| Forum Index > Closed |
|
VabuDeltaKaiser
Germany1107 Posts
On February 16 2010 10:15 Mindcrime wrote: You would be on firmer ground arguing that the Constitution is not legal because the Philadelphia Convention exceeded its mandate. you are free to to tell what you know, im just an amateur who never got beaten. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7239 Posts
On February 16 2010 10:10 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote: so far wikipedia is the basic of "common" knowledge. after all this is not common, so, get something new... : *The Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified *Ordinary people haven't seen the income tax law *Former IRS employees say you don't have to pay taxes *The IRS refuses to show people the law *"Tax experts" say you don't have to pay income taxes *The Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power to tax *"Income" includes only corporate gains; "income" does not include wages; "income" is not defined. *The Commissioner doesn't know the law! *Occasionally tax protestors win cases text information: http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm randomly googled this case, maybe americans with experience in legal coincidences backup! video information: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173# so far, i know, americans are fooled by tax, and it's a threat to freedom of life, capitalism and justice. edit: btw most quotes are from a anti site, although in their arguement completely ignoring russos points. so you have to work did you not read this? | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On February 15 2010 08:19 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote: so you are completely ignoring the op, ignoring me, and ignoring the question for just showing the law that forces you to pay income taxes. just the law, basic data where, when and how that happened. should be easy. did you read `? so if you did can you answere? You do realize that I posted the law right? -_- | ||
|
mangomango
United States265 Posts
| ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
I'm going to put this in pretty plain english. The following picture demonstrates how things work: ![[image loading]](http://i48.tinypic.com/muafpd.jpg) The above illustration was implemented in a big way in 1913 with the creation of the FED and income tax. The way a central bank works is this: they agree to give the government an unlimited amount of money if in turn the government uses its force to compel citizens to accept the bank's paper money, all the while the bank is allowed to commit fraud via fractional reserve banking. This devious alliance benefits each party in the following way: Government - the government is given federal reserve notes in exchange for bonds. Now, the government does not need to raise taxes on the people to get money. They can fund whatever they want by selling bonds. (The term "bond" refers to being bound or enlsaved.) This of course causes inflation, a hidden and unstoppable tax. Banks - the banks get an even better deal. There are a couple parts here: 1) They have the power to create money and buy bonds with it. 2) Their money is mandated by the government to be payments on all debt ("this note is legal tender for all debts"). Therefore, they get a monopoly on the money supply. 3) They use fractional reserve banking to multiply this money supply, and interest on loans to put interest on the money supply. Those three things mean that bankers collect interest on the entire money supply. And the security on their investment is good: They have a government which can collect taxes to pay them, and they also have the collateral of all the loans created (this is the wealth of the nation). You think bailing out fannie may and freddie mac was an act of goodness? I have a question: how come the fed owns millions of homes? What did the fed produce to secure that kind of massive wealth? People think politics and the government is good, evil, incompetent, or a massive conspiracy. Its not about the government at all, and any government is completely doomed if it has a central bank, fractional reserve banking, and debt-based money system. Why did they pass an amendment to tax our labor? Thats slavery, by definition. But they needed it as collateral for their central bank. | ||
|
Rothbardian
United States497 Posts
Oh, the law exists, but if you actually read the definitions the 16th Amendment only effects a very very small amount of people. www.losthorizons.com Peter Hendrickson is correct. Anyone can look this up by reading the US code yourself. Besides, even if it was "legal", theft is never legal, or moral. It's a shame what they did to Ed and Elaine Brown, Irwin Schiff, and the rest of the tax resistance movement (aka, don't steal from me, motherfuckers). | ||
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
16th amendment... The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. The 16th amendment is a mandate for the government to lay and collect taxes. There's nothing in it stating how or from who the tax is supposed to be collected. Anyone who's arguing that the income tax is unconstitutional is full of shit. Anyone who believes that the tax code is flawed, retarded, and needs to be revised knows what they're talking about. | ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On February 16 2010 10:57 Rothbardian wrote: Oh, the law exists, but if you actually read the definitions the 16th Amendment only effects a very very small amount of people. Yes... it only *noun* a very very small amount of people. Good job with credibility thar. | ||
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On February 16 2010 11:10 Mystlord wrote: Fuck this thread needs to die. I don't know, it's kind of useful as an "idiot catcher" for TL. Sits in the left sidebar and morons are attracted to it like flies to a light. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
It's just like flat-earthers(who yes like the name implies believes the earth is flat) and people who don't believe the US landed on the moon etc. No matter what the evidence is the choose to believe other wise. I feel sorry for anyone who tries to tell those people other wise as this emocon clearly shows how it will go.  | ||
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
| ||
|
Rothbardian
United States497 Posts
On February 16 2010 11:10 Mystlord wrote: Fuck this thread needs to die. 16th amendment... The 16th amendment is a mandate for the government to lay and collect taxes. There's nothing in it stating how or from who the tax is supposed to be collected. Anyone who's arguing that the income tax is unconstitutional is full of shit. Anyone who believes that the tax code is flawed, retarded, and needs to be revised knows what they're talking about. Yes, the tax code is flawed, it is inherent in its intent. Abolish theft. However, looking at it in the Constitutional aspect, you overlook this: Section I Article 8 (The only legislative powers of the Federal Government): The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; You really think you can have contradictory law? The signing of the Constitution supercedes any amendments (Ergo, Sec 1 Article 8). I also want to throw this in. The 1828 Definition of Welfare: According to the 1828 version of Websters, welfare means: "2. exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to States. Today' Websters dictionary defines welfare: "receiving government aid because of poverty, etc. One can type in words like democracy, welfare, republic, democratic republic....and compare it with today's dictionary with shocking results. http://machaut.uchicago.edu/websters Thomas Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." George Washington summed it best in his farewell speech: "Let there be no change [in the Constitution] by usurpation. For though this, in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." The US was formed on the basis of the Lockean propertarian basis of Natural Law. To sanction mass theft and an unlimited Central Authority is antithesis to the law, and intent of the Constitution (Even though the Constitution usurped the AoC which were far better in the strict Social Contract sense). This is coming from an Anarcho-Capitalist by the way. | ||
|
Rothbardian
United States497 Posts
On February 16 2010 11:13 ghrur wrote: Yes... it only *noun* a very very small amount of people. Good job with credibility thar. Effect: something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On February 16 2010 11:44 Rothbardian wrote: Effect: something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence I think he means you should have used the word affect, but lets fill this thread up with semantic posts, its a difficult enough subject already. | ||
|
BalloonFight
United States2007 Posts
On February 16 2010 11:46 fight_or_flight wrote: I think he means you should have used the word affect, but lets fill this thread up with semantic posts, its a difficult enough subject already. Yes, it's what he means, but it's funny because he's wrong. Effect and affect being separate is an anachronistic implementation. And using effect as a verb has never been wrong, it just has a slightly, subtly different meaning. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On February 16 2010 11:43 Rothbardian wrote: Yes, the tax code is flawed, it is inherent in its intent. Abolish theft. However, looking at it in the Constitutional aspect, you overlook this: Section I Article 8 (The only legislative powers of the Federal Government): The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; You really think you can have contradictory law? The signing of the Constitution supercedes any amendments (Ergo, Sec 1 Article 8). No... just no. The most recent amendments override anything to the contrary elsewhere in the Constitution. The apportionment requirement on income tax is just as dead as the fugitive slave clause and the selection of Senators by state legislatures. | ||
|
Rothbardian
United States497 Posts
On February 16 2010 12:02 Mindcrime wrote: No... just no. The most recent amendments override anything to the contrary elsewhere in the Constitution. The apportionment requirement on income tax is just as dead as the fugitive slave clause and the selection of Senators by state legislatures. Except you are wrong: Amendments to certain aspects of Article One, unlike amendments to other articles, are explicitly restricted by the Constitution (these restrictions are imposed by Article Five). For example, no amendment made prior to 1808 could affect the first and fourth clauses of Section Nine. The first clause prevented Congress from prohibiting the slave trade until 1808; the fourth barred any direct taxes that were not apportioned among the States according to population. Article 5: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. Try again, please. I used to be a strict constructionist Constitutionalist before I realized the illogical, and folly of Social Contract Theory & the violation of Natural Law which is inherent in any State. | ||
|
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On February 16 2010 11:48 BalloonFight wrote: Yes, it's what he means, but it's funny because he's wrong. Effect and affect being separate is an anachronistic implementation. And using effect as a verb has never been wrong, it just has a slightly, subtly different meaning. what the fuck are you talking about…ghrur was completely correct. Yes "effect" can be used as a verb, but its "subtly different meaning" makes no sense in the context that Rothbardian used it. The proper word in that context is "affect". I'll throw some examples out so that innocent bystanders aren't confused by you idiots in this thread: "The 16th Amendment affects all Americans" means that the 16th Amendment has an effect on all Americans. "I effected a change of policy" means that I caused or brought about a change in policy, note that this meaning is different than that of "affects". | ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14894 Posts
| ||
|
JWD
United States12607 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 Stormgate Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
PiGosaur Monday
WardiTV Summer Champion…
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
Online Event
SC Evo League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Contender
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
