Yes, we do.
Man, that IRS really gets around, doesn’t it?
You assert this, but why? I’ve already pointed out that “direct authority” can be considered a red herring. Non-citizens, living abroad are still taxed on their earnings. They can still commit crimes that invoke US jurisdiction. And US foreign policy obviously impacts their lives greatly.
I don’t even need to reach the issue of lawful permanant residents, who are not permitted to vote but are virtually indistinguishable from citizens on each of the criteria you mention.
Yes, they do.
And part of their getting around involves taxing non-US citizens living abroad on any income earned here.
Wow… that’s quite a bit of shoehorning you’re doing there. It’s strange that you didn’t put that qualifier on your initial statement. :rolleyes:
I agree, which is why I said:
I think there is a valid argument that a person who is earning money in the United States is “present” in some meaningful sense. If they are being taxed, maybe we ought to consider to what extent they deserve to have a say in the tax law. I won’t come to a conclusion yet on this point.
As an aside, I do believe that what I consider basic constitutional guarantees (free speech, due process, right to representation, trial by jury, etc.) should be extended to anyone who falls within any degree of control of the U.S. government for any reason. The U.S. government should not be able to use its power to curtail or cause the curtailment of any person’s freedoms or liberties without being subject to the same limitations that would be faced if the curtailment happened to a U.S. citizen on U.S. territory.
I think this is valid and fair.
Tell that to the disenfranchised voters in Florida.
To the extent that our actions affect other countries, we should allow the people of those countries to have input in those decisions. For example, if their parliament passes a resolution asking us to start getting out, we should honor that request.
What you’re really talking about is a world government, which is a valid topic to discuss but is a separate issue from this thread.
Not only that, I noted above that while most of us pay taxes in numerous states, we only are permitted to vote in one of them.
So of course we regulate voting a great deal, and tolerate at all times as a matter of course taxation of people without permitting them any vote in the makeup of the government that is taxing them. And what is more, none of this is particularly unjust.
We tax people who earn interest income on investments in the US, even if they have never set foot in the US.
If you wish to characterize having stocks or a bank account in this country as “present,” you go right ahead. But that strikes me as being a real stretch to the word present.
You said:
I said we did. What about that calls for a qualifier? If you had said, “Do we tax our own citizens?” and I answered that we did, I assume you wouldn’t shriek about the thousands of US citizens that do not, for many and varied reasons, pay various taxes and roll your electronic eyes at the lack of a qualifier that excluded them.
I’ve seen much greater stretches.
Outside investers have a choice of where to place their money. If they don’t want their money to fall under U.S Jurisdiction, they don’t have to put their money here.
When you travel within the United States, do you have a choice whether or not to pay the sales tax wherever you are?
This is all very interesting, but it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Ex-felons are citizens who, for the most part, reside in the US and work and are taxed.
Obviously, there is a lot of reform going on with regard to how states look at felons’ rights. It seems to me the pendulum is swinging in favor of allowing them to vote. http://www.civilrights.org/press_room/buzz_clips/civilrightsorg-stories/op-ed-free-indeed-to-vote.html
Maybe justice isn’t too far off.
Funny you should mention that Commission on Federal Election Reform, since the last time it was mentioned on these boards it was by me, and I was recommending that their recommendations be adopted in toto.
Of course, that means I would have to bend a bit on the ex-felons and accept some other commission recommendations that don’t precisely match my policy preferences, and you would have to bend a bit as well, and accept recommendations on matters like voter identification, unified voter databases, steps to avoid double voting, tougher voter fraud penalties, and measures to avoid fraud in absentee voting.
I’m certainly willing to do so, in order to get an electoral system that we all can trust.
Are you willing to compromise in this way, as those commission members were?
Of course I would. I thought they were a given. I’m certainly not arguing against them. I mean, why wouldn’t we want to safeguard the process? Is anyone actually arguing against those points? We want to have a trustworthy process. I don’t know how that *couldn’t * make sense. I don’t the issues are as much “if” as “how.”
I don’t think it’s an issue of “if you give us this, we’ll give you that.” This is a gaping hole in justice as opposed to gaping holes in process. Apples and oranges if you ask me.
You’d be surprised. These recommendations have been attacked quite a bit, especially over the ID requirements.
Personally, I think we all need to bend a bit to get some things we want enacted, which is why I thought these recommendations ought to be considered as a whole.
Were you the one arguing that either all the Commission’s recommendations be accepted at the same time, or that none of it was? I remember thinking out loud that this was an excellent way to guarantee that the Report was scuttled while looking as if you “supported” it.
Posted too late. Thank you for varifying that it was you.