking right to vote would either laugh or spit in your fucking face if you suggested that someone here illegally should also have the right to vote. At a minimum, they'd say "are you kidding me??" and look at you quizzically, as if some sort of screw is loose in your head.

Now, I know from whence I speak, I think. And, I don't feel you have any justification for your bullshit statement. "Everybody who doesn't belong here should just go back to where they came?" I never fucking said that, or anything of the kind. And, s what really set me off you little [expletive deleted] is this gigantic turd: "Ausgehen sie, Juden!" Really? You're going to call me a fucking Nazi? A fucking Nazi? You fucking fuck, I won't have it. Not a bit.

The only thing I suggested is that people who were here ILLEGALLY should not be allowed to vote, and that is a view that prevails among the "liberal" folks here too. Yet, you fucking attack me? And, not content with misrepresenting my view on immigrants in general, you fucking spout off with this oblique accusation that I'm some kind of a fucking Nazi?

You owe me an apology.

[note - tests to vote were employed in the past to keep people from the polls -- here we have folks other than me suggesting that would be a good thing to bring back - multiple choice tests (although I think the suggestions here are for some sort of a fair test, which I suggested would be impossible to create)]

Yeah - and check back among the posts. Who was it that was proposing such tests at the polls? Me? Not by a fucking long shot. I was opposing such tests.

[apophenia]

I owe you no such thing. But obviously you've got your little drama doll wound up so tight that it's about to break. Typical. Anyway, since you obviously are incapable of calmly reasoning at this point, I suggest you just fuck the hell off.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't think Segourny Weaver's going to like this.

[Coito ergo sum]

I owe you no such thing. But obviously you've got your little drama doll wound up so tight that it's about to break. Typical. Anyway, since you obviously are incapable of calmly reasoning at this point, I suggest you just fuck the hell off.

You're just full of shit.

Back up your claim. Back it up.

Where did I say anything like "everyone who doesn't belong can go back where they came from?" Show me where you go that?

Why didn't you go off on your Nazi/Juden bullshit with the folks who want to give people political education tests before they can vote?

Why, exactly, do you think someone who can hardly be more pro-immigrant - me - who is glad that the US admits 1,000,000 new citizens every year, and 1,000,000 new permanent residents a year, and something like 60,000,000 temporary workers and visitors every year, perfectly legally - why do you suggest that I want to kick all the Jews and everyone else who "doesn't belong" out?

You suggest "I" fuck the hell off? Go fuck yourself, your mother, the rest of your family, and the horse you rode in on.

[JimC]

In Australia, legal immigration since the war has been greatly to our benefit, both economically, and in terms of cultural diversity. The race or ethnicity of such immigrants is unimportant; diversity is fine...

However, it is in the national interest that total levels of immigration be controlled and monitored, and I am by no means in favour of the Green's "let's welcome all illegal immigrants and boat people, the door is open"