|
On June 23 2008 06:30 kemoryan wrote:
Can't we have a decent debate without pointless ad-hominem?
The debate is over. You went from the government having no legal basis to collect income tax to this thin matter of semantics, a matter I would like to add you're on the wrong side of anyway. The idea of postive law is an academic one, and even if it isn't "positive" law, it's still damn well legal for the government to collect a tax and put people in prison who refuse to pay. You also clearly have no fucking idea what prima facie means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie
So I say again. Shut up. There's no laws here, positive or otherwise, requiring civility. When a flame is called for, I provide it with relish. You're a misguided sophist and you're wasting everybody's time with your bullshit legal mumbo jumbo. You think if you throw some unsourced claims and fancy latin around then people will pause and consider it, but it's just crock like everything I've seen you say so far.
So shut your damn mouth and stop complaining about the income tax. You would have done much better opening a rational deb ate abou tthe income tax, rather than chargin out of the gate like a bumbling ass claiming that it's an illegal tax.
|
On June 23 2008 06:47 Jibba 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. 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.
Well I'm definitely not this guy you are talking about and in no way I'm looking for a ban nor I'm a brainless conspiracist. And I can also assure you that I searched about the subject in this forum before posting.
Having said that this thread now remains useless since my point has been proven wrong.
I guess teamliquid is not the most appropriate forum for these matters
On June 23 2008 06:57 GeneralStan wrote:The debate is over. You went from the government having no legal basis to collect income tax to this thin matter of semantics, a matter I would like to add you're on the wrong side of anyway. The idea of postive law is an academic one, and even if it isn't "positive" law, it's still damn well legal for the government to collect a tax and put people in prison who refuse to pay. You also clearly have no fucking idea what prima facie means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facieSo I say again. Shut up. There's no laws here, positive or otherwise, requiring civility. When a flame is called for, I provide it with relish. You're a misguided sophist and you're wasting everybody's time with your bullshit legal mumbo jumbo. You think if you throw some unsourced claims and fancy latin around then people will pause and consider it, but it's just crock like everything I've seen you say so far. So shut your damn mouth and stop complaining about the income tax. You would have done much better opening a rational deb ate abou tthe income tax, rather than chargin out of the gate like a bumbling ass claiming that it's an illegal tax.
Man this subject seems to distress you a bit too much... wonder why.
No hard feelings though 
|
Oh God this subject can be debated for years with pros and cons in each way....I'm not even going to comment on some shit I just read b/c at the end my opinion is just some mexican ass voice that pays taxes.....I rest my case....
|
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
You'll notice that it relies heavily upon supreme court rulings and commentary.
A basic premise of the tax protesters is that the supreme court is a corrupt body which has repeatedly ignored its proper role of interpreting the constitution honestly, in favor of dishonestly twisting the constitution to suit the political agendas of the justices.
This is essentially true.
He makes an excellent case that all relevant institutions of the present federal government support the power of the federal government to impose the income tax.
However, his case that the constitution as written does not forbid income taxes is scattered and weak.
I will give an example:
One common mistake made by tax protesters is in assuming that the phrase “Capitation, or other direct, Tax” in the Constitution is a reference to any tax that is collected “directly” from the person on whom it is imposed, while “indirect” taxes such as “Duties, Imposts and Excises” are collected on goods during manufacture, or in transit, and the ultimate burden is passed along to someone else (usually the consumer). That is a definition of “direct” and “indirect” that is frequently used by economists, but it is not the meaning of “direct” and “indirect” that has been applied by the U.S. Supreme Court.
His argument that "direct" taxes may be collected is that the Supreme Court said so. Just like the Supreme Court said that the 2nd amendment has no bearing on gun control, and the 14th amendment guarantees the right to have abortions (but only some abortions).
Nobody is disputing, "The Supreme Court said so." They are disputing, "If the Supreme Court says that red is green, then red is green, so there."
Tax protesters who take action based on their theories, or encourage others to do so, are stupid and dangerous. They're also wrong in principle: the 16th amendment was ratified honestly, though sloppily, and clearly grants the power to collect income tax. Their argument is a cavil.
However, the Supreme Court deserves less respect and more censure. It is absurd that in the entire history of the body, only one was impeached, and he was acquitted.
|
|
|
|
|
On June 23 2008 02:25 kemoryan wrote:
Hawk, you probably haven't read my whole post, and I'm sure you haven't even taken a look at the documentary.
The public services are paid WITH OTHER kind of taxes, such as local or indirect taxes. There is no correspondence between the money government spends in public services and the federal income tax.
Your post just shows how intolerant and ignorant your reactions are when someone attacks the illusion of freedom of your country.
No one is more slave than the slave ones who believe are free...
Actually YOUR post just shows your gullibility in believing lies. If you really care to research it, use google, and you'll see that income taxes are in fact legal. Why do people LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE conspiracy theories?
|
some one tried to create a bash the USA bandwagon thread and failed. these type of threads get old.. and do nothing but brain wash the little kids that read this shit with conspiracy theorys..
|
Sydney2287 Posts
On June 23 2008 02:20 crabapple wrote:and the founding fathers were against direct taxation too. and yes, they can pay off the debt if they wanted to. we have the power to fucking print the money/increase credit and we do it all the time.but wait, the one in charge of our money supply is the FED for some reason. and they are also the ones making interest profit off the american gov by propping up the principle deficit. it's all about control and more control. a few people in congress are sane about money though. http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=117
Are you for real?
|
Income tax is unapportioned and thus unconstitutional.
16th ammendment came about after the tax was already implemented: "We've become accustomed to garnering this money from you, and we'd be fucked without it at this point, so now we are going to make it officially legal. Hello # 16!"
The whole thing should be thrown out and reimplemented legally.
|
Poll: Do you pay income taxes?
(Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): Adhominem
|
Good luck with not paying your taxes. I am sure the judge at your court hearing (if you get one) will totally understand.
|
On June 23 2008 15:06 HeadBangaa wrote:
Income tax is unapportioned and thus unconstitutional.
16th ammendment came about after the tax was already implemented: "We've become accustomed to garnering this money from you, and we'd be fucked without it at this point, so now we are going to make it officially legal. Hello # 16!"
The whole thing should be thrown out and reimplemented legally.
...such as by adding a 16th amendment to the constitution?
|
On June 23 2008 06:58 kemoryan wrote:Man this subject seems to distress you a bit too much... wonder why. No hard feelings though
No, stupid wrong people who insist they're right distress me
|
On June 23 2008 15:06 HeadBangaa wrote:
Income tax is unapportioned and thus unconstitutional.
16th Amendment
16th ammendment came about after the tax was already implemented: "We've become accustomed to garnering this money from you, and we'd be fucked without it at this point, so now we are going to make it officially legal. Hello # 16!"
You're wrong. The modern income tax came in 1913 after the ratification of the 16th amendment. There was no sort of federal income tax between 1895 and 1913. And the various forms of income tax between 1861 and 1895 were very, very limited in scope.
The whole thing should be thrown out and reimplemented legally.
It's already legal.
|
Ron Paul was all about this kind of shit, he got 3% of the vote or some shit.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
to everyone on the freakshow side of the fence:
GO TO WORK AND SHUT UP
|
|
|
On June 24 2008 02:39 Funchucks wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2008 15:06 HeadBangaa wrote:
Income tax is unapportioned and thus unconstitutional.
16th ammendment came about after the tax was already implemented: "We've become accustomed to garnering this money from you, and we'd be fucked without it at this point, so now we are going to make it officially legal. Hello # 16!"
The whole thing should be thrown out and reimplemented legally. ...such as by adding a 16th amendment to the constitution?
They'd been collecting the tax for some time at that point. The government had come to expect it and budgeted for it.
If it (the illegal income tax) had been properly opposed in the first place, the government would not have budgeted for it, and the 16th amendment (the legitimizer) would've been subject to much more scrutiny.
I'm not making an argument for or against the concept of an income tax. I'm saying, our current tax system was formed illegally, and legitimized on the basis of acclimation. This is manipulative legislative practice. Point being, I sincerely believe the 16th amendment would've failed if the tax had not already been (illegally) implemented.
It's a totally valid point and a lot of people agree with me on this.
Regardless, I do pay my income tax.
|
On June 24 2008 07:44 CharlieMurphy wrote:
Ron Paul was all about this kind of shit, he got 3% of the vote or some shit.
Ron Paul was marginalized by his own party. He's a victim of the two-party system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
