0
pong pong
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why wealthy people oppose income taxes?
People who pay more tax that most will naturally oppose higher taxes. It's not that they oppose paying taxes as a means to operate the government but they see waste in government and don't wish to contribute to this. Less wealthy people oppose sales taxes often times because they see this as a tax that they have to pay. We are almost at a point in the United States where half of the people do not pay any income taxes. This means that instead of everyone paying their fair share of the costs of government, half of the people pay nothing towards their fair share. Certain politicians have used this as a platform to stay in office by pandering to those who pay no taxes by promising more programs and such to benefit the ones who pay nothing. In the United States we have a progressive tax system which means that the higher your income, the higher percentage of your income that the government takes to support programs that don't benefit you. Is this fair. This is the debate.
Who checks the power of the IRS?
In theory the Courts and specifically the Supreme Court are the final check on the power of the IRS. In practice this is problematic. The IRS is so powerful and employs experts making the average American almost powerless in comparison. To oppose the power of the IRS and get a decision either modified or overturned is enormously costly requiring top Tax Lawyers and years in Court. To counter this the Other check on the power of the IRS has come into play. The Congress and Senate have passed bills requiring the IRS to modify how they deal with the American People. Lately the IRS has been in the news for "UNFAIRLY" targeting the Tea Party and like minded groups. All in all this is how the system is supposed to work with a couple differences. The IRS's abuses should have been noted and tackled earlier. The US people should not be frightened of any government agency.
What would happen if there were no taxes?
Actually taxation without representation or the tea party was not based upon being taxed, but being taxed unfairly.That is how I tell the story of the Boston Tea Party, now that I have read a first-person account of it. While striving to understand my nation's struggles against corporations, in a rare book store I came upon a first edition of "Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party with a Memoir of George R.T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbor in 1773," and I jumped at the chance to buy it. Because the identities of the Boston Tea Party participants were hidden (other than Samuel Adams) and all were sworn to secrecy for the next 50 years, this account is the only first-person account of the event by a participant that exists. As I read, I began to understand the true causes of the American Revolution.I learned that the Boston Tea Party resembled in many ways the growing modern-day protests against transnational corporations and small-town efforts to protect themselves from chain-store retailers or factory farms. The Tea Party's participants thought of themselves as protesters against the actions of the multinational East India Company.Although schoolchildren are usually taught that the American Revolution was a rebellion against "taxation without representation," akin to modern day conservative taxpayer revolts, in fact what led to the revolution was rage against a transnational corporation that, by the 1760s, dominated trade from China to India to the Caribbean, and controlled nearly all commerce to and from North America, with subsidies and special dispensation from the British crown.Hewes notes: "The [East India] Company received permission to transport tea, free of all duty, from Great Britain to America…" allowing it to wipe out New England-based tea wholesalers and mom-and-pop stores and take over the tea business in all of America. "Hence," wrote, "it was no longer the small vessels of private merchants, who went to vend tea for their own account in the ports of the colonies, but, on the contrary, ships of an enormous burthen, that transported immense quantities of this commodity ... The colonies were now arrived at the decisive moment when they must cast the dye, and determine their course ... "A pamphlet was circulated through the colonies called The Alarm and signed by an enigmatic "Rusticus." One issue made clear the feelings of colonial Americans about England's largest transnational corporation and its behavior around the world: "Their Conduct in Asia, for some Years past, has given simple Proof, how little they regard the Laws of Nations, the Rights, Liberties, or Lives of Men. They have levied War, excited Rebellions, dethroned lawful Princes, and sacrificed Millions for the Sake of Gain. The Revenues of Mighty Kingdoms have entered their Coffers. And these not being sufficient to glut their Avarice, they have, by the most unparalleled Barbarities, Extortions, and Monopolies, stripped the miserable Inhabitants of their Property, and reduced whole Provinces to Indigence and Ruin. Fifteen hundred Thousands, it is said, perished by Famine in one Year, not because the Earth denied its Fruits; but [because] this Company and their Servants engulfed all the Necessaries of Life, and set them at so high a Price that the poor could not purchase them."After protesters had turned back the Company's ships in Philadelphia and New York, Hewes writes, "In Boston the general voice declared the time was come to face the storm."The citizens of the colonies were preparing to throw off one of the corporations that for almost 200 years had determined nearly every aspect of their lives through its economic and political power. They were planning to destroy the goods of the world's largest multinational corporation, intimidate its employees, and face down the guns of the government that supported it.The queen's corporationThe East India Company's influence had always been pervasive in the colonies. Indeed, it was not the Puritans but the East India Company that founded America. The Puritans traveled to America on ships owned by the East India Company, which had already established the first colony in North America, at Jamestown, in the Company-owned Commonwealth of Virginia, stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi. The commonwealth was named after the "Virgin Queen," Elizabeth, who had chartered the corporation.Elizabeth was trying to make England a player in the new global trade sparked by the European "discovery" of the Americas. The wealth Spain began extracting from the New World caught the attention of the European powers. In many European countries, particularly Holland and France, consortiums were put together to finance ships to sail the seas. In 1580, Queen Elizabeth became the largest shareholder in The Golden Hind, a ship owned by Sir Francis Drake.The investment worked out well for Queen Elizabeth. There's no record of exactly how much she made when Drake paid her share of the Hind's dividends to her, but it was undoubtedly vast, since Drake himself and the other minor shareholders all received a 5000 percent return on their investment. Plus, because the queen placed a maximum loss to the initial investors of their investment amount only, it was a low-risk investment (for the investors at least-creditors, such as suppliers of provisions for the voyages or wood for the ships, or employees, for example, would be left unpaid if the venture failed, just as in a modern-day corporation). She was endorsing an investment model that led to the modern limited-liability corporation.After making a fortune on Drake's expeditions, Elizabeth started looking for a more permanent arrangement. She authorized a group of 218 London merchants and noblemen to form a corporation. The East India Company was born on December 31, 1600.By the 1760s, the East India Company's power had grown massive and worldwide. However, this rapid expansion, trying to keep ahead of the Dutch trading companies, was a mixed blessing, as the company went deep in debt to support its growth, and by 1770 found itself nearly bankrupt.The company turned to a strategy that multinational corporations follow to this day: They lobbied for laws that would make it easy for them to put their small-business competitors out of business.Most of the members of the British government and royalty (including the king) were stockholders in the East India Company, so it was easy to get laws passed in its interests. Among the Company's biggest and most vexing problems were American colonial entrepreneurs, who ran their own small ships to bring tea and other goods directly into America without routing them through Britain or through the Company. Between 1681 and 1773, a series of laws were passed granting the Company monopoly on tea sold in the American colonies and exempting it from tea taxes. Thus, the Company was able to lower its tea prices to undercut the prices of the local importers and the small tea houses in every town in America. But the colonists were unappreciative of their colonies being used as a profit center for the multinational corporation.Boston's million-dollar tea partyAnd so, Hewes says, on a cold November evening of 1773, the first of the East India Company's ships of tax-free tea arrived. The next morning, a pamphlet was widely circulated calling on patriots to meet at Faneuil Hall to discuss resistance to the East India Company and its tea. "Things thus appeared to be hastening to a disastrous issue. The people of the country arrived in great numbers, the inhabitants of the town assembled. This assembly, on the 16th of December 1773, was the most numerous ever known, there being more than 2000 from the country present," said Hewes.The group called for a vote on whether to oppose the landing of the tea. The vote was unanimously affirmative, and it is related by one historian of that scene "that a person disguised after the manner of the Indians, who was in the gallery, shouted at this juncture, the cry of war; and that the meeting dissolved in the twinkling of an eye, and the multitude rushed in a mass to Griffin's wharf."That night, Hewes dressed as an Indian, blackening his face with coal dust, and joined crowds of other men in hacking apart the chests of tea and throwing them into the harbor. In all, the 342 chests of tea-over 90,000 pounds-thrown overboard that night were enough to make 24 million cups of tea and were valued by the East India Company at 9,659 Pounds Sterling or, in today's currency, just over $1 million.In response, the British Parliament immediately passed the Boston Port Act stating that the port of Boston would be closed until the citizens of Boston reimbursed the East India Company for the tea they had destroyed. The colonists refused. A year and a half later, the colonists would again state their defiance of the East India Company and Great Britain by taking on British troops in an armed conflict at Lexington and Concord (the "shots heard 'round the world") on April 19, 1775.That war-finally triggered by a transnational corporation and its government patrons trying to deny American colonists a fair and competitive local marketplace-would end with independence for the colonies.The revolutionaries had put the East India Company in its place with the Boston Tea Party, and that, they thought, was the end of that. Unfortunately, the Boston Tea Party was not the end; within 150 years, during the so-called Gilded Age, powerful rail, steel, and oil interests would rise up to begin a new form of oligarchy, capturing the newly-formed Republican Party in the 1880s, and have been working to establish a permanent wealthy and ruling class in this country ever since.Permission to reprint by Thom Hartmann
In Civil Court can you move to oppose a Summary judgment and Move for dismissal at the same time?
Without getting into the specifics of the bases for a summary judgment motion and a motion for dismissal (and there are many and may differ among states), they can be made simultaneously because they are not directed to the same aspect of the case. The summary judgment motion is directed to the factual aspect of the case while a motion for dismissal is directed to the procedural aspect of the case. The summary judgment motion alleges that there are no genuine issues as to the material facts of the case and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The motion for dismissal usually alleges that the other party has failed to abide by some procedural rule, the penalty for which is dismissal of the case. Two different theories. Opposition to a summary judgment motion indirectly requires some admission that there are facts that could go one way or another at trial. A motion for dismissal will allege that the other party has not done something required by the rules like providing discovery on time, or lack of prosecution of the case. Admitting that a jury could believe either side at a trial does not give up procedural reasons to dismiss the case.
Does friction oppose motion or relative motion of surfaces in contact?
Relative motion
Does friction oppose motion or relative motion of surface in contact?
Relative motion
Why Famer are more important than doctor oppose the motion?
Famer are more important than doctor oppose the motion?
On Earth when a body is in motion there is always to oppose the motion.?
Friction.
On earth when a body is in motion there is always to oppose the motion?
Friction.
What are forces that oppose motion?
Friction
What is a force that can oppose motion?
Friction or Resistance
What is the force that acts to oppose motion?
Friction!
What is the definition of restistance?
A force that tends to oppose motion
Kinetic friction is best described as the frictional force that acts to?
Oppose motion.
Frictional forces always act to and motion?
Oppose & Prevent
