[Chongo]

The I'm gonna raise taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the poor, no they're not, they're gonna raise everyone's taxes dance.

The Fair tax puts the burden on those making big ticket purchases, like Diddy' Gulf Stream, or Owlgore's new 100' house boat.

[Dual Porpoise]

"from the Fair tax website
"The FairTax is regressive and shifts the tax burden onto lower and middle income people"

The truth: The FairTax actually eliminates and reimburses all federal taxes for those below the poverty line. This is accomplished through the universal prebate and by eliminating the highly regressive FICA payroll tax. Today, low and moderate income Americans pay far more in FICA taxes than income taxes. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a FairTax of only 11.5 percent -- a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today. Meanwhile, the wealthy pay the 23 percent retail sales tax on their retail purchases."

OK, let's think about this. The criticism above talks about lower and middle income people, while the website seems to address primarily lower income. It seems clear that those below the poverty line will be protected from automatic bankruptcy by the pre-bate. The situation for middle income earners is a little bleaker though. On average, working people in the US right now are spending about 100% of their earned income after tax, perhaps a little more, while the rich spend a much smaller proportion (that's almost the definition of being rich). This means that the burden of paying for government will fall much harder on the middle classes. I don't see any way to argue that it is otherwise - the only question is do you think this is a good thing? Presumably the rich do.

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The I'm gonna raise taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the poor, no they're not, they're gonna raise everyone's taxes dance.

Well, this is a little more complicated these days, because the alternative to paying for government is to borrow to support it. Right now would you agree that that the current and previous Republican administrations have reduced taxes on the rich and created a large liability that it is unclear who will be asked to pay for?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

And yet no one is tripping over themselves to move there.

Well, nobody from the US anyways, since your federal tax would still have to be paid to take that 13% up to whatever it is you pay back at home. There's no tax advantage for US citizens, which is why you don't hear about it.

[Chongo]

Taxes were reduced on everyone, unlike Clinton who promised a middle class tax cut, but gave us tax increases instead.
even with the rate reduction, the percenatge of the tax burden paid by the top 1% went up.
1999 The top 1% paid 36.18%, the bottom 50% paid 4%
2006 the top 1% paid 39.89%, the bottom 50% paid 2.99%

The bottom 15-20% pay no tax at all, and in fact, get money they did not pay into the system via the EIC.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

As I have stated before, adoption of the Fair Tax would eliminate this dance that happens every four years and put the power back in the hands of those who earn a paycheck, and back to the way this country was funded for nearly 150 years.

No, it doesn't. People who depend on a pay cheque to make a living will get taxed. People who don't depend on a pay cheque to make a living won't get taxed.

So who doesn't depend on a pay cheque every month to make a living? Right, rich people. In general, their income comes from dividends, market accounts, etc.; however else the money is invested. They would go largely untaxed. So the rich would get richer, and the poor would get... well, not rich.

Doofy already gave a great example, just look at Russia.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

This means that the burden of paying for government will fall much harder on the middle classes. I don't see any way to argue that it is otherwise - the only question is do you think this is a good thing? Presumably the rich do.

Exactly the point I made. It's earned income versus unearned income. The FairTax Act is a utopian tax system for the rich, and that's it.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

No, it doesn't. People who depend on a pay cheque to make a living will get taxed. People who don't depend on a pay cheque to make a living won't get taxed.

So who doesn't depend on a pay cheque every month to make a living? Right, rich people. In general, their income comes from dividends, market accounts, etc.; however else the money is invested. They would go largely untaxed. So the rich would get richer, and the poor would get... well, not rich.

Doofy already gave a great example, just look at Russia.

No one's check is going to be taxed, nor will income be taxed. If you make $10 an hor your check will be for $400, not $230. When you buy something, you pay the tax. Rich people tend to buy pricier things than those who are not, and will pay more tax.

again

"The FairTax is regressive and shifts the tax burden onto lower and middle income people"

The truth: The FairTax actually eliminates and reimburses all federal taxes for those below the poverty line. This is accomplished through the universal prebate and by eliminating the highly regressive FICA payroll tax. Today, low and moderate income Americans pay far more in FICA taxes than income taxes. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a FairTax of only 11.5 percent -- a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today. Meanwhile, the wealthy pay the 23 percent retail sales tax on their retail purchases.

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

No one's check is going to be taxed, nor will income be taxed. If you make $10 an hor your check will be for $400, not $230. When you buy something, you pay the tax. Rich people tend to buy pricier things than those who are not, and will pay more tax.

Middle income people spend all of their paycheck. That's the key point here. The rich spend a very small percentage of income the earn. That means that the burden of taxation will fall more heavily on the middle classes, and less on the rich. I notice that you are careful not to actually disagree with this.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well, nobody from the US anyways, since your federal tax would still have to be paid to take that 13% up to whatever it is you pay back at home. There's no tax advantage for US citizens, which is why you don't hear about it.

Where are they tripping over themselves to get to Russia?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

Middle income people spend all of their paycheck. That's the key point here. The rich spend a very small percentage of income the earn. That means that the burden of taxation will fall more heavily on the middle classes, and less on the rich. I notice that you are careful not to actually disagree with this.

I do disagree

Consider, for example, your typical billionaire, of which America now has more than 400. These fortunate few are invested primarily in equities on which they pay taxes at a 15 percent rate, whether their income comes in the form of capital gains or dividends. In addition to having the income from their wealth taxed at a low rate, the principal of their wealth is completely untaxed either directly or indirectly. Assuming they and their heirs spend only the income earned on the wealth each year, the tax rate today is 15 percent. In contrast, under the FairTax, the effective tax rate is 23 percent. Hence, the very wealthy will pay more taxes when the FairTax is enacted. In a nutshell, those who spend more will pay more but low, moderate and middle income taxpayers will benefit from the greatest gains in reduced tax liabilities.

Middle and lower income people spend all of their paychecks, now. Almost half taken is by payroll taxes. The money that would not be taken can be put in savings or IRAs etc, or kept in interest bearing checking accounts. But we can't be trusted to make those kind of decisions can we? I guess the best Idea would be to give ALL our checks to the government, then we would given what we need to get by and the rest would be put way for our old age.

The real issue many have with the fair tax is that it removes a major tool from the class warfare tool box.(takes power away from the government) You can't buy votes if there are no income taxes to raise on the rich to give to the poor.

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I do disagree

To be clear, you are disagreeing with the statement that under the Fair Tax the middle classes would pay a greater proportion of the cost of govt than they do now while the rich would pay a smaller proportion?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Middle and lower income people spend all of their paychecks, now. Almost half taken is by payroll taxes. The money that would not be taken can be put in savings or IRAs etc, or kept in interest bearing checking accounts. But we can't be trusted to make those kind of decisions can we? I guess the best Idea would be to give ALL our checks to the government, then we would given what we need to get by and the rest would be put way for our old age.

Well, let's assume for the sake of argument that your claim is correct. After we eliminate payroll taxes middle class people save 50% of their income (this is a vastly optimistic scenario, but let's run with it).
They are still spending 50% of their income, which is a vastly higher percentage than the rich, so the burden of paying for government still falls more heavily on them. I understand that you think this is a good thing, but you surely don't disagree that this will be the result?

[Chongo]

This assumes that the rich spend little of their money, if any at all. Owlgore just bought a 100 foot house boat.

Again from the Fair tax web page

Consider, for example, your typical billionaire, of which America now has more than 400. These fortunate few are invested primarily in equities on which they pay taxes at a 15 percent rate, whether their income comes in the form of capital gains or dividends. In addition to having the income from their wealth taxed at a low rate, the principal of their wealth is completely untaxed either directly or indirectly. Assuming they and their heirs spend only the income earned on the wealth each year, the tax rate today is 15 percent. In contrast, under the FairTax, the effective tax rate is 23 percent. Hence, the very wealthy will pay more taxes when the FairTax is enacted. In a nutshell, those who spend more will pay more but low, moderate and middle income taxpayers will benefit from the greatest gains in reduced tax liabilities.

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This assumes that the rich spend little of their money, if any at all. Owlgore just bought a 100 foot house boat.

Well, they do , on average, spend a much lower proportion of their income than the middle income bracket. It's a true assumption.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

Well, they do , on average, spend a much lower proportion of their income than the middle income bracket. It's a true assumption.

spending 5-10% of $1M is a lot more than spending 50% of $50K

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

spending 5-10% of $1M is a lot more than spending 50% of $50K

The latter is a higher proportion - you don't really dispute that the middle classes will pay a vastly higher percentage of their income than the rich, do you?

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Where are they tripping over themselves to get to Russia?

The only reason that the US is not completely empty from emigration to Russia is the US's bizarre tax system. Change that, and everyone would leave for Moscow for the fabulous tax system there!
Seriously - are there any countries that have done anything like this, or is this a massive experiment the likes of which we have never seen before?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It replaces all taxes with a fixed, 23% retail sales tax. That would mean all sources of unearned income would be largely untaxed. It's a rich person's wet dream. The poor and middle class get taxed 23% while the rich (who don't depend on earned income) won't get taxed at all.

We're aware that under flat tax the poor wouldn't be taxed on income either, right? And that the rich would also be taxed on their purchases?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Where are they tripping over themselves to get to Russia?

Here. Loads of Brits shipping out to Russia these days.

[Dakar V]

Anywhere I can go to verify that?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Anywhere I can go to verify that?

Yeah. Russia.

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

We're aware that under flat tax the poor wouldn't be taxed on income either, right? And that the rich would also be taxed on their purchases?

Yes. We're all aware of that - the issue is that the poor and middle classes spend 100% of their income, which means they are taxed on 100% of their income, while the rich spend much less of a proportion of their income, so are taxed on a smaller proportion of their income. We don't disagree on this, do we? The only thing that seems debatable is whether the poor should be taxed on a higher proportion of their income than the rich.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yeah. Russia.

Saw that coming a mile away.

Any sites that track this stuff, or am I to trust your observation?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

Yes. We're all aware of that

Well, looking at the bits I bolded this didn't appear to be the case. Else why would modifiers like "unearned income" be used? Or saying that the rich wouldn't get taxed at all?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

Yes. We're all aware of that - the issue is that the poor and middle classes spend 100% of their income, which means they are taxed on 100% of their income, while the rich spend much less of a proportion of their income, so are taxed on a smaller proportion of their income. We don't disagree on this, do we? The only thing that seems debatable is whether the poor should be taxed on a higher proportion of their income than the rich.

Uh, that's a fail there buddy. Lower income Americans may spend all of their disposable income on things they need and want, but to call that a tax is to grossly redefine the term. Is your proposal to redistribute the wealth so that those who are currently rich get their property confiscated so that they're more equal to the poor?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

The latter is a higher proportion - you don't really dispute that the middle classes will pay a vastly higher percentage of their income than the rich, do you?

households will receive a monthly "prebate to cover essential purchases,

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Saw that coming a mile away.

Any sites that track this stuff, or am I to trust your observation?

Yeah, it's really just observation from all around. People one knows, talk in the pub, snippets over the airwaves, stuff like that.

Here's a small clip which shows tourism increasing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlADF2is4wQ
...but trust me, emigration to Russia is also increasing.

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well, looking at the bits I bolded this didn't appear to be the case. Else why would modifiers like "unearned income" be used? Or saying that the rich wouldn't get taxed at all?

Where did I say the rich won't get taxed at all?

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Uh, that's a fail there buddy. Lower income Americans may spend all of their disposable income on things they need and want, but to call that a tax is to grossly redefine the term.

I'm not sure what you can mean by this - you agree that lower and middle class Americans spend about 100% of their income, and you are proposing a tax solely on expenditure. Are you disagreeing that the result of the fair tax will be that middle income folks pay tax on an amount that is equal to a much higher percentage of their income than higher income people? Again, I'm not talking about whether this is desirable or not, just trying to see if we are all on the same page re the facts.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Is your proposal to redistribute the wealth so that those who are currently rich get their property confiscated so that they're more equal to the poor?

Right now I'm just trying to understand your proposal. I'm speculating on the motives behind any given scheme, just trying to make sure we agree on the facts first.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

Where did I say the rich won't get taxed at all?

You didn't. Ole did. Which is what I was replying to when I asked the question which you then replied to.

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You didn't. Ole did. Which is what I was replying to when I asked the question which you then replied to.

So what is your question?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

So what is your question?

Just scroll up the page. It's still there.

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Just scroll up the page. It's still there.

Help me out - it's really unclear to me what you're trying to say.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

Help me out - it's really unclear to me what you're trying to say.

It's in English. Go read it.

[Dual Porpoise]

Well thanks for the rudeness - I guess your point will remain opaque to me.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Uh, that's a fail there buddy. Lower income Americans may spend all of their disposable income on things they need and want, but to call that a tax is to grossly redefine the term. Is your proposal to redistribute the wealth so that those who are currently rich get their property confiscated so that they're more equal to the poor?

Actually, for states that have both income tax and sales tax, that's double taxation, and any monies spent are taxed under sales tax.

Really, if we were to take the principled stance and avoid double taxation, we'd only have one or the other, but when have thieves ever had principles?

(And by thieves, I mean government taxation structure, from legislators to collectors.)

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Actually, for states that have both income tax and sales tax, that's double taxation, and any monies spent are taxed under sales tax.

Well, the term 'double taxation' is usually used by economists to refer to taxation of the same funds by different jurisdictions, but never mind. Actually, very few developed nations that I can think of don't have both sales and income tax - what makes you think that this is a bad thing for a democratic and legitimate government to do? After all, if most people didn't want their representatives to collect funds in this way, they would elect ones who didn't do it.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Really, if we were to take the principled stance and avoid double taxation, we'd only have one or the other, but when have thieves ever had principles?

Your misuse of the word 'thieves' is confusing, since we're talking about revenue collected by legitimate government, but never mind - what makes you think that sticking to only one form of taxation is more 'principled' than having several different ones? Where did you get that idea?

Originally Posted by vmarks 

(And by thieves, I mean government taxation structure, from legislators to collectors.)

Yes, and if you continue to want to redefine words that have other, accepted, meanings it's going to be difficult for anyone to have a houseplant with you.
(Oh, and by 'houseplant' I mean 'conversation', btw.)

[Dual Porpoise]

Bump - Vmarks - did you get a chance to think about a response?

[vmarks]

Sorry, old porpoise, I don't spend my time anxiously looking for your posts in order to respond. I have many other things which I do during a day, and looking for your words isn't high among them. Since you asked, I will respond.

Sales and Income taxes are generally understood to be best implemented as a one-or-the-other, not-both tax. Delware and Oregon get this right. Earlier on in this nation's history, most states did. Then legislators realized they could be greedy and found more ways to take money that is not theirs.

Taxation is theft. The fact that someone passes a law and makes it 'legal' doesn't make it right, and doesn't make it not theft. Taxes are collected under the threat of property seizure or jail, and those threats are backed up by the firearm held by the officer who comes to arrest people who don't surrender their money willingly.

Frame it this way, you are not entitled to money or property I've earned - you as an individual cannot walk up and take it out of my wallet or bank account or garnish my wages. It's theft. So the notion that a pack of you can band together and vote to collectively steal money from me is every bit as much theft.

Now, in some states, the State collects income taxes and then is meant to pay that back to the cities and counties, in lieu of them collecting it for themselves. One year, Governor Mike Easley decided to not distribute that money. The mayors of the towns filed suit. A common editorial opinion, not surprisingly, was that there is no honor among thieves.

The Federal government is specifically limited to only being able to tax on that which is named in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution. The States and local governments have no such prohibition, although the goal ought not be 'which state can take the most and provide the most services,' it instead is 'which state can provide only that which is a minimal proper role of government and take the least.' Less government equates to more freedom. This is why the Bill of Rights of the Constitution specifically limits government, either through expressly naming rights or prohibiting government. Freedom, if you recall, was one of the reasons the US was founded.

[besson3c]

So if taxes are theft, does that mean you don't want to pay for law enforcement to help deal with and potentially prevent theft of your other belongings?

[Dual Porpoise]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Sales and Income taxes are generally understood to be best implemented as a one-or-the-other, not-both tax.

Generally understood by whom? Where did you get this notion?

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Taxation is theft.

Again, saying it does not make it so - what makes you think this? Where did you get this odd idea?

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The fact that someone passes a law and makes it 'legal' doesn't make it right, and doesn't make it not theft. Taxes are collected under the threat of property seizure or jail, and those threats are backed up by the firearm held by the officer who comes to arrest people who don't surrender their money willingly.

Taxes in the US are collected on behalf of the people, who elect their representatives to do just that. I cannot think of a serious political theorist who would argue that democracies cannot vote to raise revenue through taxation.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Frame it this way, you are not entitled to money or property I've earned - you as an individual cannot walk up and take it out of my wallet or bank account or garnish my wages. It's theft. So the notion that a pack of you can band together and vote to collectively steal money from me is every bit as much theft.

It seems odd to call a democratically elected government a 'pack or band' - again - are there any serious political theorists who think that democratic governments should not be allowed to raise revenue through taxation? I mean, the US was founded partially on the idea that representation is the necessary corollary to taxation, not that taxation is illegitimate, but that it needs to take place with the consent of the majority of those taxed.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Now, in some states, the State collects income taxes and then is meant to pay that back to the cities and counties, in lieu of them collecting it for themselves. One year, Governor Mike Easley decided to not distribute that money. The mayors of the towns filed suit. A common editorial opinion, not surprisingly, was that there is no honor among thieves.

If the electorate disagreed with this, why didn't they elect someone who would overturn it?

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The Federal government is specifically limited to only being able to tax on that which is named in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution.

Yes - "to provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States" - have fun claiming that that doesn't allow them to raise taxes for pretty much anything. More to the point - why are you quoting the constitution? Presumably this is an immoral document, since it legitimizes taxation, which you think of as theft. How do you propose democracies pay for themselves if not through taxation?

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The States and local governments have no such prohibition, although the goal ought not be 'which state can take the most and provide the most services,' it instead is 'which state can provide only that which is a minimal proper role of government and take the least.'

I disagree - the voters get to decide what the goal is. That's the very purpose of elections. Someone stands for office with a description of what they will do, and you vote for the person you like best.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Less government equates to more freedom.

As appealing a piece of rhetoric as that it, it is simply not true.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

This is why the Bill of Rights of the Constitution specifically limits government, either through expressly naming rights or prohibiting government. Freedom, if you recall, was one of the reasons the US was founded.

The constitution does not prohibit (to get back on topic briefly) raising of taxes through income and sales tax. Again, what makes you think that having only one kind of tax is a good idea?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Dual Porpoise 

Yes - "to provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States" - have fun claiming that that doesn't allow them to raise taxes for pretty much anything.

Easy.

The view of James Madison was that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/fede...pers/fed41.htm
and Madison, James. (3 March 1817) Letter to the House of Representatives,Veto of federal public works bill, March 3, 1817
http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm

Madison, you may recall, authored the amendment in question. I think he knew what he wrote.

[Dual Porpoise]

OK - I think you'll find political thought has moved on a little in the last 200 years! Read a couple more chapters!

[vmarks]

The Constitution is the supreme governing law of the land.

If political thought has moved on, we can't just behave differently, we need to go and amend the Constitution to reflect that. Absent any new amendment, we have to act on it as it is.

[Dual Porpoise]

But what you quoted is not the Constitution, it's other writings by one of the framers, and has no legal, or even moral force. The writings of anyone, including the framers, is not particularly important. The Constitution was a compromise - it meant different things to different people even at the time of its signing. Each generation interprets it, and sometimes amends it. In large part different interpretations don't require amendments because the document is so vague.

[vmarks]

"Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document. Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be "living"? Depending on "evolving standards," maybe my two pair could beat your flush."

-- Dr. Walter Williams

[Dual Porpoise]

VMarks, that's why we have the Supreme Court. Like it or not, SCOTUS interprets the constitution. They, and the other courts, clearly believe that it is a 'living document' in the sense that rulings on what it means are constantly required in the light of circumstances that were not imagined by its framers. While you may wish that Dr Williams views had come to pass, they didn't.

Back to what we are talking about though, nowhere in the constitution does it suggest that taxation is immoral, theft, or that taxation by two means at once is especially heinous. I'll ask again, because you dodged the question last time, if you really believe these things, how do you want to fund government?

[angelsfan15]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm sick of these terms being tossed around solely as a means to invoke strong reactions when it is clear that these terms are being inappropriately used. I would like any Republican here who thinks that Obama is any one of these things actually make a case and provide an appropriate definition, if you can...

Is our Democracy really as fragile as you think it is? What are you afraid of? Take universal health care, for instance... Many countries have it and are not considered socialist countries. If we were to adopt this, do you really think that this would tip the scales and make us a socialist nation? Or wait, would this make as communist, marxist, or facist instead? These terms are so abused by you guys that I really don't even know what the hell you really mean anymore...

What would it take to get us all to dispense with these stupid hot button terms? This is sort of like calling Steve Jobs a Nazi for forcing DRM on us (back before the days of iTunes Plus). For starters, the term doesn't even apply, but second, it is a complete and total exaggeration. Has the extent of our abilities to form an intellectual argument suffered so much that we are forced to use these weighty words? Where does this stop? Why must people defend themselves against such ridiculous, all-heart-no-brains claims constantly?

This goes for LIberals and Conservatives alike too, and all sorts of subject matter, although all of the "Obama is ____ist" examples are the best I have right now for the purpose of getting this thread started.

its hilarous because if you really looked at facts the obamanator is a communist he stands for one class and one unified world anyway people pretty much that are dumb follow the crowd and honestly obama for change give me a break every election is for change isn't it face it no one like bush accept for comedians because that their new martial thats why both mccain and obama want change im glad people are accepting African Americans like this but a liberal that the part i cant stand and one more thing why should people have to give there hard earned money to people who sit on the butts all day seriously lame =p

[Dual Porpoise]

We never got to the bottom of the 'Fair Tax' thing - Big Mac - did you ever get around to answering the question?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

"Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document. Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be "living"? Depending on "evolving standards," maybe my two pair could beat your flush."

-- Dr. Walter Williams

So how do you account for the part of the constitution that deals with having slaves?