EPThttp://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
US federal income tax fraud - Page 2
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
TanksALot
United States153 Posts
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html | ||
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On June 23 2008 02:39 Jibba wrote: He theorized. Big, big, enormous difference. Even very accurate theories are rarely proven in the world of social sciences. True. I was using "proved" in the non-scientific literal sense, as in he presented an argument which he claimed to prove his theory. Poor word choice on my part. | ||
|
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On June 23 2008 02:41 TanksALot wrote: Here's an excellent link which refutes pretty much every "But there's no LAW that says you have to pay taxes!" fallacy: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html lol, owned. Great site. | ||
|
Skye_MyO
Singapore107 Posts
On June 23 2008 02:30 jwd241224 wrote: Just like most pseudo-conspiracy theories, once you take a closer look this kind of position doesn't hold up. There's a reason that we use a fiat currency controlled by the Fed - the system works. No, the system doesn't work, the US economy is in trouble. But not to derail the thread, the 16th amendment sadly grants authority to congress to tax income. Whether or not this is laudable is debateable, because I personally the view the income tax as a repugnant form of theft from the government. It was rightly pointed out that public utilities such as roads, water and electricity are not paid for through revenues collected from the income tax. There's nothing conspiratorial about it, really. | ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
On June 23 2008 02:59 Skye_MyO wrote: It was rightly pointed out that public utilities such as roads, water and electricity are not paid for through revenues collected from the income tax. There's nothing conspiratorial about it, really. No, but the Internet you're using to post on TL WAS created using income taxes. Ditto for 100 other things that came about in the past century that make life better. | ||
vGl-CoW
Belgium8305 Posts
| ||
|
Skye_MyO
Singapore107 Posts
Where do my income tax dollars go? I'll summarize for you lazy bums : An approximation, from the article US$2.7 Trillion dollars in revenue is collected annually by the income tax. As an analogy, If you made $1000 a week, Healthcare - $219.40 ($124.20 to Medicare and $95.20 to Medicaid) Social Security - $206.60 Military - $196.50 Interest On National Debt - $85.30 (it's not 100% of income tax as people would claim) Income Security - $132.70 (unemployment insurance, food and nutrition programs, housing assistance, retirement for federal workers) Education - $44.60 Science - $8.90 (Space program and general science + basic research... is this where the internet came from clutch?) Transportation - $26.50 Environment and agriculture - $22.20 Law and courts - $15.40 Disaster Relief - $17.40 Humanitarian Aid - $6.30 General Government Costs - $6.90 (getting this very data) ----- Additional facts, i'm just gonna copy and paste: So there you have it. Not all of that money came from your incomes taxes, by the way. This year individuals will pay about $1.2 trillion of the $2.7 trillion federal spending, while corporations will pay $342 billion. The rest comes form Social Security taxes ($873 billion); excises taxes ($57 billion) and other taxes and fees ($98 billion.) For everything else, there’s U.S. Treasury debt. Source : Budget of the United States Government 2008 ----- I think the big problem is government spending is growing way too much. Spending money on the war, and growing entitlement programs are growing the debt. My opinion is everything would be better if we slashed alot of the spending, especially the military expenditure. | ||
|
caution.slip
United States775 Posts
| ||
|
Louder
United States2276 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Science - $8.90 (Space program and general science + basic research... is this where the internet came from clutch?) Nope, it would've come from defense/military spending. A lot of technology comes from defense first.We spend a lot of money on old people, but they're the ones that vote. | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
On June 23 2008 02:38 kemoryan wrote: "2. The Internal Revenue Code is not Law There is a distinction between "positive law" and "prima facie law." Positive law is law. Prima facie law appears to be law, but isn't. The Internal Revenue Code consists of administrative rules, not law. If you examine the title page of the United States Code, you will find that some "titles" are preceded by an asterisk (*), and some not. The legend states. "* This title has been enacted as positive law." There is no asterisk in front of Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code) because Title 26 is not law. The Internal Revenue Code couldn't be enacted into positive law, because it would violate the U.S. Constitution which prohibits direct taxes on individuals. This is one reason why the IRS resorts to deception and terror-tactics to brainwash people that they have to pay income taxes." Really, it's time for you to shut up An interesting article about trying to print your way out of debt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation During the German hyperinflation (during which a dollar was worth 4 trillion marks), money was more valuable as fire fuel than to spend. Yes, lets just print more money! That will solve everything  | ||
|
Alizee-
United States845 Posts
Also the federal reserve is a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE issue that is never given any attention. It is the sketchiest thing that deals with our government. Congress allows them to exist, but at the same time they aren't part of the government and in fact a lot of people involved in the federal reserve are foreign entities. They set our monetary policy and as a result due to such extreme influence, in a sense, control the printing of money. They don't print it, but notice on the dollar it says federal reserve bank note. JFK signed executive order 11110 which stripped the power of the federal reserve from printing money and instead switched it to US Treasury silver backed notes. However..as we all know he got killed, but the implications were that the federal reserve was stripped of its power. Instead with our current system everything they print money we use it and to use that money we pay them back WITH INTEREST. So if they print 1 million dollars, we pay back the 1 million dollars with interest. That interest goes to foreign entities or just more or less aristocratic americans. Its not a matter of conspiracy really, I mean I don't see it as the whole hey we're gonna take over the world and summon the devil, yadda yadda yadda, but these are very real issues that people negate to go into. They say well I guess I DO have to pay income tax oh well let's stop there and that's not really the big issue. Taxes make sense, I can't pay for a road by myself so if the community puts in money we have a road. What DOESN'T make sense is giving money for someone to profit off of. Also if we didn't spend so much on military we wouldn't really need an income tax, but our federal government keeps getting bigger. Thankfully Oklahoma ordered a cease and desist to the federal government saying if your power isn't explicitly granted in the constitution, so its a state's right GET OUT! Hope you all learned something or I provoked a thought. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
tec27
United States3702 Posts
On June 23 2008 02:30 jwd241224 wrote: This is called generating inflation and it's one of the worst economic problems plaguing developing economies as I write this post. Governments go into massive debt and think they can pay their way out by printing money - unfortunately, flooding the market with so much currency drives its value down and makes basic goods hard to afford. Also, the Federal Reserve is one of the most responsible economic institutions in the world. It regulates money flow according to a strict set of economic rules, not politics. With a board of the world's best economists and its own system of checks and balances (regional, national levels of power) the Fed is very capable of balancing controlling inflation with encouraging economic growth. Then there's the fact that in the 1960s Milton Friedman proved that monetary policy has no long-term effects on economic growth - a position that is widely held in the Fed. How you believe that an organization made up of economists who have spent their lives proving that monetary policy has no long-term economic effects would abuse their power to control monetary policy? It wouldn't make sense. Just like most pseudo-conspiracy theories, once you take a closer look this kind of position doesn't hold up. There's a reason that we use a fiat currency controlled by the Fed - the system works. I don't see how you can use Friedman to justify the Fed. He was not for an abolishment of the Fed, but he certainly sought for more control over it. You may consider the Fed responsible, but its a fickle, mistake-prone institution that answers to no one. In good times, the Fed is lavished with compliments and praise. In bad, the Fed is seen as some kind of miracle worker that somehow just can't seem to prevent the 'downsides' of a capitalist economy. Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve System certainly isn't as infallible as most believe. Friedman on the Great Depression in relation to the Fed: If the pre-1914 banking system rather than the Federal Reserve System had been in existence in 1929, the money stock almost certainly would not have undergone a decline comparable to the one that occurred….It also would have cut short the spread of the crisis, would have prevented cumulation of bank failures, and it would have made possible, as it did in 1908, economic recovery after a few months. The best improvement we could see without abolishing it entirely would be to follow Friedman's suggestion, which is to restrict the Fed to only increasing the money supply based on the rate of economic growth. | ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14910 Posts
On June 23 2008 03:40 Skye_MyO wrote: Okay I had enough of people guessing what the taxes pay for so I went to have a look myself, msnbc had a good article outlining the spending from revenues collected from income taxes. Where do my income tax dollars go? I'll summarize for you lazy bums : An approximation, from the article US$2.7 Trillion dollars in revenue is collected annually by the income tax. As an analogy, If you made $1000 a week, Healthcare - $219.40 ($124.20 to Medicare and $95.20 to Medicaid) Social Security - $206.60 Military - $196.50 Interest On National Debt - $85.30 (it's not 100% of income tax as people would claim) Income Security - $132.70 (unemployment insurance, food and nutrition programs, housing assistance, retirement for federal workers) Education - $44.60 Science - $8.90 (Space program and general science + basic research... is this where the internet came from clutch?) Transportation - $26.50 Environment and agriculture - $22.20 Law and courts - $15.40 Disaster Relief - $17.40 Humanitarian Aid - $6.30 General Government Costs - $6.90 (getting this very data) ----- Additional facts, i'm just gonna copy and paste: So there you have it. Not all of that money came from your incomes taxes, by the way. This year individuals will pay about $1.2 trillion of the $2.7 trillion federal spending, while corporations will pay $342 billion. The rest comes form Social Security taxes ($873 billion); excises taxes ($57 billion) and other taxes and fees ($98 billion.) For everything else, there’s U.S. Treasury debt. Source : Budget of the United States Government 2008 ----- I think the big problem is government spending is growing way too much. Spending money on the war, and growing entitlement programs are growing the debt. My opinion is everything would be better if we slashed alot of the spending, especially the military expenditure. Is this if I make $1000 or if I get taxed $1000 because I don't get nearly that much removed from my paycheck | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
kemoryan
Spain1506 Posts
Excuse me? I'm only trying to prove a point here with information, I hadn't read the website someone here has pointed out which proves this law truly exists (hence my point is wrong). Now that I've read it I apologize if I sounded harsh, but the documentary seemed pretty convincing. If there's something in my post wrong, the right way to answer is by proving its wrong. You should learn some basic manners man. On June 23 2008 03:32 vGl-CoW wrote: i just saw this really interesting documentary and i will defend it to the death till another documentary says something else Am I defending it to death? This is just my third post in the subject. Can't we have a decent debate without pointless ad-hominem? | ||
|
Clutch3
United States1344 Posts
The breakdown that Skye gives is nice, but that's all government spending he's talking about. If you look at personal income taxes alone, the largest percentages are spent on the defense budget, health care, and interest. Education is mainly paid for by local property taxes and Social Security (and some health care) comes out of payroll taxes. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On June 23 2008 06:30 kemoryan wrote: There used to be another poster named gwho who always made threads about abolishing the fed, switching back to the gold standard, 9/11 conspiracies, magical cures for AIDS/diabetes that the government is hiding, etc. I think he got banned a couple weeks ago after another retarded 9/11 thread. Excuse me? I'm only trying to prove a point here with information, I hadn't read the website someone here has pointed out which proves this law truly exists (hence my point is wrong). Now that I've read it I apologize if I sounded harsh, but the documentary seemed pretty convincing. If there's something in my post wrong, the right way to answer is by proving its wrong. You should learn some basic manners man. Am I defending it to death? This is just my third post in the subject. Can't we have a decent debate without pointless ad-hominem? That is why we are tired with the Fed conspiracy theory talk. If this were the first time we'd seen this, there'd probably be 5x the amount of discussion and people proving you wrong.  You type much better than him, so maybe you aren't him. crabapple's post has gwho written all over it though. | ||
| ||
