Posted on 03/17/2013 7:03:01 PM PDT by dynachrome
Would You Agree to a Tax on Your Savings for a State Bailout?
Yes
No
Don't Know/Can't Say
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
I don’t want to replace the taxes, I want them abolished. I don’t even think I would consider anything that is called “revenue neutral”
Thanks....got it!
Would You Agree to a Tax on Your Savings for a State Bailout?
Yes
5%
No
93%
Don’t Know/Can’t Say
3%
Total Votes: 2768
The FDIC assesses banks from 0.025% to 0.45% of their deposits annually, so we are already being taxed to fund state bailouts of banks.
And that doesn't even count Ben "Inky" Bernanke's profligate money printing and how it constantly erodes the value of the dollar.
To obama, et al. that sounds like a mandate to do it...
Silence=consent.
I voted ‘no’ since my preferred choice of “No %^%@*#^)#$%^*!@! Way EVER” was unavailable.
No. They already take my taxes on purpose and don’t exactly use the $$ well. Why should they have access to MY $$ 24/7?
93% no
4% yes
3% don’t know/can’t say/ too stupid to exist
3511 votes
Drunken sailors spend their own money!
Regards,
GtG
Only 4% say yes.
They need to add the following fourth option: “It’s time to lynch the bastards!”
Good on ya, it only took 10 posts to get to the issue that YES savings have been double and triple taxed if not by direct taxation then certainly by inflation, year after year after year, but then we hear “we need to pay our fair share”.
There are so may red herrings in the water I can’t see the forest for the pine beetle infestation.
More specifically, the Founding States had undoubtedly established the federal Senate in part to kill certain kinds of appropriations legislation originating in the House of Representatives, legislation which layed taxes which Congress couldn't justify under its constitutional Section 8, Article I-limited powers.
In fact, as I've posted more times than I'd like to think in related threads, Justice John Marshall had officially clarified that Congress is prohibited from laying taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially issues which Congress cannot not justify under Section 8, actually state power issues protected by the 10th Amendment.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So consider that any Section 8-indefensible federal appropriations bills which got by the Senate when state legislatures controlled the Senate essentially usurped not only 10th Amendment protected state powers, but also stole state revenues associated with those powers as Justice Marshall had indicated.
But as a consequence of citizens evidently forgetting, or perhaps never being taught, about the Founders' division of federal and state powers as a consequence of the Civil War, or maybe earlier, the OWG Progressive Movement ultimately succeeded in spooking citizens into twisting the arms of their state lawmakers to ratify 17A in 1913.
And although federal senators take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution regardless who elects them to office, once federal senators figured out that voters cannot tell the Constitution from a football, corrupt senators began helping the corrupt HoR to pass appropriations bills which wrongly usurped state powers and stole associated state revenues, illegal federal taxes winding up who knows where.
So is it really a surprise that citizens are now dealing with the question as to whether or not state legislatures, who foolishly gave up control of the federal Senate in 1913, are now considering taxing savings accounts to help pay for state bailouts that are at least partly a dominoe-effect consequence of the ratification of 17A? (Are you listening bankrupt California?}
Lots of times I think that constitutionally ignorant citizens whose likewise ignorant ancestors supported the ratification of 17A can sleep in the beds that they have made for themselves.
They need a “Hell No!” choice.
FReeEEeePED
WTF??
Nothing this government “suggests” surprises me. It may be time to pull out of the banks and “go to the mattresses” — I have NEVER trusted banks as far as their safety deposit boxes go. Better to keep an eye on my valuables — guns too!!
Yes 5%
No 92%
Don’t Know/Can’t Say 3%
Total Votes: 4988
hell no should be an option.
Yes
5%5%
No
92%92%
Don’t Know/Can’t Say
3%3%
Total Votes: 5171
Their failure to plan, should not be my emergency.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.