Connecticut is the most embarassing state next to California. They increased the income tax this past July and made it retroactive to the beginning of 2011. I got my taxes today and I still owe the thieving scum money. They tax everything. The state also takes a cut on everything. What a joke. A governor who stole the election and a state legislature run by the public “employee” unions.
>They increased the income tax this past July and made it retroactive to the beginning of 2011.
That brings up an interesting point; according to the 1798 Supreme Court Case Calder v. Bull [1], the prohibition on Ex Post Facto laws extends only to Criminal Law (that is, they ruled that civil laws only could be so retroactively enacted), but are violations of the tax law (which are being changed in Ex Post Facto manner) being pursued in civil courts, or criminal courts. (I firmly reject that there is any other class of legitimate judicial cases, even Military Law is a subset thereof the UCMJ being a code of law.) If violations are pursued in criminal court, then how do they justify the law’s ex post facto nature?
>It is only in criminal cases, indeed, in which the danger to be guarded against, is greatly to be apprehended. The history of every country in Europe will
>furnish flagrant instances of tyranny exercised under the pretext of penal dispensations. Rival factions, in their efforts to crush each other, have superseded
>all the forms, and suppressed all the sentiments, of justice; while attainders, on the principle of retaliation and proscription, have marked all the
>vicissitudes of party triumph. The temptation to such abuses of power is unfortunately too alluring for human virtue; and, therefore, the framers of the
>American Constitutions have wisely denied to the respective Legislatures, Federal as well as State, the possession of the power itself: They shall not pass any
>ex post facto law; or, in other words, they shall not inflict a punishment for any act, which was innocent at the time it was committed; nor increase the degree
>of punishment previously denounced for any specific offence.
[snip]
>Every ex post facto law must necessarily be retrospective; but every retrospective law is not an ex post facto law: The former, only, are prohibited. Every law
>that takes away, or impairs, rights vested, agreeably to existing laws, is retrospective, and is generally unjust; and may be oppressive; and it is a good
>general rule, that a law should have no retrospect: but there are cases in which laws may justly, and for the benefit of the community, and also of individuals,
>relate to a time antecedent to their commencement; as statutes of oblivion, or of pardon. They are certainly retrospective, and literally both concerning, and
>after, the facts committed. But I do not consider any law ex post facto, within the prohibition, that mollifies the rigor of the criminal law; but only those
>that create, or aggravate, the crime; or encrease the punishment, or change the rules of evidence, for the purpose of conviction.
[1] — http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=3&invol=386