Is it right to raise taxes on the Wealthy ?

Post Reply New Topic

If people recall the US Supreme Court decision that said that it was okay for government to take away people's property and give it to businesses was okay I find it hysterical that people say Conservatives stooges for the rich.

It was a 5 to 4 decision and it was the Conservative Judges that were the ones that sided with the people and it was the liberal judges that sided with big business and corporate fat-cats.

So the "Conservative" justices are in favour of taxing the rich?

The case I was referring to had to do with people's property rights and whether or not Government can use eminent domain to take one person's property and give it to another person or business for "the public good."

The Left Wing Judges + the swing vote said that Government could do that, the Conservative Judges dissented.

Is it right to raise taxes on the Wealthy ?

Sometimes interest in the public good outweighs property rights.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Sometimes interest in the public good outweighs property rights.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

So you're okay if someone takes away your property so a McDonalds can be built on it...

I don't think building a McDonald's anywhere is ever for the public good. And yes, my family and I do eat there on occasion.
I'm thinking more about the government seizing an industry for the public good, if said industry obstinately refuses to deal with workers' demands, causing a strike and stopping necessary production.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

n recent years, New York has earned the dubious distinction of being one of thenation's worst abusers ofeminent domain. The Empire State Development Corp. (ESDC) and localities have approved condemnation of property for a huge range of wealthy private entities, including the New York Stock Exchange, Costco, Stop & Shop and Columbia University. The latest outrage is the effort by the Empire State Development Corp. to take homes and other private property for Bruce Ratner's Atlantic Yards stadium development.

There are owners who don't want to sell and residents who don't want to move, but the ESDC has used the power of eminent domain to force everyone to leave. The government is supposed to pay owners "just compensation" for the property, but the owner has no choice: not about whether to keep property and not about how much to sell it for.

Not only is this un-American, it is unconstitutional.

There may, however, finally be light at the end of a very dark tunnel. In October, the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, will hear the legal challenge of Brooklyn residents and businesses looking to block the use of eminent domain to build Atlantic Yards.

It has been more than a generation since the state's highest court has interpreted the New York Constitution's provision that property may be taken only for "public use." It's time for the court to take a long, hard look - before more damage is done.

The fundamental legal question is whether the state should go along with the notorious 2005 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo vs. City of New London. In that ruling, the court said that using eminent domain for potential job creation, increased taxes or general economic development does not violate the U.S. Constitution. In the firestorm of outrage that followed, 43 states changed their laws to make eminent domain for private development either more difficult or impossible.

New York remains one of only seven that have not.

It is true that, after Kelo, the U.S. Constitution itself gives little or no protection to home or business owners. But that document is a floor for individual rights, not a ceiling. State constitutions can protect rights above that baseline. For instance, when the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to protect people's rights to freedom of speech or freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, state high courts often step in, finding that state constitutions offer greater protection.

That is exactly what has happened in many states since Kelo. The high courts of Hawaii, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Missouri, New Jersey and Rhode Island have all ruled that property owners within their borders have greater protections against eminent domain abuse. None has made Kelo the rule under the state constitution.

The New York Court of Appeals should follow this trend.

If New York adopts the Kelo rule - that anyone's home, business or church can be taken if someone else might be able to make more money off that land - then no one is safe. New York's Constitution was meant to prevent this kind of routine violation of people's rights. If Ratner wants someone's property, he should buy it on the market - not with the government acting as a real estate agent on steroids, forcing out the rightful owners.

Plus, developers and their government allies often overpromise and underdeliver on the so-called public benefits. The City of New London claimed all sorts of benefits from the Kelo project; now, four years after the Supreme Court decision, not one single thing has been built on the land that was taken from homeowners. After the Michigan Supreme Court allowed condemnation for economic development, an entire neighborhood was bulldozed for a GM plant. The project didn't come close to living up to its promises.

Instead of parroting the infamous Kelo decision, the New York Court of Appeals should look to New York's own unique state constitutional protections - and rule that eminent domain may not be used for private gain.

Dana Berliner is a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, where she served as co-counsel in the Kelo eminent domain case on behalf of homeowners.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/emin ... z1gDtGjH5x

That's not how eminent domain works, Bill. They don't take property because you're mistreating your workers, if anything they fire the workers and find new one a'la Reagan and the ATC strike in the 80's.

Inuyasha's talking about the Kelo case, one of the greatest atrocities to come out of the supreme court in some time.

Here's the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Another fun eminent domain story (it didn't have a happy ending)



http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/emin ... e-1.396377

That's not how eminent domain works, Bill. They don't take property because you're mistreating your workers, if anything they fire the workers and find new one a'la Reagan and the ATC strike in the 80's.

Inuyasha's talking about the Kelo case, one of the greatest atrocities to come out of the supreme court in some time.

Here's the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Another fun eminent domain story (it didn't have a happy ending)



http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/emin ... e-1.396377

It is amazing how often Inuyasha is the only one to know something.