Supreme Court punting statehood is not the story. Eleanor Holmes Norton punting tax free is!

[Anonymous]

The Supreme Court was never going to side with the Statehood initiative. A little thing called the Constitution stand in its way. But I am floored that DC was offered a bill which would have rescinded DC Federal income tax and Eleanor Holmes Norton would not even entertain in. We were offered the No Taxation part of our moto but turned it down...

Texas GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert said Democrats’ push for statehood for D.C. is based on an argument of “no taxation without representation.”

“They’re right: This should not be taxation without representation,” Gohmert said, noting other U.S. territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands do not pay federal income tax because they do not elect a full voting representative.

“When I realized that, I filed a bill that would eliminate federal income tax for people in the District of Columbia,” he added to host Carl Higbie. “But even Eleanor Holmes Norton will not sign on to my bill, and no Democrats will.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court was never going to side with the Statehood initiative. A little thing called the Constitution stand in its way. But I am floored that DC was offered a bill which would have rescinded DC Federal income tax and Eleanor Holmes Norton would not even entertain in. We were offered the No Taxation part of our moto but turned it down...

Texas GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert said Democrats’ push for statehood for D.C. is based on an argument of “no taxation without representation.”

“They’re right: This should not be taxation without representation,” Gohmert said, noting other U.S. territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands do not pay federal income tax because they do not elect a full voting representative.

“When I realized that, I filed a bill that would eliminate federal income tax for people in the District of Columbia,” he added to host Carl Higbie. “But even Eleanor Holmes Norton will not sign on to my bill, and no Democrats will.”

For the millionth time, the Constitution doesn't stand in the way of DC statehood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court was never going to side with the Statehood initiative. A little thing called the Constitution stand in its way. But I am floored that DC was offered a bill which would have rescinded DC Federal income tax and Eleanor Holmes Norton would not even entertain in. We were offered the No Taxation part of our moto but turned it down...

Texas GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert said Democrats’ push for statehood for D.C. is based on an argument of “no taxation without representation.”

“They’re right: This should not be taxation without representation,” Gohmert said, noting other U.S. territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands do not pay federal income tax because they do not elect a full voting representative.

“When I realized that, I filed a bill that would eliminate federal income tax for people in the District of Columbia,” he added to host Carl Higbie. “But even Eleanor Holmes Norton will not sign on to my bill, and no Democrats will.”

For the millionth time, the Constitution doesn't stand in the way of DC statehood.

Yes... I am sure that the Supreme Court o erlooked that when they took five minutes and four sentances to end this debate for the second time. Meanwhile we could be paying no taxes.

I am with OP on this one. Why did our congressional rep not work for us here and help get us relieved of our income tax. Yet another reason why EHN is an awful politico who is genuinely only concerned about her personal power and does not care about us DC residents.

[Anonymous]

Damn. I’d prefer no taxation than representation in our disaster of a government.

[Anonymous]

No taxation would instantly turn DC into an international tax shelter and housing prices would quadruple.

[Anonymous]

I am sure that the Supreme Court o erlooked that when they took five minutes and four sentances to end this debate for the second time.

Elaborate, please?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am sure that the Supreme Court o erlooked that when they took five minutes and four sentances to end this debate for the second time.

Elaborate, please?

The Supreme Court on Monday affirmed an earlier ruling that D.C. is not constitutionally entitled to voting representation in Congress, deflating hopes among some advocates that they could secure representation for District residents through the courts rather than through legislation.

The Supreme Court issued its decision in a few-sentence order without holding a hearing, citing a previous legal precedent in a 2000 case in which the high court also ruled that D.C. is not entitled to voting representation because it is not a state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No taxation would instantly turn DC into an international tax shelter and housing prices would quadruple.

I would love to sell my home in USA Monaco.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No taxation would instantly turn DC into an international tax shelter and housing prices would quadruple.

Interesting, Is Puerto Rico an international tax shelter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am sure that the Supreme Court o erlooked that when they took five minutes and four sentances to end this debate for the second time.

Elaborate, please?

The Supreme Court on Monday affirmed an earlier ruling that D.C. is not constitutionally entitled to voting representation in Congress, deflating hopes among some advocates that they could secure representation for District residents through the courts rather than through legislation.

The Supreme Court issued its decision in a few-sentence order without holding a hearing, citing a previous legal precedent in a 2000 case in which the high court also ruled that D.C. is not entitled to voting representation because it is not a state.

So it’s an important milestone on the way to statehood, then.
Statehood is the only way to be represented; it is unconstitutional to NOT be represented; therefore all people must live in a state; therefore, we must create states for the people currently not living in states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am sure that the Supreme Court o erlooked that when they took five minutes and four sentances to end this debate for the second time.

Elaborate, please?

The Supreme Court on Monday affirmed an earlier ruling that D.C. is not constitutionally entitled to voting representation in Congress, deflating hopes among some advocates that they could secure representation for District residents through the courts rather than through legislation.

The Supreme Court issued its decision in a few-sentence order without holding a hearing, citing a previous legal precedent in a 2000 case in which the high court also ruled that D.C. is not entitled to voting representation because it is not a state.

In other words: DC needs statehood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court was never going to side with the Statehood initiative. A little thing called the Constitution stand in its way. But I am floored that DC was offered a bill which would have rescinded DC Federal income tax and Eleanor Holmes Norton would not even entertain in. We were offered the No Taxation part of our moto but turned it down...

Texas GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert said Democrats’ push for statehood for D.C. is based on an argument of “no taxation without representation.”

“They’re right: This should not be taxation without representation,” Gohmert said, noting other U.S. territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands do not pay federal income tax because they do not elect a full voting representative.

“When I realized that, I filed a bill that would eliminate federal income tax for people in the District of Columbia,” he added to host Carl Higbie. “But even Eleanor Holmes Norton will not sign on to my bill, and no Democrats will.”

For the millionth time, the Constitution doesn't stand in the way of DC statehood.

Yes... I am sure that the Supreme Court o erlooked that when they took five minutes and four sentances to end this debate for the second time. Meanwhile we could be paying no taxes.

I am with OP on this one. Why did our congressional rep not work for us here and help get us relieved of our income tax. Yet another reason why EHN is an awful politico who is genuinely only concerned about her personal power and does not care about us DC residents.

If you really think you'd be saving 20% in taxes, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. The unintended consequences of such a bill would be staggering.

[Anonymous]

I want to start a petition against statehood, but yes to becoming a federal tax haven. Anyone with me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want to start a petition against statehood, but yes to becoming a federal tax haven. Anyone with me?

With the crush of telework impacting our budget, as vacant commercial office space piles up, we may need something to invigorate the tax base, before our liberal city council skips straigh to their favorites source, voting for massive tax increases on the “wealthy”.

I know weed will soon have a tax and regulatory scheme which will bolster our budget a little, but seriously imagine how many people would move to DC if it was a tax haven. I seriously give two shts about people being “displaced” if it were to happen because I believe gentrification is a myth. You can either afford to live somewhere or you can’t. Nothing is perpetual or permanent entitlement and none of your SJW bs will convince me otherwise. Just fking pass a bill so we don’t pay fed taxes as a tax haven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want to start a petition against statehood, but yes to becoming a federal tax haven. Anyone with me?

No. I would rather have representation.