Federal Tax Exemption for DC Residents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you moved to DC you were well aware that you would have no voting representative in Congress or the Senate. Deal with it. Or move.

Right. Just as those who moved to DC knew that they'd be banned from owning handguns.

Apples and oranges. And we're not buying. Plus with the Republican takeover in 2 weeks this is a moot point. Fix your DYRS and maybe we can talk.

Yeah, right. If rights were passed out based on behavior, there are lots of places around the country who shouldn't have voting representation in Congress either. Oh but hey, that's the genius of human rights. You get them whether you're nice or not. What's the matter with you, do you think only certain people should be allowed rights?

How very unamerican. You're not a true patriot if you believe that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you moved to DC you were well aware that you would have no voting representative in Congress or the Senate. Deal with it. Or move.

When I moved here in '75, the Statehood Party, under Julius Hobson, Josephine Butler, and Hilda Mason, was a potent force that was part of the attraction of DC. So please revise the picture of the DC I moved into; it was not just one that did not have a vote, but one that was fighting for statehood! And three years later, Congress passed the DC voting rights amendment, which unfortunately was never ratified by the states.

That amendment diverted attention from statehood, and it may be relevant here to recall that Jeff mentioned in the discussion about Vince Gray's Ward 4 meeting that Gray spoke of statehood. In fact, he gave a pretty rousing little speech that statehood is the only route to fair representation for DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2010/10/a_gop_house_could_be_good_for.html?wprss=local-opinions

DC residents have been asking for no taxation without representation. This proposal suggests, rather than going the DC Vote route, that the feds simply exempt DC residents from paying federal taxes.

Thoughts?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! You are so funny. Where do perform your comedy act? Maybe you can have your own summer replacement show on Comedy Central. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you moved to DC you were well aware that you would have no voting representative in Congress or the Senate. Deal with it. Or move.

When women weren't allowed to vote, I guess men shouldn't have cared. To the contrary, they should have told the women to get sex changes.

What was the percentage of men who supported Suffragettes? Sex change was not an option at that time.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you moved to DC you were well aware that you would have no voting representative in Congress or the Senate. Deal with it. Or move.

When women weren't allowed to vote, I guess men shouldn't have cared. To the contrary, they should have told the women to get sex changes.

What was the percentage of men who supported Suffragettes? Sex change was not an option at that time.

Enough men supported the Suffragettes to pass a constitutional amendment allowing women to vote. The 19th Amendment was passed by the House and the Senate and then ratified by 36 states. I presume that most, if not all, of those legislators who voted in favor of it were male given that there were probably few, if any, female legislators at that time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2010/10/a_gop_house_could_be_good_for.html?wprss=local-opinions

DC residents have been asking for no taxation without representation. This proposal suggests, rather than going the DC Vote route, that the feds simply exempt DC residents from paying federal taxes.

Thoughts?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! You are so funny. Where do perform your comedy act? Maybe you can have your own summer replacement show on Comedy Central. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Are you quoting King George in 1775?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2010/10/a_gop_house_could_be_good_for.html?wprss=local-opinions

DC residents have been asking for no taxation without representation. This proposal suggests, rather than going the DC Vote route, that the feds simply exempt DC residents from paying federal taxes.

Thoughts?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! You are so funny. Where do perform your comedy act? Maybe you can have your own summer replacement show on Comedy Central. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Are you quoting King George in 1775?

Don't you recognize the cackling laugh from the Schoolhouse Rock video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppYMKMuDp58

[Anonymous]

Vince Gray says he is willing to go to jail over statehood. But he adds that if we join him by the hundreds (or did he say thousands), there won't be room in the jails. He asked for ideas. What is the 21st century version of the Boston Tea Party?

Demanding freedom from income tax until we get representation seems reasonable to me. What happens if hundreds, or thousands, of DC residents filed that we owe no tax and want any withholdings returned? I think it has been done by a few people, but if the Mayor and large numbers of us citizens do it ...

Besides, it is the states that the income tax need not be apportioned among. Doesn't that imply that it applies to the individual citizens of the states, and therefore not to us? That's only a bit more silly than the argument that DC representation in Congress is unconsitutional.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you moved to DC you were well aware that you would have no voting representative in Congress or the Senate. Deal with it. Or move.

When women weren't allowed to vote, I guess men shouldn't have cared. To the contrary, they should have told the women to get sex changes.

What was the percentage of men who supported Suffragettes? Sex change was not an option at that time.

Enough men supported the Suffragettes to pass a constitutional amendment allowing women to vote. The 19th Amendment was passed by the House and the Senate and then ratified by 36 states. I presume that most, if not all, of those legislators who voted in favor of it were male given that there were probably few, if any, female legislators at that time.

Yes, ultimately, it passed but how long did it take to persuade these men?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, ultimately, it passed but how long did it take to persuade these men?

72 years. But, is your argument that DC residents deserve voting rights but we just have to wait a few more decades?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, ultimately, it passed but how long did it take to persuade these men?

72 years. But, is your argument that DC residents deserve voting rights but we just have to wait a few more decades?

Obviously not, because it will take considerably longer for DC to be granted satehood, if ever.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Obviously not, because it will take considerably longer for DC to be granted satehood, if ever.

Exactly why do you oppose DC voting rights? Is is simply because you expect that two Democratic senators would be elected or do you have a more principled reason?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vince Gray says he is willing to go to jail over statehood. But he adds that if we join him by the hundreds (or did he say thousands), there won't be room in the jails. He asked for ideas. What is the 21st century version of the Boston Tea Party?

Demanding freedom from income tax until we get representation seems reasonable to me. What happens if hundreds, or thousands, of DC residents filed that we owe no tax and want any withholdings returned? I think it has been done by a few people, but if the Mayor and large numbers of us citizens do it ...

Besides, it is the states that the income tax need not be apportioned among. Doesn't that imply that it applies to the individual citizens of the states, and therefore not to us? That's only a bit more silly than the argument that DC representation in Congress is unconsitutional.

I agree. Given that the Secretary of the Treasury is a tax cheat, it hardly makes sense to jail the residents of the District of Columbia for not paying taxes. We can at least justify the behavior on something on than a disingenuous "failure to understand his tax obligation."

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously not, because it will take considerably longer for DC to be granted satehood, if ever.

Exactly why do you oppose DC voting rights? Is is simply because you expect that two Democratic senators would be elected or do you have a more principled reason?

I have not said that I oppose DC statehood, I don't, I simply do not believe it will happen any time soon, say within the next 50 or more years.

[Anonymous]

If things were rational, a state would be formed of DC (excluding the Federal enclave) and surrounding counties. I suppose they would find the linkage to DC somewhat burdensome, but would it be worse than the present linkage to MD or VA?