The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: Freeper on April 20, 2011, 02:36:55 PM
-
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr-19-11 06:45 PM
Original message
Has anyone ever tried to sue the federal gov't for taxing capital gains less than income from work?
There's a legal principle called ''disparate impact'' when one group is arbitrarily treated less fairly than another, and it would seem to apply here. A day trader who makes all his income from capital gains pays a lower percentage in taxes than an elementary school teacher who makes a tenth as much. How is that fair?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x924558
Interesting point made by this DUmmy.
There's a legal principle called ''disparate impact'' when one group is arbitrarily treated less fairly than another.
So the rich could counter sue saying it is unfair that their tax burden is a much larger percentage of their income than it is for the average DUmpmonkey who gets enough in EITC every year to buy weed for months.
-
Hey DUmmies! There's also this doctrine called sovereign immunity.
Good luck with this.
-
There's a legal principle called ''disparate impact'' when one group is arbitrarily treated less fairly than another, and it would seem to apply here.
If that is true, white men will bankrupt the government.
-
I believe we learned about Sovereign Immunity some time in the eight grade.
I'd like to talk to Eric Holder about disparate impact.
-
Has anyone ever tried to sue the Federal government? Only about a hundred times every frickin' day.
However, when any of them say "Disparate impact," they're saying it's based on the idea that the federal action creates the effect of prohibited discrimination under laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, ADEA, ADA, etc. Treating different types of income differently for policy reasons, or allowing certain types of credits and exemptions for different assets or incomve thresholds, that doesn't even come close to meeting the standard because it may be 'Discrimination' in a dictionary sense, but it's not 'Unlawful' or 'Prohibited' discrimination in a legal sense.