|
So I've been watching some very interesting documentaries which prove that there is no federal law in the US that forces a citizen to pay a tax for its wages (labour).
I wanted to know what you think about it (and specially americans). Did you know that people are illegally sent to jail for not paying income tax? And that the tax that you pay is not actually used to redistribute wealth or any kind of public service, but they give it to the Federal Reserve (PRIVATE financial entity) to pay the debt.
Why isn't this on your (or any other countries') mass media?
It's so spine-chilling, I mean US is supposed to represent freedom... so where's the freedom in that... and worst of all, why are there so few people who complain about it?
This is one of the documenatries:
http://www.documentarywire.com/america-from-freedom-to-fascism/
|
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
|
I DONT WANNA PAY INCOME TAX, BUT I SURE LIKE USING ALL THESE PUBLIC ROADWAYS, SEWER SYSTEM, WATER, SCHOOL SYSTEMS, ETC.
This is up there with the 9/11 bullshit.
|
On June 23 2008 02:20 Hawk wrote:
I DONT WANNA PAY INCOME TAX, BUT I SURE LIKE USING ALL THESE PUBLIC ROADWAYS, SEWER SYSTEM, WATER, SCHOOL SYSTEMS, ETC.
This is up there with the 9/11 bullshit.
QFT.
|
Does this mean that Al Capone was illegaly imprisoned?
|
wait.. isn't the fed good?
|
On June 23 2008 02:20 Hawk wrote:
I DONT WANNA PAY INCOME TAX, BUT I SURE LIKE USING ALL THESE PUBLIC ROADWAYS, SEWER SYSTEM, WATER, SCHOOL SYSTEMS, ETC.
This is up there with the 9/11 bullshit.
that's the thing though, we can have all that public road service water and etc. BUT IT DOESN:T COST THAT MUCH. and it's certainly insane to keep paying interest. that's a big leak in the bucket.
we actually pay wayyy more.
|
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...
|
On June 23 2008 02:20 Hawk wrote:
I DONT WANNA PAY INCOME TAX, BUT I SURE LIKE USING ALL THESE PUBLIC ROADWAYS, SEWER SYSTEM, WATER, SCHOOL SYSTEMS, ETC.
This is up there with the 9/11 bullshit.
Stop defending our government, you fool. They take everything and give us nothing we can't provide for ourselves.
|
|
|
United States12607 Posts
On June 23 2008 02:20 crabapple wrote:
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.
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 prefer trolling to actually explaining why the op is an idiot, but trav and jwd did it pretty good~
|
On June 23 2008 02:20 crabapple wrote:
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.
You couldn't pay off debt to other countries with this method though, right?
|
This really says it all. Don't forget also that the 16th Amendment also directly grants Congress the power to collect an income tax.
You can make an argument that an incomme tax isn't the way to go, but trying to make a legal backing for that view is absurd to the max
|
|
|
there absolutely is law requiring income tax payment
i dunno how else to say this, but that documentary is just flat out wrong. i GUARANTEE if there was a way you could avoid paying income taxes on wages, people would do it. there are great ways to get tax breaks, and there is a ton of literature of ways to write off things related to your business/property expenses.
but come on... no requirement to pay income taxes... i dunno where people get this stuff T.T
|
Didn't Wesley Snipes get wrecked recently trying to work through this loophole?
|
On June 23 2008 02:35 GeneralStan wrote:This really says it all. Don't forget also that the 16th Amendment also directly grants Congress the power to collect an income tax. You can make an argument that an incomme tax isn't the way to go, but trying to make a legal backing for that view is absurd to the max
"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."
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 23 2008 02:34 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2008 02:20 crabapple wrote:
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.
You couldn't pay off debt to other countries with this method though, right?
You can, but it creates super inflation. 9 trillion more dollars created means each dollar is worth less, so the price of everything skyrockets. Eastern Europe and South America are filled with examples.
As for the OP, I think gwho registered a new account.
Then there's the fact that in the 1960s Milton Friedman proved that monetary policy has no long-term effects on economic growth He theorized. Big, big, enormous difference. Even very accurate theories are rarely proven in the world of social sciences.
|
I do think you may be correct Mr. Jibba.
|
|
|
United States12607 Posts
On June 23 2008 02:39 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +Then there's the fact that in the 1960s Milton Friedman proved that monetary policy has no long-term effects on economic growth 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.
|
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.
|
On June 23 2008 02:30 jwd241224 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2008 02:20 crabapple wrote:
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.
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.
|
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.
|
Belgium8305 Posts
i just saw this really interesting documentary and i will defend it to the death till another documentary says something else
|
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.
|
it sounds like we should slash social security, thats 20%!
|
We should look at Finland for how to use tax dollars effectively. The US tax system is just as corrupt as the rest of our government.
|
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.
|
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 
|
I'll give my input as I've researched it a good amount, written an essay on it, and so forth. There is no clear answer as to whether or not its legal, yes the 16th amendment does appear to make it legal, but there are some issues with the actual passing of that amendment. However, one thing to point out, the things you're commonly in defense of like roads and sewers are paid for by what a lot of states use, which is the personal property tax(house, car, boat, etc.)
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.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On June 23 2008 02:30 jwd241224 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2008 02:20 crabapple wrote:
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.
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.
|
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
|
United States22883 Posts
It's a % breakdown of where tax dollars go to. Health care gets 21.94%, etc.
|
On June 23 2008 04:09 GeneralStan wrote:Show nested quote +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
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?
|
I agree, the defense budget is insane. It should be at most 1/3 of what it is. And of course the war in Iraq is a huge blunder which will end up costing over $1 trillion (in direct spending, more if indirect effects are concerned).
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.
|
Fyi, Congress could tax income before the 16th amendment was ratified. What the 16th amendment did was lift the apportionment requirement.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 23 2008 06:30 kemoryan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2008 04:09 GeneralStan wrote: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 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. Show nested quote +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? 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.
|
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.
|
On June 24 2008 07:50 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
to everyone on the freakshow side of the fence:
GO TO WORK AND SHUT UP
Excuse me, the Americans are trying to have a discussion here. Thanks.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On June 24 2008 08:06 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2008 07:50 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
to everyone on the freakshow side of the fence:
GO TO WORK AND SHUT UP Excuse me, the Americans are trying to have a discussion here. Thanks.
maybe the americans should SHUT UP AND GO TO WORK
|
On June 24 2008 08:37 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2008 08:06 HeadBangaa wrote:On June 24 2008 07:50 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
to everyone on the freakshow side of the fence:
GO TO WORK AND SHUT UP Excuse me, the Americans are trying to have a discussion here. Thanks. maybe the americans should SHUT UP AND GO TO WORK
just wow. popping nuts here huh? 
|
Why should I go to work when they take all my goddamn money and give it to the mexicans and welfare babies?
|
On June 23 2008 02:15 kemoryan wrote:So I've been watching some very interesting documentaries which prove that there is no federal law in the US that forces a citizen to pay a tax for its wages (labour). I wanted to know what you think about it (and specially americans). Did you know that people are illegally sent to jail for not paying income tax? And that the tax that you pay is not actually used to redistribute wealth or any kind of public service, but they give it to the Federal Reserve (PRIVATE financial entity) to pay the debt. Why isn't this on your (or any other countries') mass media? It's so spine-chilling, I mean US is supposed to represent freedom... so where's the freedom in that... and worst of all, why are there so few people who complain about it? This is one of the documenatries: http://www.documentarywire.com/america-from-freedom-to-fascism/
There is definitely a gray area. However, don't be fooled by these "documentaries" that are telling you it's a simple issue.
The whole thing is somewhat shaky and the law isn't clear on it. Most of the people who bitch about it are the same ones who think the Jewish banking cartel runs the world. In other words, nut cases.
|
On June 24 2008 08:04 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2008 02:39 Funchucks wrote: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.
No, they hadn't.
|
|
|
As I said before, the modern federal income tax was implemented in 1913 after the passage of the 16th amendment. Before that, there had not been a federal income tax since the 1895 when the manner in which that particular income tax was collected was struck down as unconstitutional.
|
|
|
On June 23 2008 06:47 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2008 06:30 kemoryan wrote:On June 23 2008 04:09 GeneralStan wrote: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 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? 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.
yea but then again, there was tech~psylo who was into the 9/11 conspiracy shit too, and he knew a lot more about world politics than basically 99% of the people flaming him in the thread 
|
The government needs income tax to hide the fact that they have the cure for AIDS, diabetes, andromeda strain, anthrax (wtf??), cancer, sickle cell anemia, oldness, post traumatic shock, and death.
(USER WAS CANNED FOR THIS ROAST)
|
|
|
This has been proven a myth time and time again, of course you have to pay income tax.
|
The same guy who said 9/11 was a fraud. Oh my. Why necro this thread?
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
|
what a joke
i find it hilarious that people can believe something that's so easily disproven by, say, reading the damn thing yourself
|
On June 23 2008 02:20 Hawk wrote:
I DONT WANNA PAY INCOME TAX, BUT I SURE LIKE USING ALL THESE PUBLIC ROADWAYS, SEWER SYSTEM, WATER, SCHOOL SYSTEMS, ETC.
This is up there with the 9/11 bullshit.
QFT
|
I guarantee you everyone in this thread saying it's real that you don't have to pay taxes are paying taxes (unless they don't have income).
|
On February 02 2010 10:32 vRoOk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2008 02:20 Hawk wrote:
I DONT WANNA PAY INCOME TAX, BUT I SURE LIKE USING ALL THESE PUBLIC ROADWAYS, SEWER SYSTEM, WATER, SCHOOL SYSTEMS, ETC.
This is up there with the 9/11 bullshit. QFT
There are many more ways you pay the government outside of income tax. A rich person who owns a mansion pays more in property tax per year than a lower-class person pays in income tax.
|
On June 23 2008 02:59 Skye_MyO wrote:
I personally the view the income tax as a repugnant form of theft from the government.
I don't think it's as bad as the invisible taxation imposed on us by them printing money (bailout) which devalues the money we already have. We lose money, they get money but no one notices. At least income tax is straight forward and not hidden
|
What does it matter if it's a law or not? The government does what it wants.
|
On June 24 2008 14:13 Mindcrime wrote:
As I said before, the modern federal income tax was implemented in 1913 after the passage of the 16th amendment. Before that, there had not been a federal income tax since the 1895 when the manner in which that particular income tax was collected was struck down as unconstitutional.
Here's a Supreme Court Case regarding the 16th Amendment:
MILES, Chief Judge.
Defendants were indicted on March 7, 1985 on seven counts of tax
evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. s 7201, and seven counts of failure to
file income tax returns in violation of 26 U.S.C. s 7203. Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on April 12, 1985, claiming that
the sixteenth amendment which grants Congress the power to lay taxes was
never properly ratified, and that as a result, all laws that have been
passed pursuant to the authority granted by the sixteenth amendment are
null and void.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:
No Capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration….
As contemplated by the Founders, direct taxes were required to be levied according to the rule of apportionment while indirect taxes were required to be levied according to the rule of uniformity. Thus, anytime Congress attempted to impose a direct tax; it was required to apportion the tax among the States according to the rule of apportionment.
From the Independent Party's Website
Taxes
The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States."
In Article I, Section 9, the original document made clear that "no Capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." It is moreover established that "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
Since 1913, our Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property have been abridged and diminished by the imposition on each of us of Federal income, payroll, and estate taxes. This is an unconstitutional Federal assumption of direct taxing authority.
The Internal Revenue Service is the enforcement arm of the Federal government's present unjust tax system. Citizens, both in groups and as individuals, have repeatedly sought responses from the IRS bureaucracy as to the basis for the agency's tax policies and procedures. No answers have been forthcoming although a responsible government must be answerable to the people and has a duty to those it is supposed to serve.
We propose legislation to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, and will veto any authorization, appropriation, or continuing resolution which contains any funding whatsoever for that illicit and unconstitutional agency. We are opposed to the flat-rate tax, national sales tax, and value added tax proposals that are being promoted as an improvement to the current tax system. The Sixteenth Amendment does not provide authority for an un-apportioned direct tax.
Moreover, it is our intention to replace, with a tariff based revenue system supplemented by excise taxes, the current tax system of the U.S. government (including income taxes, payroll taxes, and estate taxes.)
To the degree that tariffs on foreign products, and excises, are insufficient to cover the legitimate Constitutional costs of the federal government, we will offer an apportioned "state-rate tax" in which the responsibility for covering the cost of unmet obligations will be divided among the several states in accordance with their proportion of the total population of these United States, excluding the District of Columbia. Thus, if a state contains 10 percent of the nation's citizens, it will be responsible for assuming payment of 10 percent of the annual deficit.
The effect of this "state-rate tax" will be to encourage politicians to argue for less, rather than more, federal spending, and less state spending as well.
To the extent permitted by the Constitution, we believe that the taxation of corporations is an appropriate source of government revenue. The Supreme Court has defined "income" as a "gain or increase arising from corporate activity or privilege." People are not corporations, and corporations need not be treated as "people" for the purposes of taxation.
There is substantial evidence that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. When elected, we will act to cease collection of direct Federal personal income taxes. We also support ratification of the Liberty Amendment which would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, and provide that "Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts."
We support the use of motor fuel excise taxes, at rates not in excess of those currently imposed, to be used exclusively for the erection, maintenance, and administration of Federal highways. These taxes should never be used for "demonstration projects", mass transit, or for other non-highway purposes.
We support the use of excise taxes to curb the use of tax dollars for media advertising, and to provide so-called "tax abatements," "tax incentives," and "economic development grants," which are pretexts to raid the public treasury and rob the workingman for the benefit of wealthy interests favored by the politicians.
The Sixteenth Amendment
"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 ratification of this Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court's decision in 1895 in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 1 whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States 2 was held by a divided court to be unconstitutional. A tax on incomes derived from property, 3 the Court declared, was a ''direct tax'' which Congress under the terms of Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population, although scarcely fifteen years prior the Justices had unanimously sustained 4 the collection of a similar tax during the Civil War, 5 the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had ventured to utilize this method of raising revenue. 6
During the interim between the Pollock decision in 1895 and the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the Court gave evidence of a greater awareness of the dangerous consequences to national solvency which that holding threatened, and partially circumvented the threat, either by taking refuge in redefinitions of ''direct tax'' or, and more especially, by emphasizing, virtually to the exclusion of the former, the history of excise taxation. Thus, in a series of cases, notably Nicol v. Ames, 7 Knowlton v. Moore, 8 and Patton v. Brady, 9 the Court held the following taxes to have been levied merely upon one of the ''incidents of ownership'' and hence to be excises: a tax which involved affixing revenue stamps to memoranda evidencing the sale of merchandise on commodity exchanges, an inheritance tax, and a war revenue tax upon tobacco on which the hitherto imposed excise tax had already been paid and which was held by the manufacturer for resale.
Because of such endeavors the Court thus found it possible to sustain a corporate income tax as an excise ''measured by income'' on the privilege of doing business in corporate form. The adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, however, put an end to speculation whether the Court, unaided by constitutional amendment, would persist along these lines of construction until it had reversed its holding in the Pollock case. Indeed, in its initial appraisal of the Amendment it classified income taxes as being inherently ''indirect.'' ''[T]he command of the amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived, forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imports subject to the rule of uniformity and were placed under the other or direct class.'' ''[T]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.''
There is no reason to regard the sixteenth amendment as law, nor is their a reason to believe the income tax is legal. Misunderstanding and unlawful actions by judges in lower courts, and the fact that judges in the lower courts declare Supreme Court cases as "Not Relevant" during IRS Cases against the public doesn't mean it is a law. It's a misconception/manipulation by lower courts that are putting people in jail. There have even been cases where judges have helped the IRS and stormed out of courtrooms after "Non Taxpayers" have been ruled innocent.
|
you wanna summarize that heaping wall of text?
|
Germany2896 Posts
Then take the case to the supreme court, and when they rule income tax unconstitutional we talk again.
|
On February 06 2010 06:13 CharlieMurphy wrote:
you wanna summarize that heaping wall of text?
it's all nonsense
|
I've read through the wall of text, and there are many many claims that the sixteenth amendment should be regarded as unlawful or unproperly ratified, and zero evidence.
To believe that the 16th amendment isn't valid, you have to rely assumptions, innuendo, and wriggling your way through tiny loopholes. It's ridiculous
|
On February 06 2010 06:13 MasterOfChaos wrote:
Then take the case to the supreme court, and when they rule income tax unconstitutional we talk again.
On February 06 2010 06:16 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2010 06:13 CharlieMurphy wrote:
you wanna summarize that heaping wall of text? it's all nonsense
This is all you need and a little you know logic instead of blind iteration of what some guy who claims to know shit posts in an obscure place on the internet.
The 16th amendment was ratified on February 3, 1913.
You think in 97 years and 2 days we couldn't have already taken it to court and won if it was illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
I want a Zimbabwean 100 trillion dollar bill.
|
the constitution is unconstitutional imo
|
Well, they really should introduce denomination. It happened in Poland too and it was a welcome change.
This
turned into this
|
Yay, libertarian vs non-libertarian debates.
|
I'm glad this was put up, I was just about to put it up, and for people looking for a more simple (and visual) stimulus as to what is what, here's a little 11 minute video
Please don't read into the title, its all about taxes (income namely) and I've posted it up for the main interview Aaron Russo does with the tax code author. Its in the latter half and wraps up in the first half of the next video
Here
Enjoy your Freedom!
|
|
|
Well isnt most of the U.S.A. money invest into military equipment?? Honnestly you people don't know what paying taxes is and it's not that bad to pay tax if you get good services in exchange, healthcare, school ( they could even include lower cost to go to university allowing the lower class of society to have a chance having a good education too, etc), it's more a question on how your country invest its money then how much they take you. Investing in military thing is a waste of money right now, you have one of the biggest army (if not the biggest) and your governement still put more money in it which just make no sense to me. Sorry to have intruded my lowly canadian ass in this conversation between american.
|
On June 23 2008 02:37 Day[9] wrote:
there absolutely is law requiring income tax payment
i dunno how else to say this, but that documentary is just flat out wrong. i GUARANTEE if there was a way you could avoid paying income taxes on wages, people would do it. there are great ways to get tax breaks, and there is a ton of literature of ways to write off things related to your business/property expenses.
but come on... no requirement to pay income taxes... i dunno where people get this stuff T.T
income tax should be removed. It hurts the idea of a capitalist country. and in part is of the reasons why i believe we are in such trouble.
We are not capitalist. The government intervenes way to much with business.
the income tax is from the state, there are a few states like texas who do not have income tax.
something needs to be done about this.
|
Only in America ......do people order double cheeseburgers, large fries, and a diet coke.
Only in America ......do banks leave both doors open and then chain the pens to the counters.
Only in America ......do we leave cars worth thousands of dollars in the driveway and put our useless junk in the garage.
Only in America ......do we buy hot dogs in packages of ten and buns in packages of eight.
Only in America ......do they have drive-up ATM machines with Braille lettering.
Only in America ......do people trust psychotic nut cases spreading myths.
+ Show Spoiler +No offence intended. I like the US but you have too many wackos recieving popular support :s
|
On June 24 2008 09:45 tttt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2008 02:15 kemoryan wrote:So I've been watching some very interesting documentaries which prove that there is no federal law in the US that forces a citizen to pay a tax for its wages (labour). I wanted to know what you think about it (and specially americans). Did you know that people are illegally sent to jail for not paying income tax? And that the tax that you pay is not actually used to redistribute wealth or any kind of public service, but they give it to the Federal Reserve (PRIVATE financial entity) to pay the debt. Why isn't this on your (or any other countries') mass media? It's so spine-chilling, I mean US is supposed to represent freedom... so where's the freedom in that... and worst of all, why are there so few people who complain about it? This is one of the documenatries: http://www.documentarywire.com/america-from-freedom-to-fascism/ There is definitely a gray area. However, don't be fooled by these "documentaries" that are telling you it's a simple issue. The whole thing is somewhat shaky and the law isn't clear on it. Most of the people who bitch about it are the same ones who think the Jewish banking cartel runs the world. In other words, nut cases.
they do, everyone knows it, just no one wants to admit it.
|
but yes please keep in mind, for any confusion.
the state enforces the income tax. The feds wont come after you.
the state will.
The state is also alot weaker then the fed. so i imagine doing something about it wouldn't be that difficult if you could convince enough people
|
On February 07 2010 00:09 Manit0u wrote:Well, they really should introduce denomination. It happened in Poland too and it was a welcome change. This turned into this
We sold you that coin technology. : )
|
infact, i thought it was only state income tax, not federal?
|
On February 07 2010 03:23 StarsPride wrote:
but yes please keep in mind, for any confusion.
the state enforces the income tax. The feds wont come after you.
the state will.
The state is also alot weaker then the fed. so i imagine doing something about it wouldn't be that difficult if you could convince enough people
uh
wat
|
why not change my thread instead of creating a new and close mine before anything happened.. :/
am i too bad to frontpage a serious thread ?
i feel bad about my thread close; on the other side this thread does alot more answering and respond i ever thought of. so no matter i take this personally in the good way.
|
|
|
On February 07 2010 06:23 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2010 03:23 StarsPride wrote:
but yes please keep in mind, for any confusion.
the state enforces the income tax. The feds wont come after you.
the state will.
The state is also alot weaker then the fed. so i imagine doing something about it wouldn't be that difficult if you could convince enough people uh wat
the last two lines are about vetoing the income tax in states.
the first 3 are about who enforces it.
I normally dont need to explain my self. but for trolls like you.
np
|
On June 23 2008 02:15 kemoryan wrote:So I've been watching some very interesting documentaries which prove that there is no federal law in the US that forces a citizen to pay a tax for its wages (labour). I wanted to know what you think about it (and specially americans). Did you know that people are illegally sent to jail for not paying income tax? And that the tax that you pay is not actually used to redistribute wealth or any kind of public service, but they give it to the Federal Reserve (PRIVATE financial entity) to pay the debt. Why isn't this on your (or any other countries') mass media? It's so spine-chilling, I mean US is supposed to represent freedom... so where's the freedom in that... and worst of all, why are there so few people who complain about it? This is one of the documentaries: http://www.documentarywire.com/america-from-freedom-to-fascism/
illegally send to jail for not paying income tax:
justice consists of humans, humans make mistakes if they don't have enough information.
why isnt that on mass media... hm, if you are a professor, would you even think of something that costs your whole representation, that is your job, to disappear; you will no longer be able to pay anything for your family.
complaining is showing you are weak, humans do that last. most have not the guts to complain, or just leave before they do.
|
On February 07 2010 09:49 StarsPride wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2010 06:23 Mindcrime wrote:On February 07 2010 03:23 StarsPride wrote:
but yes please keep in mind, for any confusion.
the state enforces the income tax. The feds wont come after you.
the state will.
The state is also alot weaker then the fed. so i imagine doing something about it wouldn't be that difficult if you could convince enough people uh wat the last two lines are about vetoing the income tax in states. the first 3 are about who enforces it. I normally dont need to explain my self. but for trolls like you. np
The IRS enforces the federal government's tax laws. The federal government definitely will come after you if you fail to pay your federal taxes. Ask Wesley Snipes.
|
On February 08 2010 08:23 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2010 09:49 StarsPride wrote:On February 07 2010 06:23 Mindcrime wrote:On February 07 2010 03:23 StarsPride wrote:
but yes please keep in mind, for any confusion.
the state enforces the income tax. The feds wont come after you.
the state will.
The state is also alot weaker then the fed. so i imagine doing something about it wouldn't be that difficult if you could convince enough people uh wat the last two lines are about vetoing the income tax in states. the first 3 are about who enforces it. I normally dont need to explain my self. but for trolls like you. np The IRS enforces the federal government's tax laws. The federal government definitely will come after you if you fail to pay your federal taxes. Ask Wesley Snipes.
you would be right if the federal government's tax laws exists.
!!
research the op, better.
|
On February 08 2010 08:43 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2010 08:23 Mindcrime wrote:On February 07 2010 09:49 StarsPride wrote:On February 07 2010 06:23 Mindcrime wrote:On February 07 2010 03:23 StarsPride wrote:
but yes please keep in mind, for any confusion.
the state enforces the income tax. The feds wont come after you.
the state will.
The state is also alot weaker then the fed. so i imagine doing something about it wouldn't be that difficult if you could convince enough people uh wat the last two lines are about vetoing the income tax in states. the first 3 are about who enforces it. I normally dont need to explain my self. but for trolls like you. np The IRS enforces the federal government's tax laws. The federal government definitely will come after you if you fail to pay your federal taxes. Ask Wesley Snipes. you would be right if the federal government's tax laws exists. !! research the op, better.
you are dumb
|
On February 08 2010 08:44 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2010 08:43 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote:On February 08 2010 08:23 Mindcrime wrote:On February 07 2010 09:49 StarsPride wrote:On February 07 2010 06:23 Mindcrime wrote:On February 07 2010 03:23 StarsPride wrote:
but yes please keep in mind, for any confusion.
the state enforces the income tax. The feds wont come after you.
the state will.
The state is also alot weaker then the fed. so i imagine doing something about it wouldn't be that difficult if you could convince enough people uh wat the last two lines are about vetoing the income tax in states. the first 3 are about who enforces it. I normally dont need to explain my self. but for trolls like you. np The IRS enforces the federal government's tax laws. The federal government definitely will come after you if you fail to pay your federal taxes. Ask Wesley Snipes. you would be right if the federal government's tax laws exists. !! research the op, better. you are dumb
excuse me, i had been emotional.
research.
and get banned pls.
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
.............................................................................
|
Have you ever tried Google? I don't know if you've heard of this website, but if you want to know about some information, you can just type in the topic, and it brings up a bunch of links! It's totally amazing!!
The Constitution was amended in 1913, allowing Congress to impose an income tax.
The Treasury Department website has a history of taxes in the United States.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
The titles specifying penalties for not paying your taxes are easily found on the IRS Website.
http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=106790,00.html
So YES there are laws governing taxes and the enforcement of said taxes. Whether or not they are fair is a completely different story, but it is now a Constitutional right of Congress to impose an income tax.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code
"The Internal Revenue Code (or IRC; more formally, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended) is the main body of domestic statutory tax law of the United States organized topically, including laws covering the income tax (see Income tax in the United States), payroll taxes, gift taxes, estate taxes and statutory excise taxes. The Internal Revenue Code is published as Title 26 of the United States Code (USC), and is also known as the internal revenue title. Its governing authority is the Internal Revenue Service."
United States Code:
"The United States Code is the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States based on what is printed in the Statutes at Large. It is divided by broad subjects into 50 titles and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives."
Legality of IRS
"The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner has general superintendence of the assessment and collection of all taxes imposed by any law providing internal revenue. The Internal Revenue Service is the agency by which these functions are performed."
26 C.F.R., Title 26, Volume 20, Section 601.101 (a).
Federal income tax is legal. The IRS is legal. And even if it weren't, it's not going away any time soon.
|
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
|
|
|
You would be on firmer ground arguing that the Constitution is not legal because the Philadelphia Convention exceeded its mandate.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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?
-_-
|
Okay, but they are not letting people play WOW in jail anymore so are you willing to risk them not letting you play BW or SCII? Just pay your taxes and play your games; nobody gets hurt, kapeesh?
|
I have no time/energy for a debate, but I just wanted to let everyone know what the federal income tax is.
I'm going to put this in pretty plain english. The following picture demonstrates how things work:
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.
|
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
Fuck this thread needs to die.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
It's clearly become a beliefs vs logic thread
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.
|
Calgary25986 Posts
Ok, I'm not going to pay my taxes this year. If you are with me, join my petition by stating your full name, address of residence, and amount of tax you are not paying below:
|
On February 16 2010 11:10 Mystlord wrote:Fuck this thread needs to die. 16th amendment... Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On February 16 2010 11:13 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Effect:
something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence
|
On February 16 2010 11:44 Rothbardian wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2010 11:13 ghrur wrote: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. 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.
|
On February 16 2010 11:46 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2010 11:44 Rothbardian wrote:On February 16 2010 11:13 ghrur wrote: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. 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.
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.
|
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.
|
On February 16 2010 12:02 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
United States12607 Posts
On February 16 2010 11:48 BalloonFight wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2010 11:46 fight_or_flight wrote:On February 16 2010 11:44 Rothbardian wrote:On February 16 2010 11:13 ghrur wrote: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. 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. 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".
|
why is this thread still alive ><
|
United States12607 Posts
I had better leave this thread before Rothbardian posts again, reading this crap is tortuous LOL
|
On February 16 2010 12:02 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I didn't mention it in my post above because I thought it would be too complicated for people, but the direct election of senators was the third big thing that happened in 1913.
Direct election of senators allowed certain senators campaigns to be financed, and more importantly, it made the federal government autonomous from the states. Since the states could no longer put in a senator that would emphasize strong states' rights, it allowed the senate to have more freedom to create a strong federal government. It also allowed them to control the way the federal $$ would be spent, which were shortly available with the fed/income tax combo.
Notice that we've been in almost continuous wars since 1913. It takes money to wage war, and war is actually almost impossible to wage without massive loans. These loans generate large returns on those who give them, and war in general is very profitable.
|
On February 16 2010 12:08 Rothbardian wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2010 12:02 Mindcrime wrote: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. 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.
Are we living in a time before 1808?
This is totally irrelevant.
|
On February 16 2010 12:12 JWD wrote:
I had better leave this thread before Rothbardian posts again, reading this crap is tortuous LOL
|
Korea (South)11584 Posts
this thread makes me laugh. do people seriously believe they don't have to pay income tax? Try never paying taxes and enjoy your 7 by 9 cell. There's a reason people get hailed to jail for not paying taxes.
|
So he's wrong in a special case, but where do they prohibit modification of Section 9 in the year 1913? It only says that Amendments made before 1808 cannot affect those clauses. You have pasted the full text of Article 5, and unless you're using the Islamic calendar or something, the 16th Amendment was ratified a full 100 years after the expiration of this ban, and there are no other restrictions on Section 9.
Look, there are arguments about income tax that don't involve misinterpreting the Constitution, I suggest you wiki those instead.
|
On February 16 2010 12:27 CaucasianAsian wrote:
this thread makes me laugh. do people seriously believe they don't have to pay income tax? Try never paying taxes and enjoy your 7 by 9 cell. There's a reason people get hailed to jail for not paying taxes.
Obv al capone never went to jail off tax evasion. lol and for those who aruge that taxes aren't a legit law i'm sure if we had a tax lawer or two they could point out a case in the century or two that shows someone saying income tax isn't legit and getting stuck down in court for being a jerk.
|
On February 16 2010 14:25 Virtue wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2010 12:27 CaucasianAsian wrote:
this thread makes me laugh. do people seriously believe they don't have to pay income tax? Try never paying taxes and enjoy your 7 by 9 cell. There's a reason people get hailed to jail for not paying taxes. Obv al capone never went to jail off tax evasion. lol and for those who aruge that taxes aren't a legit law i'm sure if we had a tax lawer or two they could point out a case in the century or two that shows someone saying income tax isn't legit and getting stuck down in court for being a jerk.
Wesley Snipes
although I think he's currently appealing
|
it seems ironic.
You dont pay the government money on your income.
So the government spends money to keep you locked up.
i lold
|
Well, they also just take the money and make you pay a penalty so the government doesn't really lose much from locking up offenders.
I really hate this time of year, more work and more idiots bringing this stuff up.
|
I've heard about this before too, and even if taxes aren't actually a law, it doesn't really matter because you will still get arrested or penalized for not paying it anyway. thats the important part. I'm pretty sure its common knowledge that most governments are deceptive, you just have to deal with it.
|
On February 16 2010 14:42 StarsPride wrote:
it seems ironic.
You dont pay the government money on your income.
So the government spends money to keep you locked up.
i lold
While it may cost them more to imprison you, think of the advertising benefits. They see you get hauled off to jail, and then they pay their taxes.
While I agree that our taxes are often grossly misused I don't agree that taxation is unlawful or that this country would be better off without any taxes.
|
On February 17 2010 04:13 Disastorm wrote:
I've heard about this before too, and even if taxes aren't actually a law, it doesn't really matter because you will still get arrested or penalized for not paying it anyway. thats the important part. I'm pretty sure its common knowledge that most governments are deceptive, you just have to deal with it.
no, no and no.
did you even follow anything?
theres a ton of people who won over income tax justice.
YOU JUST DON'T HAVE TO PAY INCOME TAX.
you need 2 minutes to google aaron russo and tell you all facts.
|
On February 17 2010 04:13 Disastorm wrote:
I've heard about this before too, and even if taxes aren't actually a law, it doesn't really matter because you will still get arrested or penalized for not paying it anyway. thats the important part. I'm pretty sure its common knowledge that most governments are deceptive, you just have to deal with it.
no, no and no.
did you even follow anything?
theres a ton of people who won over income tax justice.
YOU JUST DON'T HAVE TO PAY INCOME TAX.
you need 2 minutes to google aaron russo and tell you all facts.
|
On June 23 2008 02:34 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2008 02:20 crabapple wrote:
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.
You couldn't pay off debt to other countries with this method though, right?
They own us through bonds. We could offer to buy them using printed money but that would then cause inflation and consumer confidence.
|
On February 25 2010 08:25 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2010 04:13 Disastorm wrote:
I've heard about this before too, and even if taxes aren't actually a law, it doesn't really matter because you will still get arrested or penalized for not paying it anyway. thats the important part. I'm pretty sure its common knowledge that most governments are deceptive, you just have to deal with it. no, no and no. did you even follow anything? theres a ton of people who won over income tax justice. YOU JUST DON'T HAVE TO PAY INCOME TAX. you need 2 minutes to google aaron russo and tell you all facts.
Wow...you seriously believe that? Paying income tax is NOT optional, you've been consumed by conspiracy theorists my friend...
On February 16 2010 14:25 Virtue wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2010 12:27 CaucasianAsian wrote:
this thread makes me laugh. do people seriously believe they don't have to pay income tax? Try never paying taxes and enjoy your 7 by 9 cell. There's a reason people get hailed to jail for not paying taxes. Obv al capone never went to jail off tax evasion. lol and for those who aruge that taxes aren't a legit law i'm sure if we had a tax lawer or two they could point out a case in the century or two that shows someone saying income tax isn't legit and getting stuck down in court for being a jerk.
Actually he did...they knew he was a really bad guy but that's all they could actually pin him down on :O
|
On February 25 2010 08:32 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 08:25 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote:On February 17 2010 04:13 Disastorm wrote:
I've heard about this before too, and even if taxes aren't actually a law, it doesn't really matter because you will still get arrested or penalized for not paying it anyway. thats the important part. I'm pretty sure its common knowledge that most governments are deceptive, you just have to deal with it. no, no and no. did you even follow anything? theres a ton of people who won over income tax justice. YOU JUST DON'T HAVE TO PAY INCOME TAX. you need 2 minutes to google aaron russo and tell you all facts. Wow...you seriously believe that? Paying income tax is NOT optional, you've been consumed by conspiracy theorists my friend... Show nested quote +On February 16 2010 14:25 Virtue wrote:On February 16 2010 12:27 CaucasianAsian wrote:
this thread makes me laugh. do people seriously believe they don't have to pay income tax? Try never paying taxes and enjoy your 7 by 9 cell. There's a reason people get hailed to jail for not paying taxes. Obv al capone never went to jail off tax evasion. lol and for those who aruge that taxes aren't a legit law i'm sure if we had a tax lawer or two they could point out a case in the century or two that shows someone saying income tax isn't legit and getting stuck down in court for being a jerk. Actually he did...they knew he was a really bad guy but that's all they could actually pin him down on :O
lol someone not even informed :D
ROFL
|
On February 25 2010 08:25 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2010 04:13 Disastorm wrote:
I've heard about this before too, and even if taxes aren't actually a law, it doesn't really matter because you will still get arrested or penalized for not paying it anyway. thats the important part. I'm pretty sure its common knowledge that most governments are deceptive, you just have to deal with it. no, no and no. did you even follow anything? theres a ton of people who won over income tax justice. YOU JUST DON'T HAVE TO PAY INCOME TAX. you need 2 minutes to google aaron russo and tell you all facts.
You can't be serious. You just really can't be serious.
|
On February 25 2010 08:37 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 08:32 jello_biafra wrote:On February 25 2010 08:25 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote:On February 17 2010 04:13 Disastorm wrote:
I've heard about this before too, and even if taxes aren't actually a law, it doesn't really matter because you will still get arrested or penalized for not paying it anyway. thats the important part. I'm pretty sure its common knowledge that most governments are deceptive, you just have to deal with it. no, no and no. did you even follow anything? theres a ton of people who won over income tax justice. YOU JUST DON'T HAVE TO PAY INCOME TAX. you need 2 minutes to google aaron russo and tell you all facts. Wow...you seriously believe that? Paying income tax is NOT optional, you've been consumed by conspiracy theorists my friend... On February 16 2010 14:25 Virtue wrote:On February 16 2010 12:27 CaucasianAsian wrote:
this thread makes me laugh. do people seriously believe they don't have to pay income tax? Try never paying taxes and enjoy your 7 by 9 cell. There's a reason people get hailed to jail for not paying taxes. Obv al capone never went to jail off tax evasion. lol and for those who aruge that taxes aren't a legit law i'm sure if we had a tax lawer or two they could point out a case in the century or two that shows someone saying income tax isn't legit and getting stuck down in court for being a jerk. Actually he did...they knew he was a really bad guy but that's all they could actually pin him down on :O lol someone not even informed :D ROFL
I'm almost speechless, just be glad you don't live in the US or you'd actually be trying this shit and getting your dumb ass hauled off to jail.
Seriously if you're not trolling then there is no hope for you, in 2 separate threads many people have proved to you time and time again in various different ways that INCOME TAX HAS TO BE PAID and if you don't believe it yet then you're never gonna take your tinfoil hat off.
|
no, no and no.
did you even follow anything?
theres a ton of evidence that the world is flat
THE WORLD IS NOT ROUND
you need 2 minutes to google flat earth society and tell you all facts.
|
Vote Ron Paul. Get rid of the IRS. All is well in this issue.
|
On February 25 2010 08:39 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 08:25 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote:On February 17 2010 04:13 Disastorm wrote:
I've heard about this before too, and even if taxes aren't actually a law, it doesn't really matter because you will still get arrested or penalized for not paying it anyway. thats the important part. I'm pretty sure its common knowledge that most governments are deceptive, you just have to deal with it. no, no and no. did you even follow anything? theres a ton of people who won over income tax justice. YOU JUST DON'T HAVE TO PAY INCOME TAX. you need 2 minutes to google aaron russo and tell you all facts. You can't be serious. You just really can't be serious.
I AM.! ! ! ! absolute no joke, and you fail by your question!! you fail hard!!!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3254488777215293198#docid=-1656880303867390173
this explains everything. join or die.
|
On February 25 2010 08:39 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 08:25 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote:On February 17 2010 04:13 Disastorm wrote:
I've heard about this before too, and even if taxes aren't actually a law, it doesn't really matter because you will still get arrested or penalized for not paying it anyway. thats the important part. I'm pretty sure its common knowledge that most governments are deceptive, you just have to deal with it. no, no and no. did you even follow anything? theres a ton of people who won over income tax justice. YOU JUST DON'T HAVE TO PAY INCOME TAX. you need 2 minutes to google aaron russo and tell you all facts. You can't be serious. You just really can't be serious.
lmao seriously, why even bother? :/
|
On February 25 2010 08:41 koreasilver wrote:
no, no and no.
did you even follow anything?
theres a ton of evidence that the world is flat
THE WORLD IS NOT ROUND
you need 2 minutes to google flat earth society and tell you all facts.
|
All documentaries like this can't be trusted. A documentary like this is made to show you the directors point of view. It may be the truth in some basic form, but they bend the truth to make something seem way bad. Like that documentary on food, they say all meat has this stuff in it and it's bad for you cuz of this, and they go and interview the 1 person that got sick out of millions and shit like that.
|
On February 16 2010 12:27 CaucasianAsian wrote:
this thread makes me laugh. do people seriously believe they don't have to pay income tax? Try never paying taxes and enjoy your 7 by 9 cell. There's a reason people get hailed to jail for not paying taxes.
I don't think that is the issue. We know that you will go to jail if you don't pay income tax, but that doesn't stop the tax from being ridiculous. Potentially HALF of your income gone??
As far as I know the tax is unconstitutional because there is nothing that directly states the consitutionality of an income tax. The only thing that allows them to do it is a law they passed that basically says "we can tax you for whatever we want whenever we want" and that is the justification for the tax. People arguing against income tax say there is no justification for the IRS being involved and there is no justification for a direct tax on wages before you ever see the money. The problem is, you are arguing against a big government, so over the years they have simply modified the rules to give them more power so you can't win.
|
I don't understand this thread. Haven't any of you idiots who are arguing it's unconstitutional ever taken a basic US Government class? The constitution doesn't specifically grant the federal government power to do each and every little fucking thing that it does, it's broadly covered under the necessary and proper clause. I can see you disagreeing with what exactly the definition of "necessary and proper" is, but here's the thing: people smarter than you have already made that decision.
You are not a constitutional scholar.
You were not on the Supreme Court when these kinds of precedents were set years ago.
You lack a basic understanding of the US Government and what it requires to operate.
How do you idiots think roads are built? Education funded? How do you think we got to be so powerful? I hope one day they let you people get off without paying taxes. That's fine by me, do what you want. But it'll be a cold day in hell before I let you drive to work on that road paved with my hard earned money.
So I think I speak for everyone here on the side of reason when I politely ask you to educate yourselves and then get the fuck out.
|
I love how people think that only the government can provide roads, but thats a whole different topic.
|
On February 25 2010 15:29 sith wrote:The constitution doesn't specifically grant the federal government power to do each and every little fucking thing that it does, it's broadly covered under the necessary and proper clause.
The entire idea of the constitution was to be a restriction on government power. Instead the necessary and proper clause and other laws (such as the 16th amendment I believe) have been stretched by the government to give them the power to basically do whatever they want today. Tax on wages is NOT listed in the constution. Instead we basically have "we can tax you whenever we choose to for whatever reason".
I can see you disagreeing with what exactly the definition of "necessary and proper" is, but here's the thing: people smarter than you have already made that decision.
People with direct interests in the tax have made that decision. Or do you believe government makes decisions without self interest in mind?
How do you idiots think roads are built? Education funded? How do you think we got to be so powerful?
On a state level? Income tax by the way has not helped a damn in states like California which is broke as shit.
Hell even further, the US is pretty much broke as it eternally owes countries like China. Most if not all of our federal tax dollars go to paying off the debt and interest. The rest of the money is simply printed by the fed (another joke).
Ok this got way off topic. Yes they have the power to tax. The reasons behind it however are shady just like almost every other government policy.
|
|
|
On February 25 2010 08:59 StarMasterX wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2010 12:27 CaucasianAsian wrote:
this thread makes me laugh. do people seriously believe they don't have to pay income tax? Try never paying taxes and enjoy your 7 by 9 cell. There's a reason people get hailed to jail for not paying taxes. I don't think that is the issue. We know that you will go to jail if you don't pay income tax, but that doesn't stop the tax from being ridiculous. Potentially HALF of your income gone?? As far as I know the tax is unconstitutional because there is nothing that directly states the consitutionality of an income tax. The only thing that allows them to do it is a law they passed that basically says "we can tax you for whatever we want whenever we want" and that is the justification for the tax. People arguing against income tax say there is no justification for the IRS being involved and there is no justification for a direct tax on wages before you ever see the money. The problem is, you are arguing against a big government, so over the years they have simply modified the rules to give them more power so you can't win.
It's constitutional because it's in the 16th amendment.
It now counts as part of the constitution.
It doesn't matter if the original didn't have it. Hell, the original didn't have women's suffrage or black suffrage either. Should we count those things as unconstitutional? No, because we AMENDED the constitution. Hence, income taxes=constitutional. Income taxes=legal because there are laws specifying the income tax. >_>
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
I've said this before and I'll say this again:
This thread needs to be locked and it should go die in a ditch before anyone else gets infected by the stupid that's flowing from this thread.
I refuse to even give credence to StarMasterX's arguments by addressing them. I suggest the rest of you do the same.
|
On February 26 2010 06:13 Mystlord wrote:I refuse to even give credence to StarMasterX's arguments by addressing them. I suggest the rest of you do the same.
Because there is no way to argue against it. Again, I'm not saying that it isn't legal. I am simply saying it is shady the way it is done.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 26 2010 06:12 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2010 08:59 StarMasterX wrote:On February 16 2010 12:27 CaucasianAsian wrote:
this thread makes me laugh. do people seriously believe they don't have to pay income tax? Try never paying taxes and enjoy your 7 by 9 cell. There's a reason people get hailed to jail for not paying taxes. I don't think that is the issue. We know that you will go to jail if you don't pay income tax, but that doesn't stop the tax from being ridiculous. Potentially HALF of your income gone?? As far as I know the tax is unconstitutional because there is nothing that directly states the consitutionality of an income tax. The only thing that allows them to do it is a law they passed that basically says "we can tax you for whatever we want whenever we want" and that is the justification for the tax. People arguing against income tax say there is no justification for the IRS being involved and there is no justification for a direct tax on wages before you ever see the money. The problem is, you are arguing against a big government, so over the years they have simply modified the rules to give them more power so you can't win. It's constitutional because it's in the 16th amendment. It now counts as part of the constitution. It doesn't matter if the original didn't have it. Hell, the original didn't have women's suffrage or black suffrage either. Should we count those things as unconstitutional? No, because we AMENDED the constitution. Hence, income taxes=constitutional. Income taxes=legal because there are laws specifying the income tax. >_>
It amazes me that this point still gets past people. Laws can go under judicial review and be deemed unconstitutional; laws are made independent of the Constitution. Amendments are changes made TO the Constitution therefore they cannot be unconstitutional. The only other method to altar the Constitution (Supreme Court cannot do it) is by Constitutional Convention, which will never ever ever ever ever ever be called again. It is the very definition of a cluster fuck.
StarMasterX, read Article I of the Constitution. What makes you think the explicit intent of the Constitution is to limit the power of the Federal government? It was drafted by a federalist (James Madison) with the compromise being made for the BoR. The Federalists held more power, not the other way around.
Major roads (I-94, etc.) are provided by the Federal government. School funding is mostly handled by the States. Other major infrastructure developments (the laying of wire for the internet, for example) have to be done by the Federal government. State budgets cannot go into deficit spending, the Federal budget can.
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Paul, while a good man at heart, also isn't a realist. For ever Ron Paul video you link, I could link a Dennis Kunnich video of him saying the Federal government is right to be expanded to protect the people. No one has the right point of view.
For every Thomas Jefferson quote you'll eventually put up, I could just put up an Alexander Hamilton or John Adams quote to counter act it.
No matter the case, the amendment is in and the IRS is a legal instution deemed so by the SCOTUS, you have no ground to stand on other than your own tinfoil
|
Citing wikipedia yea thats one way to persuade people. :p
|
On February 26 2010 07:31 Saturnize wrote:Citing wikipedia yea thats one way to persuade people. :p
Yes, because citing a real amendment to the constitution is so debatable.
I don't think I need to persuade people that Amendment sixteen exists.
|
There may be no law that specifically says "Every citizen has to pay the income tax" or something to that effect, but as others have said, you will face severe consequences if you refuse to pay. Look at Irwin Schiff, who has been jailed for not paying his income taxes. Is he right in saying that it is unjust for a government to collect taxes? Sure he is. But the government wants those taxes pretty badly; enough to jail a few people, making examples of them so the rest of us pay. Heck, a mafia doesn't have a law saying "You have to pay protection money" but you'd better pay if you want to keep your legs in tact.
The real question is whether an income tax is justified. Does an individual have the right to tax another individual? Can an individual pass on to a representative a right he does not first have himself? Can many individuals pass on to a representative a right that none of them has?
Remember, just because a government does something or enacts some law does not make it right. A prime example is the prohibition of alcohol in this country, but that is just one. Galileo was put on trial for his (now universally accepted) views. He was forced to recant them and kept under house arrest. Socrates was forced to take hemlock, ending his life, because he "corrupted the youth." Nelson Mandela was imprisoned by his government. And Irwin Schiff, and many other tax protesters (including potentially OP?) have been and will be wrongly imprisoned for refusing to give their hard-earned money to a group of armed thugs in Washington (ok, the congressmen et al may not be the ones sticking a gun in your face, but if you resist paying your taxes enough, someone will show up with a gun in your face, and his boss's boss's boss's boss is one of those thugs in washington).
|
On February 26 2010 07:43 danieljdemarco wrote:
There may be no law that specifically says "Every citizen has to pay the income tax" or something to that effect, but as others have said, you will face severe consequences if you refuse to pay. Look at Irwin Schiff, who has been jailed for not paying his income taxes. Is he right in saying that it is unjust for a government to collect taxes? Sure he is. But the government wants those taxes pretty badly; enough to jail a few people, making examples of them so the rest of us pay. Heck, a mafia doesn't have a law saying "You have to pay protection money" but you'd better pay if you want to keep your legs in tact.
The real question is whether an income tax is justified. Does an individual have the right to tax another individual? Can an individual pass on to a representative a right he does not first have himself? Can many individuals pass on to a representative a right that none of them has?
Remember, just because a government does something or enacts some law does not make it right. A prime example is the prohibition of alcohol in this country, but that is just one. Galileo was put on trial for his (now universally accepted) views. He was forced to recant them and kept under house arrest. Socrates was forced to take hemlock, ending his life, because he "corrupted the youth." Nelson Mandela was imprisoned by his government. And Irwin Schiff, and many other tax protesters (including potentially OP?) have been and will be wrongly imprisoned for refusing to give their hard-earned money to a group of armed thugs in Washington (ok, the congressmen et al may not be the ones sticking a gun in your face, but if you resist paying your taxes enough, someone will show up with a gun in your face, and his boss's boss's boss's boss is one of those thugs in washington).
We're represented. You just don't like how you're represented. Not anyones problem but your owns.
Everyone you used as an example was an individual who fought the power, which is all well and good, but you can't claim it illegal when our own representatives voted it legal. If you get caught not playing taxes, of course you go to jail. I don't like "don't turn on red" signs but that doesn't give me the right now to turn on them, even though they have no legal right to be there other then representatives wanted them there.
|
United States22883 Posts
Then leave the country or get elected to office and try to change it or have someone in office try to change it. You HAVE representation.
|
On February 25 2010 16:21 StarMasterX wrote:
Ok this got way off topic. Yes they have the power to tax. The reasons behind it however are shady just like almost every other government policy.
/argument. Get a job hippie!
|
On February 26 2010 08:22 sith wrote:/argument.
If only it were that simple.
|
Documentary is a troll. Close this thread D:
|
United States43189 Posts
How is this still going on?
|
I think it's fucked that a lot of shady people are in the us treasury and corporations have the government by the balls.
eg. banks/corporations being bailed out with tax money and then not paying workers they owe and even firing more employees, but buying 10 000$ desks.
At first I hated Michael Moore without even understanding why (his sensationalist style was one reason) But then someone asked me to just watch a film of his without being too sentimental and with a bit of patience...check out "Capitalism: a love story"
I'm real glad I live in Canada, even though lately the politics have been getting more fucked. Even though taxes are high here and the weathers shit for now I prefer it.
Maybe Arizona is cool cause of how cheap rent is and there is a nerd house there.
|
No taxes = no infrastructure.
But I agree with most of you, the level of corruption in the political realm makes me want to be a drug dealer.
|
On February 26 2010 09:42 ShaperofDreams wrote:
I think it's fucked that a lot of shady people are in the us treasury and corporations have the government by the balls.
eg. banks/corporations being bailed out with tax money and then not paying workers they owe and even firing more employees, but buying 10 000$ desks.
At first I hated Michael Moore without even understanding why (his sensationalist style was one reason) But then someone asked me to just watch a film of his without being too sentimental and with a bit of patience...check out "Capitalism: a love story"
I'm real glad I live in Canada, even though lately the politics have been getting more fucked. Even though taxes are high here and the weathers shit for now I prefer it.
Maybe Arizona is cool cause of how cheap rent is and there is a nerd house there.
The real problem is the ex corporate fat cats (i.e. reps from goldman sachs) being inducted into the treasury department.
Often, people are recruited into the white house not because they will necessarily give the correct answer, but will give the answer that is desired.
|
agreed. alotta us citizen are getting their ass screwed. sure the gov tax u in the name of public service but the system is structured such that alotta ppl are in a cycle of poverty.
if ur dad was ghetto poor, theres a damn good chance that you and your children and their children will also be homeless.
|
On February 26 2010 11:56 StayFrosty wrote:
No taxes = no infrastructure.
But I agree with most of you, the level of corruption in the political realm makes me want to be a drug dealer.
drug dealers have tax of their own, its called getting robed, by people whos line if business is "gettin money".
|
United States43189 Posts
On February 26 2010 12:11 dybydx wrote:
agreed. alotta us citizen are getting their ass screwed. sure the gov tax u in the name of public service but the system is structured such that alotta ppl are in a cycle of poverty.
if ur dad was ghetto poor, theres a damn good chance that you and your children and their children will also be homeless.
And you blame tax for that? Tax is the leveller. Capitalism is what creates the inequality. Tax is what educates people regardless of their background.
|
I will wager that approximately the same tax revenue has been spent on my education as on the semi-literate children of inner-Detroit. Obviously tax does not educate people regardless of background. Example of living too much in theory.
Anyhow, this thread is about income tax, not tax in general. The income tax has existed for a hundred years. Taxes in general have existed since the dawn of civilization. When it comes to taxation, an instinctive defense of the present system as the only viable one merely propagates putrid imaginations.
|
On February 26 2010 12:11 dybydx wrote:
agreed. alotta us citizen are getting their ass screwed. sure the gov tax u in the name of public service but the system is structured such that alotta ppl are in a cycle of poverty.
if ur dad was ghetto poor, theres a damn good chance that you and your children and their children will also be homeless.
Then why do multiple European countries, which have much higher tax rates, have a higher quality of life than America? Canada also has a higher tax rate and it also have a higher quality of life than America. It's not the tax that is the problem.
|
On February 26 2010 12:45 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2010 12:11 dybydx wrote:
agreed. alotta us citizen are getting their ass screwed. sure the gov tax u in the name of public service but the system is structured such that alotta ppl are in a cycle of poverty.
if ur dad was ghetto poor, theres a damn good chance that you and your children and their children will also be homeless. Then why do multiple European countries, which have much higher tax rates, have a higher quality of life than America? Canada also has a higher tax rate and it also have a higher quality of life than America. It's not the tax that is the problem.
You realize that this is a very complicated question, which can only marginally be ascribed to comparative tax rates.
Few people who raise the issue have even thought through what "quality of life" really means. It's not GDP per capita or HDI.
|
On February 26 2010 12:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:
I will wager that approximately the same tax revenue has been spent on my education as on the semi-literate children of inner-Detroit. Obviously tax does not educate people regardless of background. Example of living too much in theory.
Anyhow, this thread is about income tax, not tax in general. The income tax has existed for a hundred years. Taxes in general have existed since the dawn of civilization. When it comes to taxation, an instinctive defense of the present system as the only viable one merely propagates putrid imaginations.
Well said Moltke It seems like some people say "It's this way cause its the best way!" and claim that nothing else would work when that's clearly untrue.
|
I think taxing someone's labor is immoral. What gives anyone the right to take money out of your pocket after you worked for it? Thats pretty close to slavery or indentured servitude.
A sales tax (taxing commerce) is different because the government facilitated your buying of goods by providing infrastructure and stability to society. Property taxes are in exchange for providing services. As soon as you start to interact with society, which the government helps maintain, there will be taxes.
But to take money out of your paycheck is basically saying the government owns you like property. And thats what the whole point of income taxes are. Without income taxes, the federal government wouldn't have anything backing their bonds. When a government sells a bond, they are selling their citizens into bondage. Without being able to tax their citizens' labor, governments could not effectively offer bonds.
Income taxes go strait to the federal reserve to maintain the debt. They don't build roads or schools. As I posted earlier, and as the picture I posted illustrates, this was all the result of a takeover in 1913 of the US. The federal reserve was allowed to be the creditor of the US government. The gov was then allowed to make money by selling us into slavery and didn't have to create new taxes (which weren't good for election day). The fed and banking cartel got a nation of slaves. Their money became the dominant money. Since all money is created through loans, every dollar in our economy is owed to the banks, and ultimately the fed, the originator of that money.
For example, say the fed loans a bank $1000 at low interest. That bank can use this high powered money to loan out $100,000 to people. Lets say the fractional reserve money multiplier is 10, so now there is $1,000,000 in the economy of federal reserve notes (FRNs). Now, lets say the fed decides not to loan out any more money. That $1 million in the economy is in the form of loans borrowed from banks. In one year, $1.1 million will need to be paid back to the banks due to interest. That means if no new money is created (no additional debt is taken on by anyone), a portion of people will default, because there is simply only $1 million FRNs in existence, yet $1.1 million are owed.
A portion of people default, and their assets go to the bank. The bank auctions the assets. Since there is less money in the economy (ie, deflation) the assets sell for less than the original loan. Now the bank is having difficulty staying solvent. They could default on the fed's loan, meaning the fed could take possession of the bank. (see where this is going?) Anyway, the loans that were originally defaulted on were written off at the bank, thereby destroying that money and taking it out of the economy. The bank only recovered a portion of its loan from selling the collateral. Now, the bank's reserves are less so it reduces the amount of money it can loan. The money multiplier is still 10, but now instead of $100,000 from the fed's original loan, the bank has lost money, so its now less.
Unless the fed loans out more money, allowing more loans to be made and more money in the system, the bank will become insolvent and the fed will then own all its assets. Note that the original assets that were auctioned off are still denominated in FRNs. So as the process winds down, everything that was ever put up as collateral will be owed.
So we see that essentially our money system is a ponzi scheme and the originator of our debt-based money eventually owns everything purchased with that money. Of course the fed would never stop making loans and intentionally crash the economy (maybe), but the other breaking point is when the citizens are unable to aquire new debt. When this happens, the same scenario as described above plays out. The fed in this case doesn't make loans because there is no one new to absorb those loans.
The federal government and federal reserve each benefit from this situation, until it ultimately collapses under its own weight. The collapse is the point at which the banks collect their paycheck. From 1913 until now, the banks have benfited primarily from control of institutions, individuals, and entire countries, and have profited that way, while the gov got a blank checkbook. In the collapse stage, the bankers come to collect all of our assets. For example, perhaps most of the property in america.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 26 2010 12:38 MoltkeWarding wrote:
I will wager that approximately the same tax revenue has been spent on my education as on the semi-literate children of inner-Detroit. Obviously tax does not educate people regardless of background. Example of living too much in theory.
Anyhow, this thread is about income tax, not tax in general. The income tax has existed for a hundred years. Taxes in general have existed since the dawn of civilization. When it comes to taxation, an instinctive defense of the present system as the only viable one merely propagates putrid imaginations.
Michigan public schools are almost entirely funded by the state lottery and sin taxes, but you're right that the city of Detroit (Wayne County) has squandered millions of dollars over the past thirty years, and this corruption has a large part to blame for the state of the city. Still, that's irrelevant from things like the auto industry and the federal government.
It raises an interesting point, however, that the federal government is actually less corrupt than state and local governments. Few people believe it, but it's largely true across the country (and probably in other countries as well.)
|
Calgary25986 Posts
i love when 'the government' is personafied like a person who is getting all your money.
|
i love when themes slowly gets derailed.
from there
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=111578
to here, people slowly get to miss the theme, ignore the point-
even start to participate, althought they didnt before and havo no idea, just because feeling what it is about. interesting way to check back how far we are on learning really.
|
Laws are just words on paper (or electrons) and mean absolutely nothing until an individual acts upon them. Arguing over the legality of the income tax seems quit pointless. Whether or not the income tax is legal, the income tax is being enforced by individuals. Their are far more effective ways to get rid of the income tax, so let's not waste time on arguing over whether their are a few words backing up the actions of the IRS or not.
Perhaps we should be asking whether or not the IRS needs to obtain a warrant before gaining access our private finacial records(per the 4th Amendment). I know the big telecom companies are getting into trouble for allowing the FBI to conduct warrantless wiretaps here in the US. Maybe the company we work for should also be getting into trouble for allowing the IRS access to our personal finacial records without a warrant...
Perhaps we should be asking why the tax code is so complicated (it's over 13 thousand pages long). Not even the IRS commissioner does his own taxes. The longer and harder to read the tax code is, the harder it is for the average citizen and small business. We can't afford high powered and well connected lobbyists, lawyers and accountants to find (or create)every single loophole in the several million words of code.
|
On February 26 2010 13:50 Chill wrote:
i love when 'the government' is personafied like a person who is getting all your money.
Better believe it.
|
Governments are made up of people, ergo, people are getting my money. This is a fact.
|
My money paid for your money to be printed. Your money would not even exist without my money paying for it to exist.
barter or gtfo
|
On March 02 2010 12:31 Mindcrime wrote:
My money paid for your money to be printed. Your money would not even exist without my money paying for it to exist.
barter or gtfo
you think money needs other money to exist?
I tell you: No.
proof: hundreds of years usage of money.
like the complete past. and wait, that time money was a tool for people to help them, now, since it is the time you pay money for money just to remind you, the force of having to earn more money than your businesspartners kills economy. this is sick, economy kills itself without human influence just by market structure. humans gave up their free will to a absolute brutal killing system, that is a math formula, on free will without noticing. maybe we should end kind of stuff.
|
|
|
gogo someone ready and brave enough to do something and try it out. ?
i would but i sadly cannot. wrong place. live the truth! go, tl cannot fail!
|
As a student who already doesn't have much money after paying all of my bills, not having to pay taxes would be great....I'm tired of paying taxes so welfare moms can get their nails done, and crazy joe down the street can get a paycheck for being crazy.
|
On April 12 2010 09:03 RoosterSamurai wrote:
As a student who already doesn't have much money after paying all of my bills, not having to pay taxes would be great....I'm tired of paying taxes so welfare moms can get their nails done, and crazy joe down the street can get a paycheck for being crazy.
As a fellow student I have no idea how anyone can take us seriously when we complain about taxes
|
United States43189 Posts
On February 26 2010 09:27 KwarK wrote:
How is this still going on?
|
On April 12 2010 10:43 KwarK wrote:
Because the illuminati control everything, they control this thread. They monitor it and influence members, did you not know this?
You may also want to know
- No one has ever landed on the moon
- The world is run by corrupt Jewish Bankers
- The Bush administration orchestrated the whole of 9/11
- The government cheats us of taxes we don't have to legally pay
|
On April 12 2010 09:55 Kwidowmaker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2010 09:03 RoosterSamurai wrote:
As a student who already doesn't have much money after paying all of my bills, not having to pay taxes would be great....I'm tired of paying taxes so welfare moms can get their nails done, and crazy joe down the street can get a paycheck for being crazy. As a fellow student I have no idea how anyone can take us seriously when we complain about taxes
Well obama is like LOL THEY MAKEZ TOO MUCH MONEY, TAKE IT FRUM EM, AND GIVE IT TO WELFARE MOMZ LOLOOLL
Kind of makes me a bit angry. If I went to college to get 2 doctorates so I can make 600k a year, then leave me the hell alone.
|
How is this shit not closed?
|
This comes up every year, and every time there is a great uproar over how you really don't have to pay your taxes and you really aren't this year to teach the damn government a lesson.
Then everyone quietly fills out their income tax while goading what they hope will be a test case into not filing.
|
United States43189 Posts
On April 12 2010 11:56 RoosterSamurai wrote:
Well obama is like LOL THEY MAKEZ TOO MUCH MONEY, TAKE IT FRUM EM, AND GIVE IT TO WELFARE MOMZ LOLOOL
That is what he's like.
|
Taxation is theft!
row row fight the power
|
On April 12 2010 12:36 Yurebis wrote:
Taxation is theft!
row row fight the power
property is theft
|
On April 12 2010 13:24 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2010 12:36 Yurebis wrote:
Taxation is theft!
row row fight the power property is theft
Time to return TL to the proletariat.
|
On April 12 2010 13:24 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2010 12:36 Yurebis wrote:
Taxation is theft!
row row fight the power property is theft
do you own yourself?
|
On April 12 2010 13:41 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2010 13:24 Mindcrime wrote:On April 12 2010 12:36 Yurebis wrote:
Taxation is theft!
row row fight the power property is theft do you own yourself?
No. Do you really intend to argue that self-ownership exists in reality?
|
Zurich15354 Posts
Was the entire thread as bad as the last page?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://boberi.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/100-billion-zimbabwe-dollars.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.3833.com/files/images/miscellaneous/zimbabwe_10_TRILLION.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://3833.com/files/images/wbn/poland/poland_1989_20000_zlotych_f_mm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/5189/2zlote.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i48.tinypic.com/muafpd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Leviathan_gr.jpg)
