A Quote by John Barry
There certainly is a lot of political pressure for states to adopt the new federal tax codes. But there is no law that requires them to do so.
Related Quotes
Under the Constitution, federal law trumps both state and city law. But antitrust law allows states some exceptional leeway to adopt anticompetitive business regulations, out of respect for states' rights to regulate business. This federal respect for states' rights does not extend to cities.
Lots of people commit crimes and don't get arrested. That's not the measure. But if you're going to be the president of the United States, we're reasonably going to put you under a microscope. And Donald Trump's tax behavior is absolutely important to understanding, is he qualified, is he morally fit, is he capable, is he trustworthy to have everything from the powers of federal law enforcement to the nuclear codes?
I'm not only a lawyer, I have a post doctorate degree in federal tax law from William and Mary. I work in serious scholarship and work in the United States federal tax court. My husband and I raised five kids. We've raised 23 foster children. We've applied ourselves to education reform. We started a charter school for at-risk kids.
Our federal income tax law defines the tax y to be paid in terms of the income x; it does so in a clumsy enough way by pasting several linear functions together, each valid in another interval or bracket of income. An archeologist who, five thousand years from now, shall unearth some of our income tax returns together with relics of engineering works and mathematical books, will probably date them a couple of centuries earlier, certainly before Galileo and Vieta.
In 2013 Citigroup had profits of $6.4 billion in the United States. They paid no federal income tax and, in fact, received a rebate from the IRS of $260 million. That same year J.P. Morgan had $17.2 billion in profits in the U.S. They also paid no federal income tax. Do you think it's time for tax reform?
Federal transfers are not even a zero-sum proposition; they are a negative-sum proposition, leaking value at every step of the way, thanks to the costs of collecting federal tax dollars, then trickling them back out to the states' own costly bureaucracies via federal paper-pushers who write and oversee grant programs.
It's true that the Federal Reserve faces a lot of political pressure and is unpopular in many circles.
We rely on our voter registration studies to warn states that they are failing to comply with the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which requires states to make reasonable efforts to clean their voter rolls. We can and have sued to enforce compliance with federal law.
Let's take the nine states that have no income tax and compare them with the nine states with the highest income tax rates in the nation. If you look at the economic metrics over the last decade for both groups, the zero-income-tax-rate states outperform the highest-income-tax-rate states by a fairly sizable amount.
Let's abolish the IRS, let's eliminate income tax, let's eliminate corporate tax, let's balance the federal budget, and if we need a tax, it can be one federal consumption tax.
I don't think the folks in the low-tax states really want to go into a fairness discussion. Residents of Connecticut and New York would love to remind them how much they pay in federal taxes to support programs for Mississippi and South Dakota.
The RFA requires federal agencies to assess the economic impact of their regulations on small firms, and if significant, consider less burdensome alternatives. Federal agencies sometimes fail to comply at all, or simply 'check the box,' fulfilling the letter of the law, while missing the purpose of the law entirely.
In high-tax New York, in high-tax California, the governors of those states are constantly offering tax breaks, tax exemptions to any number of companies if they will locate in those states. The left does it all the time. We point it out every time we learn about it because it's hypocritical.
The United Nations, he told an audience at Harvard University, 'has not been able-nor can it be able-to shape a new world order which events so compellingly demand.' ... The new world order that will answer economic, military, and political problems, he said, 'urgently requires, I believe, that the United States take the leadership among all free peoples to make the underlying concepts and aspirations of national sovereignty truly meaningful through the federal approach.'
The United States Constitution does not one time even mention marriage. It neither requires Congress or the states to adopt same-sex marriage laws nor does it forbid them from maintaining traditional marriage laws.
Judges certainly have political connections and strong political views, but that doesn't mean they can't rise above politics when they hear cases. We expect them to, and the law presumes they do.
Related Authors
Alexandre Desplat Quotes
French
Composer
Andrew Lloyd Webber Quotes
British
Composer
Anu Malik Quotes
Indian
Composer
Henry Mancini Quotes
American
Composer
Igor Stravinsky Quotes
Russian
Composer
John Cage Quotes
American
Composer
John Walter Bratton Quotes
American
Composer
Krzysztof Penderecki Quotes
Polish
Composer
Ludwig van Beethoven Quotes
German
Composer
Michael Giacchino Quotes
American
Composer
Pauline Oliveros Quotes
American
Composer
Ramin Djawadi Quotes
German
Composer
Richard Wagner Quotes
German
Composer
Ryuichi Sakamoto Quotes
Japanese
Composer
Stephen Hough Quotes
British
Composer
Stephen Sondheim Quotes
American
Composer