Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (493770)	7/1/2012 11:43:32 PM
From: SiouxPal	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

You're a good man. I would like you and Lindy to sit with me in my magical tent. Y'all could say every thing that you feel. You will be happy while we do it. I would do every thing possible to relax your brains. We would be at peace shortly. You can't get over on me, or me you. Plus I have cookies.

To: goldworldnet who wrote (493770)	7/2/2012 12:22:50 AM
From: Little Joe	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793838

I do not agree that it was always a tax. I think the dissenters were correct. Here is the language: Our cases establish a clear line between a tax and a penalty:“‘[A] tax is an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government; a penalty . . . is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.’” In a few cases, this Court has held that a “tax” imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty. When an act “adopt[s] the criteria of wrongdoing” and then imposes a monetary penalty as the “principal consequence on those who transgress its standard,” it creates a regulatory penalty, not a tax. lj

To: goldworldnet who wrote (493770)	7/2/2012 12:22:53 AM
From: Little Joe	Respond to of 793838

I do not agree that it was always a tax. I think the dissenters were correct. Here is the language: Our cases establish a clear line between a tax and a penalty:“‘[A] tax is an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government; a penalty . . . is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.’” In a few cases, this Court has held that a “tax” imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty. When an act “adopt[s] the criteria of wrongdoing” and then imposes a monetary penalty as the “principal consequence on those who transgress its standard,” it creates a regulatory penalty, not a tax. lj