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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 But I am floored that DC was offered a bill which would have rescinded DC Federal income tax and Eleanor Holmes Norton would not even entertain in.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.

Yes property values would rocket and business would relocate.

[Anonymous]

I think you all forget that not many people outside of DC care about your desire to become a state or tax haven or whatever. Certainly not enough to amend the constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

that is not and has never been true. The US has always had territories without representation. The pattern was the west would fill in and then the territory would apply for statehood, but in the meantime the residents of the territory did not have congressional representation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes property values would rocket and business would relocate.

The addition of thousands of PO Boxes aren't going to jump property values

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You do realize that, as part of this bill, the significant subsidies that the federal government pays to DC woudl go away, right? And DC would have to foot the bill for everything? So your DC taxes would skyrocket. Also, despite frustrations with the IRS, does anyone think the DC government will be more efficient?

[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.

DP. The Constitution does not define the boundaries of the federal territory that was intended to be the seat of federal government and which is not entitled to representation. It could be redefined as the portion of downtown where federal buildings are, while the rest of DC is added to the union as a state just as other states previously were. This would not require a constitutional amendment. If you aren't aware of this argument, you haven't been paying attention. I am a DC resident and don't want to be exempt from federal taxes; I want a voice in how our country is run. And I want Congress to stop interfering in how DC is run.

[Anonymous]

I don't care about the lack of a voting representative and the no taxation ploy is a nonstarter. All I want is actual self-government, which would include:
- No congressional review of new legislation;
- Full control of the roads and bridges within the District but outside of the Executive-Legislative corridor
- Judges selected and seated by DC Council and the Mayor
- An AG's office that has full prosecutorial authority for all violations of DC law
- Abolishment of all the Federal board, advisory councils, etc. that limit what the District government can do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. The Constitution does not define the boundaries of the federal territory that was intended to be the seat of federal government and which is not entitled to representation. It could be redefined as the portion of downtown where federal buildings are, while the rest of DC is added to the union as a state just as other states previously were. This would not require a constitutional amendment. If you aren't aware of this argument, you haven't been paying attention. I am a DC resident and don't want to be exempt from federal taxes; I want a voice in how our country is run. And I want Congress to stop interfering in how DC is run.

You have to amend the Constitution to repeal the 23rd Amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You do realize that, as part of this bill, the significant subsidies that the federal government pays to DC woudl go away, right? And DC would have to foot the bill for everything? So your DC taxes would skyrocket. Also, despite frustrations with the IRS, does anyone think the DC government will be more efficient?

The federal government no longer pays “significant subsidies” for most of the local government here. We get the same formula-based funding that states get for things like highways, education, Medicaid, etc., and those might be affected by this completely hypothetical bill that isn’t going to pass. But it’s always worth keeping in mind for the debate over D.C.’s status that the city gets no special financial benefits from the Feds, and in fact, is usually owed money for costs incurred due to federal events (like inaugurations).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes property values would rocket and business would relocate.

The addition of thousands of PO Boxes aren't going to jump property values

No Federal taxation would result in less Federal funds. Local tax rates (income and real estate) would increase. Would those go up enough to be on par with today's total local and Federal tax burden? Who knows?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. The Constitution does not define the boundaries of the federal territory that was intended to be the seat of federal government and which is not entitled to representation. It could be redefined as the portion of downtown where federal buildings are, while the rest of DC is added to the union as a state just as other states previously were. This would not require a constitutional amendment. If you aren't aware of this argument, you haven't been paying attention. I am a DC resident and don't want to be exempt from federal taxes; I want a voice in how our country is run. And I want Congress to stop interfering in how DC is run.

You have to amend the Constitution to repeal the 23rd Amendment.

You don't need to repeal the 23rd Amendment. You just need to redefine "The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States," which is not defined in the Constitution. However, I'm confident that there would be agreement to repeal the 23rs amendment if the majority of DC were granted statehood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think you all forget that not many people outside of DC care about your desire to become a state or tax haven or whatever. Certainly not enough to amend the constitution.

Yes, many people don't care about taxation without representation that affects other people.

[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.

The Constitution DOESN'T stand in the way of D.C. statehood. The Supreme Court didn't rule that statehood was unconstitutional; it ruled that the Constitution didn't REQUIRE statehood for D.C.

Also, if you think people outside D.C. dislike Washington now, how do you think they'd react if suddenly none of us had to pay federal taxes?

[Anonymous]

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

Our government is not a disaster. That being said, I would appreciate no taxation more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Are you being sarcastic? If not, you must not have followed the news much over the past 15 years or so. For example: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gq.com/story/how-puerto-rico-became-tax-haven-for-super-rich/amp