I doubt this will get very far. It seems like it would open up a whole can of worms and completely subvert our entire system of law making.
>She declared the facts of man-made climate change “undisputed,” and supported the plaintiffs’ challenge to hold national powers accountable for the damages caused by global warming.
>Aikin wrote: “This action is of a different order than the typical environmental case. It alleges that defendants’ actions and inactions—whether or not they violate any specific statutory duty—have so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty.”
So if I decide that taxes are too high and I present evidence that the tax rate is at the wrong end of the laffer curve I could get my money back?
> So if I decide that taxes are too high and I present evidence that the tax rate is at the wrong end of the laffer curve I could get my money back?
How does that flow from these quotes?
To be equivalent, you would need to prove that the tax rate is so insane that it has a substantial chance of killing you. Equivalent arguments for tax relief are in relation to poverty, medical costs, food and basic necessities, etc and generally win.
They do? People have actually sued the government because their taxes were too high for their particular circumstance? I'm not trying to be facetious, I just don't know much about this topic.
No, the same civil rights allow you to start a process to invalidate a tax completely and they are used that way all the time. Civil rights arguments have everything to do with why your laffer curve isnt optimal and we pay higher set rates so there are things that are completely exempt. Look at state sales tax exemptions as an example of people lowering their effective tax rate, but not the overall tax collected or the average benefit of government.
It seems to me like you are trying to warp the discussion into every tool with a visible political outcome being equivalent and open to "democratic" systems. The republic is a tool for a specific purpose that is usually opposite of delivering optimal solutions to the majority. The democratic systems are supposed to deliver what you seem to want until they violate civil rights. If they dont for a reason other than civil rights, then your recourse is to petitition the republic to change the election process. But you cant make the republic actually care about your general tax rates or any other problems it allows the democratic process to handle, it can only make sweeping rules when parties are in violation of the core rules.
The argument that the state is killing you is only significant if you can make it rationally, and a 10-99% tax isnt killing you unless it doesnt exclude the poverty level in its gradients and then you dont need to be the one being killed to make the argument. A 99% tax rate that can get 50% of the vote may indicate another failure though.
The government already grants monopolies on lifesaving drugs that causes the price to go up more than 10000%. Although it isn't a tax I don't see how type one of law should differ from another in this scenario.
I'm glad someone noticed this. The judge basically said, "there's no legal basis for this challenge," which means it would have to be some amazing legal analysis to pass scrutiny.
>She declared the facts of man-made climate change “undisputed,” and supported the plaintiffs’ challenge to hold national powers accountable for the damages caused by global warming.
>Aikin wrote: “This action is of a different order than the typical environmental case. It alleges that defendants’ actions and inactions—whether or not they violate any specific statutory duty—have so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty.”
So if I decide that taxes are too high and I present evidence that the tax rate is at the wrong end of the laffer curve I could get my money back?