patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,353,735 comments by 15,730 users - HANrongli, KgK one, Patrick online now
« First « Previous Comments 51 - 55 of 55 Search these comments
51
Patrick
2025 Dec 18, 9:23pm
Patrick
2025 Dec 18, 9:23pm
FreeAmericanDOP says
I agree, labor should not be taxed. I don't think consumption should be taxed either, because that's just another way of taxing labor. Land is the best object of taxation by far, because:
- Land can't be hidden.
- Taxing it does not discourage "land production" because there isn't any.
- Taxing land discourages people from simply holding land, hoping to profit from nearby development.
Taxing high-frequency trading seems like a great idea. Trading does provide the public service of price discovery, but trading the same shares more than once a day doesn't really give more info to the public. So maybe a 1% tax on shares traded more than once the same day.
I also dislike the labor/productivity focused taxation. Tax money making money and consumption.
The Tobin Tax, 25c for trades under $10k within 7 days or 1% of larger transactions, would be awesome.
I agree, labor should not be taxed. I don't think consumption should be taxed either, because that's just another way of taxing labor. Land is the best object of taxation by far, because:
- Land can't be hidden.
- Taxing it does not discourage "land production" because there isn't any.
- Taxing land discourages people from simply holding land, hoping to profit from nearby development.
Taxing high-frequency trading seems like a great idea. Trading does provide the public service of price discovery, but trading the same shares more than once a day doesn't really give more info to the public. So maybe a 1% tax on shares traded more than once the same day.
53
HeadSet
2025 Dec 19, 8:44pm
HeadSet
2025 Dec 19, 8:44pm
Patrick says
How about taxing phone calls after the first 5 per day? Paying a 5 cent tax per call would hardly burden the public, but would be a massive deterrent to companies that make thousands of junk calls per day. The tax would be paid by the phone company, who would then pass it on to the consumers. That way the phone company would find a way to bill or ban the off shore callers.
Taxing high-frequency trading seems like a great idea.
How about taxing phone calls after the first 5 per day? Paying a 5 cent tax per call would hardly burden the public, but would be a massive deterrent to companies that make thousands of junk calls per day. The tax would be paid by the phone company, who would then pass it on to the consumers. That way the phone company would find a way to bill or ban the off shore callers.
54
AmenCorner_AntiPanican
2025 Dec 19, 9:03pm
AmenCorner_AntiPanican
2025 Dec 19, 9:03pm
Patrick says
Correct, and the objections that 25c would be burdensome are laughable, given that most brokers charge a helluva lot more than 25c for most trades
Taxing high-frequency trading seems like a great idea. Trading does provide the public service of price discovery, but trading the same shares more than once a day doesn't really give more info to the public. So maybe a 1% tax on shares traded more than once the same day.
Correct, and the objections that 25c would be burdensome are laughable, given that most brokers charge a helluva lot more than 25c for most trades
55
AD
2025 Dec 19, 9:59pm
AD
2025 Dec 19, 9:59pm
HeadSet says
Yes, and go after the VOIP providers like Google Voice, Text Now, Talkatone, etc.
How about taxing phone calls after the first 5 per day? Paying a 5 cent tax per call would hardly burden the public, but would be a massive deterrent to companies that make thousands of junk calls per day. The tax would be paid by the phone company, who would then pass it on to the consumers. That way the phone company would find a way to bill or ban the off shore callers.
Yes, and go after the VOIP providers like Google Voice, Text Now, Talkatone, etc.
« First « Previous Comments 51 - 55 of 55 Search these comments
Syllabus
Argued December 5, 1951
Decided March 10, 1952*
342 U.S. 580
Syllabus
1. The Alien Registration Act of 1940, so far as it authorizes the deportation of a legally resident alien because of membership in the Communist Party, even though such membership terminated before enactment of the Act, was within the power of Congress under the Federal Constitution. Pp. 342 U. S. 581-596.
(a) The Act does not deprive the alien of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 342 U. S. 584-591.
(1) The power to deport aliens is inherent in every sovereign state. Pp. 342 U. S. 587-588.
(2) The policy toward aliens is so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of the Government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference, and it cannot be said that the power has been so unreasonably or harshly exercised by Congress in this Act as to warrant judicial interference. Pp. 342 U. S. 588-590.
(3) The fact that the Act inflicts severe hardship on the individuals affected does not render it violative of the Due Process Clause. Pp. 342 U. S. 590-591.
(b) The Act does not abridge the aliens' freedoms of speech and assembly in contravention of the First Amendment. Pp. 342 U. S. 591-592.
(c) The Act does not contravene the provision of Art. I, § 9 of the Constitution forbidding ex post facto laws. Pp. 342 U. S. 593-596.
2. Procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act are not mandatory as to proceedings which were instituted before the effective date of the Act. P. 583, n 4.
Page 342 U. S. 581
3. One who consented to the same individual acting both as presiding officer and examining officer in administrative proceedings is without standing, on judicial review, to raise the objection that he was thereby denied procedural due process. P. 583, n 4.https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/580/