Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Colossus_500 on April 19, 2007, 04:03:43 PM
-
This will shock quite a few of you! :o Here is some of what is in Wayn Perryman's book, "Unfounded Loyalty: An in-depth look into the love affair between Blacks and Democrats"
Truths Ignored But Now Explored
The Democrats
Our nation's top historians reveal that the Democratic Party gave us the Ku Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws and other repressive legislation which resulted in the multitude of murders, lynchings, mutilations, and intimidations (of thousands of black and white Republicans). On the issue of slavery: historians say the Democrats gave their lives to expand it, the Republicans gave their lives to ban it.
The Republicans
Regarding the Republican Party, historians report that while Democrats were busy passing laws to hurt blacks, Republicans devoted their time to passing laws to help blacks. Republicans were primarily responsible for the following Civil Rights legislation:
1. The Emancipation Proclamation
2. The 13th Amendment
3. The 14th Amendment
4. The 15th Amendment
5. The Reconstruction Act of 1867
6. The Civil Rights of 1866
7. The Enforcement Act of 1870
8. The Forced Act of 1871
9. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
10. The Civil Rights Act of 1875
11. The Freeman Bureau
12. The Civil Rights Act of 1957
13. The Civil Rights Act of 1960
14. The United State Civil Rights Commission
And gave strong bi-partisan support and sponsorship for the following
legislation
15. The Civil Rights Act of 1964
17. The Voting Rights Act of 1965
18. The 1968 Civil Rights Acts
19. The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972
20. Goals and Timetables for Affirmative Action Programs
21. Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973
22. Voting Rights Act of Amendment of 1982
23. Civil Rights Act of 1983
24. Federal Contract Compliance and Workforce Development Act of 1988
Programs By Republicans & their Supporters include:[/i]
a. Many of our key traditional Black Colleges are named after Republicans Colleges
b. The Freedman Bureau
c. Historians say that three whites that opposed the Democrat's racist practices, including the lynching of blacks, founded and funded the NAACP
Author's Accountability Proposal
To assure that the black vote is not ignored. The author proposes that every candidate that receives the black vote, must be required to devote two weeks each year doing (physical) community service in the inner city i.e. painting, landscaping, remodeling etc. He further proposes that each of these candidates must submit on a quarterly basis, a report that specifically states what they have done or attempted to do for African Americans during that period. These reports should be printed in community newspapers. The author believes this is the only way to assure accountability.
The War on Rights Continued
On April 9, 1865, the Civil War ended but not the war between the Democrats and Republicans regarding the rights of African Americans. This war continued up through 1960. Over the years, several thousand Black and White Republicans were beaten, lynched - shot and burned to death by the Democrats and their Klan supporters, in an effort to keep them from voting and educating blacks citizens.
After 1877, when Abolitionist activities decreased, Republicans became more concerned with staying alive and staying in office than staying true to their commitment to defend the rights of African Americans. Their previous work on behalf of African Americans was significant and impressive.
It wasn't until 1960 under President Eisenhower did Republicans as a party, realized that their work was incomplete and felt a need to resume their efforts on behalf of African Americans. There was Republican support for every major Civil Rights Bill introduced from from 1960 to 1988. There was not only support, many of the bills were introduced and sponsored by Republicans. Most noteworthy was Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois.
-
bump
-
bump
bump diddy bump bump
-
bump diddy bump bump
bump diddy bump diddy bump bump bump
-
Things that make you go hmmm.......
I think it's funny more Blacks don't vote Repub considering Lincoln freed their asses
-
Things that make you go hmmm.......
I think it's funny more Blacks don't vote Repub considering Lincoln freed their asses
The Dem's don't give a shit about em actually but they give em all those government handouts.
-
This summation is not shocking.
It is grotesquely oversimplified.
Yesterday's republicans were northern liberal/progressives. Yesterday's democrats were southern conservatives.
Today's republicans are right wingers and the democrats--they are moderates.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 caused many of the southern congressmen to abandon support for the democrats. Eventually those southerners gave their support to the republicans. Remember Nixon's southern strategy?
Even this description is far too simplistic to grasp the real significance and movement of each party.
-
Today's republicans are right wingers and the democrats--they are moderates.
Democrats are moderates, huh?
-
The Dem's don't give a shit about em actually but they give em all those government handouts.
Democrats provide a handup with some subsistence assistance.
Republicans give trillion dollar tax cuts to millionaire/billionaires.
-
This summation is not shocking.
It is grotesquely oversimplified.
Yesterday's republicans were northern liberal/progressives. Yesterday's democrats were southern conservatives.
Today's republicans are right wingers and the democrats--they are moderates.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 caused many of the southern congressmen to abandon support for the democrats. Eventually those southerners gave their support to the republicans. Remember Nixon's southern strategy?
Even this description is far too simplistic to grasp the real significance and movement of each party.
Regardless, a majority of blacks today vote with the mindset that the Republicans have always been "yesterday's Democrats". Would you agree with that?
-
Democrats provide a handup with some subsistence assistance.
Republicans give trillion dollar tax cuts to millionaire/billionaires.
Democrats want to keep the OPPRESIVE mindset alive
I'm not a millionaire or billionaire, yet I have benefitted GREATLY from the tax cuts that were put in place under President Bush.
-
Democrats are moderates, huh?
I think so. What makes you think that any Congressman is liberal or progressive.
-
Democrats want to keep the OPPRESIVE mindset alive
I'm not a millionaire or billionaire, yet I have benefitted GREATLY from the tax cuts that were put in place under President Bush.
Rich people make most of their money from capital gains and not earned income.
You're paying for your tax cut in the end. The tax cuts are financed with borrowed money that must be repaid with interest.
You either pay now or pay more later.
There is no free lunch.
-
In the 1900's there was a shift. By then most of the racists and kkk members were all republican.
-
Regardless, a majority of blacks today vote with the mindset that the Republicans have always been "yesterday's Democrats". Would you agree with that?
Maybe. I don't know. I can't get into their heads to make that determination. If I were to guess, I'd guess 9 out of 10 people would hold that belief simply b/c our history education in this country is deplorable.
-
Rich people make most of their money from capital gains and not earned income.
You're paying for your tax cut in the end. The tax cuts are financed with borrowed money that must be repaid with interest.
You either pay now or pay more later.
There is no free lunch.
I agree. There's no free lunch. But based on that notion, your argument is saying it's better to have food stamps than to be able to pay for your own lunch. Both methods have to be payed for somehow. Which way would you rather have lunch paid for, with a handout or with a sense of empowerment? :-\
-
Maybe. I don't know. I can't get into their heads to make that determination. If I were to guess, I'd guess 9 out of 10 people would hold that belief simply b/c our history education in this country is deplorable.
I agree with you 100% there, bro! :)
-
In the 1900's there was a shift. By then most of the racists and kkk members were all republican.
Like I replied to Decker, most blacks vote today based on the way things were. See the problem with that? And Decker hit the nail on the head that people in our country have not be educated on these facts, therefore most blacks are voting based on what happened in the past, which is when the Democrats were the KKK.
-
I agree. There's no free lunch. But based on that notion, your argument is saying it's better to have food stamps than to be able to pay for your own lunch. Both methods have to be payed for somehow. Which way would you rather have lunch paid for, with a handout or with a sense of empowerment? :-\
I understand what you're saying. I would rather have my tax dollar be used as a helping hand up to indigents. There will always be people that abuse the system. But there will always be people who grasp the opportunity and move off of the dole and onto their own two feet. That's a risk I'm willing to take.
As for financing a tax cut so that wealthy people can have more discretionary income in search of a tax deferred vehicle....well, it is sadly innappropriate to pig out on dessert while others are scrambling for peach pits in the dumpster.
-
One of the major problems is that people act like the 'minorities on welfare' are somehow morally inferior to Whites who benefit from corporate welfare in this country.
-
I understand what you're saying. I would rather have my tax dollar be used as a helping hand up to indigents. There will always be people that abuse the system. But there will always be people who grasp the opportunity and move off of the dole and onto their own two feet. That's a risk I'm willing to take.
As for financing a tax cut so that wealthy people can have more discretionary income in search of a tax deferred vehicle....well, it is sadly innappropriate to pig out on dessert while others are scrambling for peach pits in the dumpster.
I can appreciate where you're coming from, Decker. I, on the other hand, have the mindset that we gain when the wealthy are able to continue being wealthy. If you liken it to a pack of wolves, the Alpha male is the equivalent of the Wealthy. The wolfpack is only as strong as it's leader, the alpha male. And so it is with the wealthy...we are as only as wealthy a nation as our wealthiest people, who then are able to trickle down the funds. We couldn't have a middle-class were it not for the wealthy. If I could take this analogy a little further...I see the mindset of re-distributed income as a pack of wolves with multiple Alpha males. In a pack full of Alpha males, you end up with a family of wolves that is not going to last very long. The Alphas would destroy themselves in an effort to attain the level of "top dog".
-
I can appreciate where you're coming from, Decker. I, on the other hand, have the mindset that we gain when the wealthy are able to continue being wealthy. If you liken it to a pack of wolves, the Alpha male is the equivalent of the Wealthy. The wolfpack is only as strong as it's leader, the alpha male. And so it is with the wealthy...we are as only as wealthy a nation as our wealthiest people, who then are able to trickle down the funds. We couldn't have a middle-class were it not for the wealthy. If I could take this analogy a little further...I see the mindset of re-distributed income as a pack of wolves with multiple Alpha males. In a pack full of Alpha males, you end up with a family of wolves that is not going to last very long. The Alphas would destroy themselves in an effort to attain the level of "top dog".
That's a really good analogy. But human beings have a compassionate aspect to their being. It's a feature that is important to civilization--we behave in a civilized manner b/c we have the capacity to sympathize/empathize with other people and act on that understanding. We someone in trying times or pain and we can help that person get back on his/her feet.
This country was at its most prospersous and successful point in the 1950s. The country's middle class peaked then. During that decade, the US had a top marginal tax rate btn 88 and 94% for dollars earned in excess of $400k and 40% of the country's private workforce was unionized. When that sharing of the wealth fell apart (flattened progressive tax scheme, unions crushed, spiraling executive compensation, frozen wages) people fell through the cracks. The social safety net is a safeguard to passageway back to the middle class for those people.
The middle class is not a natural result of moderated capitalism. There's an array of mechanisms that exist to ensure that wealth inequality/monopoly does not rule the day in the US (anti-trust laws, securities laws, tax laws etc). This country will destabalize if it becomes a thirdworld country where there are mega rich and undifferentiated poor as the only social strata.
Then I guess I'm saying that the country is as strong as its middle class.
-
The I guess I'm saying that the country is as strong as its middle class.
This is more correct.
It's not good when those in power are trying to eliminate the middle class.
-
This is more correct.
It's not good when those in power are trying to eliminate the middle class.
How does
out-sourcing fit into this? Or a $9 minimum wage?
-
The Middle Class is what drives the US and what makes it the power it is today. There are many countries around the world with 3% of the population controlling the vast majority of the money. You'll notice those countries don't benefit from trickle down economics. The 97% that don't have the money seem to get no benefit from the 3%.
The US needs and demands a strong and healthy middle class. In fact you could actually say that the middle class is the Alpha Male, well at least with some creative thinking. ;D
-
Democrats provide a handup with some subsistence assistance.
Republicans give trillion dollar tax cuts to millionaire/billionaires.
And Democrats hit up the poor with payroll taxes, gas taxes, registration fees, high property taxes, taxes on phone and cables services, food, etc. The list goes on and on.
There is enough blame to go around here. When the elite rich liberals quit living like rock stars in their 28,000 square foot mansions and their $400.00 hair cuts, and private jets they can speak about being the champions of the poor and needy.
The above statement also goes for rich conservatives that say the look out for the common man.
-
Regardless, a majority of blacks today vote with the mindset that the Republicans have always been "yesterday's Democrats". Would you agree with that?
Actually black people have fell under the spell that all Dems are kinda like JFK and Bobby, who were about Civil Rights...after that...it's all she wrote...
But with Repubs, they all seem to be banded together by hate and that they are the only ones that access to God. Any black person who joins, is either tired of being "taken for granted" by the Dems, or they are conservative.... Not realizing that both sides will take you for granted
-
Democrats provide a handup with some subsistence assistance.
Republicans give trillion dollar tax cuts to millionaire/billionaires.
Democrats, in general, are all about redistribution of wealth.
Some Republicans want to give tax cuts to those who pay the most taxes.
-
As far as republicans being denigrated by democrats, I still wish Trent Lott did not say these things as far as when he said, "I want to say this about my state; when Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it, and if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
Even I translated these comments as Lott's secretly coded message to KKK and aryan nation types that he wished this country was still segregated especially since Strom Thurmond ran for president in 1948 as a Dixiecrat on a segregationist platform. The senator's words sounded unmistakably like a repudiation of southern desegregation and the civil rights movement.
Trent Lott reminds me so much of senator Robert Byrd who is a democrat.
-
Democrats, in general, are all about redistribution of wealth.
Some Republicans want to give tax cuts to those who pay the most taxes.
all about?
Who convinced you to believe this horseshit?
Whats' the point anyway.
The Rapture will be here soon and you won't have any pockets to hold your money while you're flying naked through space and I assume you won't need it in heaven.
Frankly, the Dems main problem is that they don't have any coherent core principles.
No one really knows what they "all about"
BTW - could you please once and for all explain how this "redistribution" will actually work.
You are a christian after all so you can't be against helping the poor right?
Jesus says numerous times to sell all your possesion and give it to the poor.
That sounds a lot like redistribution of wealth doesn't it?
Maybe the Dems are all just good Christians and are trying to help the rich folk get into heaven
-
all about?
Who convinced you to believe this horseshit?
Whats' the point anyway.
The Rapture will be here soon and you won't have any pockets to hold your money while you're flying naked through space and I assume you won't need it in heaven.
Frankly, the Dems main problem is that they don't have any coherent core principles.
No one really knows what they "all about"
BTW - could you please once and for all explain how this "redistribution" will actually work.
You are a christian after all so you can't be against helping the poor right?
Jesus says numerous times to sell all your possesion and give it to the poor.
That sounds a lot like redistribution of wealth doesn't it?
Maybe the Dems are all just good Christians and are trying to help the rich folk get into heaven
What? lol. Talk about rambling. What was your question again? lol . . . .
-
What? lol. Talk about rambling. What was your question again? lol . . . .
you say the dems are "all about" redistribution of wealth
explain how this will work
-
you say the dems are "all about" redistribution of wealth
explain how this will work
Before or after I talk about "the rapture"? lol . . .
I've already explained this to you and, in fact, you agreed with me: Take from people who make the most money, spend the money elsewhere. I suggest watching the movie Robin Hood for a more thorough explanation (or Robin Hood Men in Tights, which is much funnier).
I was just talking to one of my (liberal) employees about this the other day. She admitted she has no problem with the "redistribution of wealth."
-
Before or after I talk about "the rapture"? lol . . .
I've already explained this to you and, in fact, you agreed with me: Take from people who make the most money, spend the money elsewhere. I suggest watching the movie Robin Hood for a more thorough explanation (or Robin Hood Men in Tights, which is much funnier).
I was just talking to one of my (liberal) employees about this the other day. She admitted she has no problem with the "redistribution of wealth."
I don't recall agreeing with you about anything on this issue.
What does "Take from people who make the most money, spend the money elsewhere" actually mean.
BE SPECIFIC. If this is what the Dems are ALL ABOUT then you should be able to explain it in more detail.
You can ignore my baiting on your Christian hypocrisy.
I'm sure you've read the bible and you're familiar with Luke 18:22
"And when Jesus heard it, he said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute
to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow
me."
Now that's "redistribution of wealth"
-
I don't recall agreeing with you about anything on this issue.
What does "Take from people who make the most money, spend the money elsewhere" actually mean.
BE SPECIFIC. If this is what the Dems are ALL ABOUT then you should be able to explain it in more detail.
You can ignore my baiting on your Christian hypocrisy.
I'm sure you've read the bible and you're familiar with Luke 18:22
"And when Jesus heard it, he said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute
to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow
me."
Now that's "redistribution of wealth"
As you suggested, I will ignore your dumb comments about my "Christian hypocrisy." Feel free to start a thread about money and wealth on the Religion board. I'll participate. :)
Quote from: Beach Bum on April 11, 2007, 02:53:23 PM
4. I said the following is redistribution of wealth "In other words, they will tax a big oil company and/or a high income earner and spend the revenue received from these companies/individuals elsewhere." You agreed: "yes, that's the whole point."
-
As you suggested, I will ignore your dumb comments about my "Christian hypocrisy." Feel free to start a thread about money and wealth on the Religion board. I'll participate. :)
I never debate religion and I've never post on the religion board (I've only looked at it once or twice)
In my opinion it's pointless to debate with someone who holds a position without evidence or in contrary to evidence.
Besides, my personal belief is anyone who holds a fundamentalist belief in any religion is mentally ill (for real) which again makes for a pointless discussion
To the quote (actually your quote) - you've taken that out of context of a larger discussion which was about the inevitable rising costs of fossil fuel and how to finance the development of alternatives. It was not about taxation in general nor was it about a generic "redistribution of wealth". It was about taxing those companies who are raping us (the human race) and using that money to develop alternatives which we MUST eventually develop. I went on to explain that those very same companies could also participate in this development, hence the wealth that was "taken" from them could also be used by them.
This has nothing to do with the "Dems are ALL ABOUT redistribution of wealth
BTW - you STILL haven't explained your idiotic "Dems are all about redistribution of wealth"
-
I never debate religion and I've never post on the religion board (I've only looked at it once or twice)
In my opinion it's pointless to debate with someone who holds a position without evidence or in contrary to evidence.
Besides, my personal belief is anyone who holds a fundamentalist belief in any religion is mentally ill (for real) which again makes for a pointless discussion
To the quote (actually your quote) - you've taken that out of context of a larger discussion which was about the inevitable rising costs of fossil fuel and how to finance the development of alternatives. It was not about taxation in general nor was it about a generic "redistribution of wealth". It was about taxing those companies who are raping us (the human race) and using that money to develop alternatives which we MUST eventually develop. I went on to explain that those very same companies could also participate in this development, hence the wealth that was "taken" from them could also be used by them.
This has nothing to do with the "Dems are ALL ABOUT redistribution of wealth
BTW - you STILL haven't explained your idiotic "Dems are all about redistribution of wealth"
Oh that's funny. So you really didn't say what I just quoted? ::)
And we have already had this discussion. Feel free to read my comments again. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=140726.0
-
Oh that's funny. So you really didn't say what I just quoted? ::)
And we have already had this discussion. Feel free to read my comments again. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=140726.0
again, that was a discussion about taxing oil companies and using that revenue to develop alternative fuels.
I agreed that the point was to use the extra revenue to develop alternatives
I did NOT affirm your simple minded idea that the dems are all about redistribution of wealth
Do you see the difference?
putting that aside for the moment I find it ironic that a devout Christian such as yourself is more concerned about your own personal wealth over helping those that have less. Wasn't Jesus all about helping those less fortunate than you and even more.
In Matthew 5 and Luke 6 he says to give extra to those who steal from you, give to all who beg from you, lend without expecting repayment. In Luke 12 he says to beware all covetousness, "sell your possessions and give alms", to provide yourself with treasure in Heaven. In Luke 14, "when you give a feast, do not invite the rich, lest they invite you in return, and you be repaid. But invite the poor, the maimed, the blind, and you will be blessed, for they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just."
Are you starting to see the irony yet?
Perhaps I don't understand your complete position.
Apart from the oil companies - how are the dems going to redistribute this "wealth"
Let's say they were going to take some small amount from the most wealthy and just help those in need
What's the problem with that?
WWJD?
-
I don't recall agreeing with you about anything on this issue.
What does "Take from people who make the most money, spend the money elsewhere" actually mean.
BE SPECIFIC. If this is what the Dems are ALL ABOUT then you should be able to explain it in more detail.
You can ignore my baiting on your Christian hypocrisy.
I'm sure you've read the bible and you're familiar with Luke 18:22
"And when Jesus heard it, he said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute
to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow
me."
Now that's "redistribution of wealth"
You realize that the verse is about the man willingly forsaking his material wealth for spiritual wealth. Big difference.
It's not the job of the government to decide who gets what. That decision belongs to us.
-
You realize that the verse is about the man willingly forsaking his material wealth for spiritual wealth. Big difference.
It's not the job of the government to decide who gets what. That decision belongs to us.
That is certainly one interpretation but why do the Catholic clergy have to takes vows of poverty? Can't they have some bit of wealth without still forsaking their spiritual wealth? The same thing is very common in other religions too.
Anway, I'm still waiting for BB to flesh out his claim that the "Dems are all about redistribution of wealth"
Frankly, the Dems main problem is that no one knows what they're about. They have no coherent platform
The idea that they're just about taking from the rich and giving to the poor is ridiculous and simplistic
-
That is certainly one interpretation but why do the Catholic clergy have to takes vows of poverty? Can't they have some bit of wealth without still forsaking their spiritual wealth? The same thing is very common in other religions too.
Anway, I'm still waiting for BB to flesh out his claim that the "Dems are all about redistribution of wealth"
Frankly, the Dems main problem is that no one knows what they're about. They have no coherent platform
The idea that they're just about taking from the rich and giving to the poor is ridiculous and simplistic
LOL... sorry, Straw but catholic (church) and poverty.... lol... man oh man....but I see your point.
I do agree that the Dems have no coherent platform. I don't think they have for a long time now. They're all over the map and as of late the Republicans have been the same way.
Both parties try to hard to please everyone they please no one.
-
again, that was a discussion about taxing oil companies and using that revenue to develop alternative fuels.
I agreed that the point was to use the extra revenue to develop alternatives
I did NOT affirm your simple minded idea that the dems are all about redistribution of wealth
Do you see the difference?
putting that aside for the moment I find it ironic that a devout Christian such as yourself is more concerned about your own personal wealth over helping those that have less. Wasn't Jesus all about helping those less fortunate than you and even more.
In Matthew 5 and Luke 6 he says to give extra to those who steal from you, give to all who beg from you, lend without expecting repayment. In Luke 12 he says to beware all covetousness, "sell your possessions and give alms", to provide yourself with treasure in Heaven. In Luke 14, "when you give a feast, do not invite the rich, lest they invite you in return, and you be repaid. But invite the poor, the maimed, the blind, and you will be blessed, for they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just."
Are you starting to see the irony yet?
Perhaps I don't understand your complete position.
Apart from the oil companies - how are the dems going to redistribute this "wealth"
Let's say they were going to take some small amount from the most wealthy and just help those in need
What's the problem with that?
WWJD?
Uh . . . ya. O.K. I think I'll stick with your original comments from the Donkey thread. And if you want to read my comments, again, about redistribution of wealth, go back and read the link I just posted for you. I'll not repeat my comments, again.
And here you are asking me to discuss/debate a religious issue, which you just said you never do:
« Reply #35 on: Quote from: Straw Man Today at 10:24:00 AM »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never debate religion and I've never post on the religion board (I've only looked at it once or twice)
In my opinion it's pointless to debate with someone who holds a position without evidence or in contrary to evidence.
Besides, my personal belief is anyone who holds a fundamentalist belief in any religion is mentally ill (for real) which again makes for a pointless discussion
At least wait till to you start another thread to contradict yourself. ::)
-
You realize that the verse is about the man willingly forsaking his material wealth for spiritual wealth. Big difference.
It's not the job of the government to decide who gets what. That decision belongs to us.
What he said. :)
-
LOL... sorry, Straw but catholic (church) and poverty.... lol... man oh man....but I see your point.
I do agree that the Dems have no coherent platform. I don't think they have for a long time now. They're all over the map and as of late the Republicans have been the same way.
Both parties try to hard to please everyone they please no one.
I did specify the clergy and not the church itself.
The individual clergy own nothing. The Church owns everything.
Just like any other cult
-
Uh . . . ya. O.K. I think I'll stick with your original comments from the Donkey thread. And if you want to read my comments, again, about redistribution of wealth, go back and read the link I just posted for you. I'll not repeat my comments, again.
And here you are asking me to discuss/debate a religious issue, which you just said you never do:
At least wait till to you start another thread to contradict yourself. ::)
I've read the thread. Why don't you show me somewhere were I agreed that the Dems were all about redistribution of wealth. I gave you an example of how we could tax oil companies and use those funds to finance the investment in alternative energy. Which I've now repeated at least 3 times.
I'm not debating your religious beliefs. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of your fear that someone might try to raise your taxes and use that money to help those less fortunate.
Either way, you've still (as always) given no example (other than the oil company thread) about your redistribution theory.
Just another simple minded theory that sees the world as Black and White when it's really about 500 shades of gray.
-
I've read the thread. Why don't you show me somewhere were I agreed that the Dems were all about redistribution of wealth. I gave you an example of how we could tax oil companies and use those funds to finance the investment in alternative energy. Which I've now repeated at least 3 times.
I'm not debating your religious beliefs. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of your fear that someone might try to raise your taxes and use that money to help those less fortunate.
Either way, you've still (as always) given no example (other than the oil company thread) about your redistribution theory.
Just another simple minded theory that sees the world as Black and White when it's really about 500 shades of gray.
Dude if you read the thread, including the quote I pulled for you and you still don't get it, then I can't help you.
And you're not debating religious beliefs, you're just quoting the Bible chapter and verse . . . lol . . . . Okay Straw Man. Whatever you say. I'm sure, with as much as I run my cyber mouth, that I contradict myself on occasion, but it's typically not in the same thread. lol . . . .
-
Dude if you read the thread, including the quote I pulled for you and you still don't get it, then I can't help you.
And you're not debating religious beliefs, you're just quoting the Bible chapter and verse . . . lol . . . . Okay Straw Man. Whatever you say. I'm sure, with as much as I run my cyber mouth, that I contradict myself on occasion, but it's typically not in the same thread. lol . . . .
Beach Bum
Moderator
Getbig V
Posts: 7308
Re: A Little Bit of History about Our Two Major Parties
« Reply #34 on: Today at 10:07:36 AM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Straw Man on Today at 09:58:44 AM
I don't recall agreeing with you about anything on this issue.
What does "Take from people who make the most money, spend the money elsewhere" actually mean.
BE SPECIFIC. If this is what the Dems are ALL ABOUT then you should be able to explain it in more detail.
You can ignore my baiting on your Christian hypocrisy.
I'm sure you've read the bible and you're familiar with Luke 18:22
"And when Jesus heard it, he said to him, "One thing you still lack. Sell all that you have and distribute
to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow
me."
Now that's "redistribution of wealth"
As you suggested, I will ignore your dumb comments about my "Christian hypocrisy." Feel free to start a thread about money and wealth on the Religion board. I'll participate.
Quote
Quote from: Beach Bum on April 11, 2007, 02:53:23 PM
4. I said the following is redistribution of wealth "In other words, they will tax a big oil company and/or a high income earner and spend the revenue received from these companies/individuals elsewhere." You agreed: "yes, that's the whole point."
Report to moderator Logged
I can't find any quote from me
the only thing I can find is you quoting yourself
-
Quote
Quote from: Beach Bum on April 11, 2007, 02:53:23 PM
4. I said the following is redistribution of wealth "In other words, they will tax a big oil company and/or a high income earner and spend the revenue received from these companies/individuals elsewhere." You agreed: "yes, that's the whole point."
I can't find any quote from me
the only thing I can find is you quoting yourself
LOL. You are a riot. You just quoted yourself. The first part of paragraph 4 is a quote from me. The second part of paragraph 4 is a quote from you, agreeing with me. You can't be serious. LOL . . . .
-
And Democrats hit up the poor with payroll taxes, gas taxes, registration fees, high property taxes, taxes on phone and cables services, food, etc. The list goes on and on.
There is enough blame to go around here. When the elite rich liberals quit living like rock stars in their 28,000 square foot mansions and their $400.00 hair cuts, and private jets they can speak about being the champions of the poor and needy.
The above statement also goes for rich conservatives that say the look out for the common man.
Payroll taxes were never raised higher than when Ronald Reagan signed the largest tax increase in US history raising the payroll tax almost 50%. Republicans raise taxes just like Democrats.
I don't worry about $400 haircuts or 28000 sq ft homes b/c those things are peanuts compared to the wealth disparity in this country, the veritable flat wages (since 1973), the nonenforcement of anti-trust laws and the demise of the union.
Someone has to speak with a populist voice on behalf of the poor and middle class. If people are to think like you that Gore and Edwards are hypocrites because they are successful yet still have a conscience showing real compassion for the needy, then nothing of consequence will get done on behalf of the poor/middle class.
Let the representatve's deeds mark their character with respect to aiding the poor/middle class and not the trappings of their living conditions.
-
Payroll taxes were never raised higher than when Ronald Reagan signed the largest tax increase in US history raising the payroll tax almost 50%. Republicans raise taxes just like Democrats.
I don't worry about $400 haircuts or 28000 sq ft homes b/c those things are peanuts compared to the wealth disparity in this country, the veritable flat wages (since 1973), the nonenforcement of anti-trust laws and the demise of the union.
Someone has to speak with a populist voice on behalf of the poor and middle class. If people are to think like you that Gore and Edwards are hypocrites because they are successful yet still have a conscience showing real compassion for the needy, then nothing of consequence will get done on behalf of the poor/middle class.
Let the representatve's deeds mark their character with respect to aiding the poor/middle class and not the trappings of their living conditions.
What exactly have Breck Grrl and Algore done for the poor? They're just two of thousands of politicians that control the mass population through taxation and layers of government red tape.
I think Edwards and Gore are hypocrites for several reasons but I want to stick to taxes.
Go watch America: Freedom to Facism and tell me if you don't think the Democrat and Republicans are different sides of the same beast.
-
You realize that the verse is about the man willingly forsaking his material wealth for spiritual wealth. Big difference.
It's not the job of the government to decide who gets what. That decision belongs to us.
It is the federal governments job to marshal vital national resources. The US federal government wired the country then privatized that infrastructure (AT&T). Same thing with rural electrification. Same thing with the Internet. The list goes on.
-
LOL. You are a riot. You just quoted yourself. The first part of paragraph 4 is a quote from me. The second part of paragraph 4 is a quote from you, agreeing with me. You can't be serious. LOL . . . .
for the 4th time now I think - this a quote from YOU (hint that's why it says Quote from Beach Bum) where you've embedded something (out of context with our current discussion) where I said I agreed with you. If you go back and read the thread I'm agreeing with you solely on the an example I gave about taxing oil companies and using those profits to finance alternative fuels. I am not agreeing with your paranoid delusion that the Dems are out to get your money.
You're either playing dumb or you're too stupid to understand that.
Why don't you just put this all to rest and address what I asked you when I first responded in THIS THREAD and explain exactly how the Dems are ALL ABOUT redistribution of wealth. Like I've said in the initial response - the Dems main problem is that no one knows that they are about. The idea that they're ALL ABOUT getting their hands on your prescious money is lame. If you believe it then back it up with some proof. Me agreeing to another point in another discussion is not proof of your statement
-
It is the federal governments job to marshal vital national resources. The US federal government wired the country then privatized that infrastructure (AT&T). Same thing with rural electrification. Same thing with the Internet. The list goes on.
Are you saying that our hard earned wages are vital national resources that should be managed by the government?
Who works for who here? Does the government exist to work for us or do we exist to work for the government?
-
What exactly have Breck Grrl and Algore done for the poor? They're just two of thousands of politicians that control the mass population through taxation and layers of government red tape.
I think Edwards and Gore are hypocrites for several reasons but I want to stick to taxes.
Go watch America: Freedom to Facism and tell me if you don't think the Democrat and Republicans are different sides of the same beast.
No no. Edwards'health insurance plan, Gore's health insurance plan (2000), saving social security instead of destroying it through privatization, Tax cuts for working families, Gore as vp helped pay down the debt--Bush's borrow and spend policies have added trillions to the debt (almost 9 trillion total), Edwards made his money as a lawyer representing the poor/middle class against negligent doctors.
There is a lot more. You didn't bother to look. It's easier to dismiss your opponent's and call them names.
-
Are you saying that our hard earned wages are vital national resources that should be managed by the government?
Who works for who here? Does the government exist to work for us or do we exist to work for the government?
It is the federal government that helps manage the smooth running of the free market. It is the federal/state governments that, through tax revenue, support the police, public roads, satellite services, TV and phone wiring, the military, the justice system, an immunized & educated workforce, Public business and education loans and much more.
The federal government lends administrative organization to the country. We all earn our money yet we are all in this together. The federal government identifies national interests and works to support those ends.
-
No no. Edwards'health insurance plan, Gore's health insurance plan (2000), saving social security instead of destroying it through privatization, Tax cuts for working families, Gore as vp helped pay down the debt--Bush's borrow and spend policies have added trillions to the debt (almost 9 trillion total), Edwards made his money as a lawyer representing the poor/middle class against negligent doctors.
There is a lot more. You didn't bother to look. It's easier to dismiss your opponent's and call them names.
I call guys them names because they're easy targets and it's fun. In the end it's their politics I have problems with.
Social security is a pipe dream and I seriously doubt if it will be there for any of us when (and if) we reach the age of eligibility. It's our money so WE should be able to exercise the option of putting it into an account that would yield a higher rate of return - our money our choice.
What tax cuts for working families did the Democrats give when they were in power? I was an enlisted man during the Clinton administration and don't recall my taxes going down at all.
I'll readily admit I'm not familiar with Edwards or Gore's ideas for health insurance. Can you please inform me on what they proposed?
FYI... Bush is NOT a true Reagan Republican. He's a southern Democrat.
-
No no. Edwards'health insurance plan, Gore's health insurance plan (2000), saving social security instead of destroying it through privatization, Tax cuts for working families, Gore as vp helped pay down the debt--Bush's borrow and spend policies have added trillions to the debt (almost 9 trillion total), Edwards made his money as a lawyer representing the poor/middle class against negligent doctors.
There is a lot more. You didn't bother to look. It's easier to dismiss your opponent's and call them names.
Correction, the REPUBLICAN congress payed down the debt. Remember the goverment shutting down a couple of times to make it happen? I agree, the administration and Congress alike have been extremely frivolous with spending. Yet, I also believe that no other president has endured what this current administration has had to deal with.
-
It is the federal government that helps manage the smooth running of the free market. It is the federal/state governments that, through tax revenue, support the police, public roads, satellite services, TV and phone wiring, the military, the justice system, an immunized & educated workforce, Public business and education loans and much more.
The federal government lends administrative organization to the country. We all earn our money yet we are all in this together. The federal government identifies national interests and works to support those ends.
Decker, you didn't answer my question. Are OUR wages vital national resources to be managed by the government?
I may be misinterpreting your statements here but you seem to favor a very strong centralized form of government. In my opinion that's dangerous to a functioning republic because it takes power away from the states and local government and more importantly away from the individuals that make up a working community.
Let me ask you a few questions if I may.
Do you think taxes on a man's wages are justified? Is it moral and more importantly is it Constitutional?
If you think they are how much should be taken away by the government?
How much money does one have to make to qualify as rich in America?
-
I call guys them names because they're easy targets and it's fun. In the end it's their politics I have problems with.
Social security is a pipe dream and I seriously doubt if it will be there for any of us when (and if) we reach the age of eligibility. It's our money so WE should be able to exercise the option of putting it into an account that would yield a higher rate of return - our money our choice.
What tax cuts for working families did the Democrats give when they were in power? I was an enlisted man during the Clinton administration and don't recall my taxes going down at all.
I'll readily admit I'm not familiar with Edwards or Gore's ideas for health insurance. Can you please inform me on what they proposed?
FYI... Bush is NOT a true Reagan Republican. He's a southern Democrat.
Social Security as it stands now will pay all benefits until 2043 without having to pay for the treasury notes that represent the amounts borrowed from the fund over the years.
Your SS is fine. The "higher rate of return" argument is bogus. When you are paying btn 12-19% of your SS account in brokerage charges/fees and other administrative costs under a privatized platform, you'll be begging for the less than 1% administrative cost of SS as it is presently run. The SS system was not designed to be a wealth creator--it is social insurance guarding against abject povery (which costs the US a shitload more in longterm costs).
Clinton raised the earned income tax credit and expanded the child tax credit.
Here's a link to Edwards' health plan: http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care-overview.pdf
Here's a link that explains it: http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/02/the_edwards_hea.html
Here's a summary of Gore's plan from 2000: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/09/07/president.2000/gore.healthcare/
Bush is just like Reagan--except Reagan listened to his advisors when they told him to raise taxes to keep the government operating. Both are 'Borrow and Spenders.'
-
Correction, the REPUBLICAN congress payed down the debt. Remember the goverment shutting down a couple of times to make it happen? I agree, the administration and Congress alike have been extremely frivolous with spending. Yet, I also believe that no other president has endured what this current administration has had to deal with.
No, the Clinton tax hike, the fruits of the business cycle and the increased efficiency from the computer revolution paid down the debt.
As for the present administration, no president has ever cut taxes and asked the citizens to shop during a time of war. That is unconscionable.
-
Decker, you didn't answer my question. Are OUR wages vital national resources to be managed by the government?
I may be misinterpreting your statements here but you seem to favor a very strong centralized form of government. In my opinion that's dangerous to a functioning republic because it takes power away from the states and local government and more importantly away from the individuals that make up a working community.
Let me ask you a few questions if I may.
Do you think taxes on a man's wages are justified? Is it moral and more importantly is it Constitutional?
If you think they are how much should be taken away by the government?
How much money does one have to make to qualify as rich in America?
It's not a question of do I think that our wages are a vital national interest. The tax revenues supplied by those wages are definitely part of the lifeblood of government.
Our federal government is one that is By The People. We are the government.
That does not diminish the fact that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. That vigilance was lost under the Bush administration and all sorts of unconstitutional things happened.
The constitution authorizes the raising of taxes.
The amount taxed is set by us through our representative form of government.
The definition of "rich" is in the eye of the beholder. The federal government draws a poverty line every year. From that merest subsistence level, one could define a dollar level for what is rich.
Maybe "rich" means getting enough unearned income so as not to work or be a productive member of society: e.g., Paris Hilton...or not having to worry about the costs of insurance or minor lifetime catastrophes.
-
It's not a question of do I think that our wages are a vital national interest. The tax revenues supplied by those wages are definitely part of the lifeblood of government.
I agree. Taxes are necessary for a government to maintain it's infrastructure and provide basic services.
That does not diminish the fact that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. That vigilance was lost under the Bush administration and all sorts of unconstitutional things happened.
Please stay on topic. We can discuss apples and oranges another time.
The constitution authorizes the raising of taxes.
Please provide the law that states that the government is authorized to directly tax income. This has gone to court serveral times and, to date, the government (IRS) has been unable to prove it's case. Additionally, from what I've been reading the 16th ammendment was NEVER ratified and the Supreme Court has (on two different occassions) ruled that the 16th ammendment did not authorize the federal government to directly tax income.
The amount taxed is set by us through our representative form of government.
I'm beginning to have my doubts about that.
The definition of "rich" is in the eye of the beholder. The federal government draws a poverty line every year. From that merest subsistence level, one could define a dollar level for what is rich.
Maybe "rich" means getting enough unearned income so as not to work or be a productive member of society: e.g., Paris Hilton...or not having to worry about the costs of insurance or minor lifetime catastrophes.
I asked what YOU think the line should be. Of course wealth is relative. A $35,000 annual salary in Alabama is not going to go as far in a state like the Peoples Republic of Maryland. So, I'll ask again. Since our tax code does not take regional cost of living expenses into consideration what is the line for "rich" in America?
-
Please provide the law that states that the government is authorized to directly tax income. This has gone to court serveral times and, to date, the government (IRS) has been unable to prove it's case. Additionally, from what I've been reading the 16th ammendment was NEVER ratified and the Supreme Court has (on two different occassions) ruled that the 16th ammendment did not authorize the federal government to directly tax income.
...
I asked what YOU think the line should be. Of course wealth is relative. A $35,000 annual salary in Alabama is not going to go as far in a state like the Peoples Republic of Maryland. So, I'll ask again. Since our tax code does not take regional cost of living expenses into consideration what is the line for "rich" in America?
Amendment XVI 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
That is more than enough constitutional authority for Congress to impose a variety of taxes.
Here is a link in reference to your contention that the 16th Amendment was never ratified: http://www.fraudguides.com/tax_protesting.asp
Here's a better source: http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/taxprot.htm
"Various persons and groups are actively marketing and selling a variety of information, legal products, and financial products based on interpretations of the U.S. Constitution as it relates to the Internal Revenue Code, and indeed the Internal Revenue Service itself.
The arguments include:
False arguments that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (authorizing the income tax) was not properly ratified
False arguments that the Internal Revenue Code was not properly enacted by Congress
False arguments that the Internal Revenue Service was not properly constituted by either Congress or the Department of the Treasury (and is therefore operating as an "illegal" entity)
False arguments that "income" cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be owed
False arguments that only foreigners and citizens of the United States (falsely limited to citizens of the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.) are liable to pay income tax, and state citizens are not liable for income tax -- i.e., false arguments that the payment of income tax is really "voluntary" (you'd have to be a real sucker to believe this one).
False arguments about a number of like subjects regarding income tax, all of which erroneously conclude that nobody is liable to pay income tax
These arguments are all false, and demonstrably so. Anyone who advocates them is a liar, and anyone who believes them is either a dullard, a sucker, or a fool." (those aren't my words)
________________________ ___
The courts have never held in favor of any of the above arguments.
As far as fair apportionment of taxation and regional considerations are concerned, I think the graded progressive income tax is fine, IF it is left without exceptions.
This country was at its most prosperous in the 1950s when earnings over $400,000 were taxed at a 94% clip.
I think anyone earning over $400,000 is 'rich.'
But most wealthy people make their fortunes in capital gains and not income tax. So we are barking up the wrong tree here.
-
Here is a fantastic resource.
I used this doing my own research when I was in school
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
This source is the real deal. That's how it's taught in tax classes in law school.
-
Amendment XVI 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
That is more than enough constitutional authority for Congress to impose a variety of taxes.
Here is a link in reference to your contention that the 16th Amendment was never ratified: http://www.fraudguides.com/tax_protesting.asp
Here's a better source: http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/taxprot.htm
"Various persons and groups are actively marketing and selling a variety of information, legal products, and financial products based on interpretations of the U.S. Constitution as it relates to the Internal Revenue Code, and indeed the Internal Revenue Service itself.
The arguments include:
False arguments that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (authorizing the income tax) was not properly ratified
False arguments that the Internal Revenue Code was not properly enacted by Congress
False arguments that the Internal Revenue Service was not properly constituted by either Congress or the Department of the Treasury (and is therefore operating as an "illegal" entity)
False arguments that "income" cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be owed
False arguments that only foreigners and citizens of the United States (falsely limited to citizens of the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.) are liable to pay income tax, and state citizens are not liable for income tax -- i.e., false arguments that the payment of income tax is really "voluntary" (you'd have to be a real sucker to believe this one).
False arguments about a number of like subjects regarding income tax, all of which erroneously conclude that nobody is liable to pay income tax
These arguments are all false, and demonstrably so. Anyone who advocates them is a liar, and anyone who believes them is either a dullard, a sucker, or a fool." (those aren't my words)
________________________ ___
The courts have never held in favor of any of the above arguments.
As far as fair apportionment of taxation and regional considerations are concerned, I think the graded progressive income tax is fine, IF it is left without exceptions.
This country was at its most prosperous in the 1950s when earnings over $400,000 were taxed at a 94% clip.
I think anyone earning over $400,000 is 'rich.'
But most wealthy people make their fortunes in capital gains and not income tax. So we are barking up the wrong tree here.
Decker, while I do respect your opinion and I'm sure you have very valid reasons for having them I'm still very wary of a system where former IRS agents question the legallity of the tax code. Here are some links about former IRS agent Joseph Banister:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17023 (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17023)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44956 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44956)
http://www.freedomabovefortune.com (http://www.freedomabovefortune.com)
I can keep posting several articles that dispute what your websites claim to be lawful but we'll just go around in circles and neither of us will yield.
In the end I am of the opinion that our tax system is broken and penalizes Americans for success. When I have to pay out greater than a third of my salary to the government (federal, state, and local) in income taxes it leaves me less money to provide for my family and for my future. Especially when we are paying a long list of indirect taxes.
Read the above articles and keep an open mind. Forget that the link go to a conservative website and just read about the man and what he's found out.
-
This country was at its most prosperous in the 1950s when earnings over $400,000 were taxed at a 94% clip.
Sweet Jesus, man, how can ANYONE morally justify that?
I think anyone earning over $400,000 is 'rich.'
It's still their money to do with as they see fit. People who have money will spend it. This has been proven time and time again.
But most wealthy people make their fortunes in capital gains and not income tax. So we are barking up the wrong tree here.
Right. We're talking about the taxation of a man's wages - his property.
Just think about it. Money is power.
Right now the government has the power and enforces those "laws" at the end of a gun.
-
This country was at its most prosperous in the 1950s when earnings over $400,000 were taxed at a 94% clip.
I think anyone earning over $400,000 is 'rich.'
Actually, net worth determines whether or not someone is "rich." A person making $400,000 can still live paycheck to paycheck.
And a 94 percent tax rate?? You support that?
-
Decker, while I do respect your opinion and I'm sure you have very valid reasons for having them I'm still very wary of a system where former IRS agents question the legallity of the tax code. Here are some links about former IRS agent Joseph Banister:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17023 (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17023)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44956 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44956)
http://www.freedomabovefortune.com (http://www.freedomabovefortune.com)
I can keep posting several articles that dispute what your websites claim to be lawful but we'll just go around in circles and neither of us will yield.
In the end I am of the opinion that our tax system is broken and penalizes Americans for success. When I have to pay out greater than a third of my salary to the government (federal, state, and local) in income taxes it leaves me less money to provide for my family and for my future. Especially when we are paying a long list of indirect taxes.
Read the above articles and keep an open mind. Forget that the link go to a conservative website and just read about the man and what he's found out.
Thank you, I respect your reasoning as well.
The challenges that Joe Bannister makes are not original nor are they sustainable in a tax court of law. He is not a tax lawyer. I have been schooled in tax law (I'm a retirement benefits attorney) and I'm telling you, just read this link to disprove each of Mr. Bannister's contentions: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#direct
The income tax schedule asks those with the strongest arms (the highest earners) to pay more.
The progressive tax schedule can be characterized as 'punishing success' but in my books, that's sort of shirking one's duty. It's kind of cowardly to ask the weakest links in society to contribute as much as the best and brightest. It is selfishness drawn to ridiculous lengths.
Paying our taxes ensures our American Way of Life. That is an honor and it is honorable to pay one's taxes.
Now I am not calling you a coward or anything of the like. I think you are a smart guy. As a matter of fact, I think tax relief is important and should be done every now and then just as taxes need to be raised every now and then. But there are bills to be paid, roads to be built and armies to be supported.
-
Actually, net worth determines whether or not someone is "rich." A person making $400,000 can still live paycheck to paycheck.
And a 94 percent tax rate?? You support that?
Here is a link to the report Joseph R. Banister wrote regarding these three issues:
- Due to limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution, filing of Federal Income Tax Returns and Payment of Federal Income Tax is VOLUNTARY not MANDATORY.
- The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never legally ratified.
- The U.S. Government finances its operations from the UNCONSTITIONAL creation of fiat money, not with revenue from income taxes.
Info about Joseph Banister (www.freedomabovefortune. com):
This report was prepared by Joseph R. Banister, who graduated in 1986 from San Jose State University with a Bachelor's Degree in Accounting. He spent three years at KPMG Peat Marwick on their professional staff as a senior tax specialist and staff auditor. He then spent nearly two years in the venture capital industry during which time he became a licensed Certified Public Accountant (CPA) in the State of California. Mr. Banister left public practice as a CPA in 1993 when he accepted appointment as a Special Agent (criminal investigator) in the Department of the Treasury, IRS Criminal Investigation Division (IRS-CID). Unable to resolve conflicts between the way the IRS administered the Federal Income Tax and Mr. Banister's oath of office, he resigned from IRS-CID on February 25, 1999.
-
Actually, net worth determines whether or not someone is "rich." A person making $400,000 can still live paycheck to paycheck.
And a 94 percent tax rate?? You support that?
That tax rate applies to each dollar earned over $400,000. In the 1950s, that's a hell of a lot of money. 94% is pretty high but that is a graded scale where for each bracket, that wealthy person pays that bracket's tax percent. I would have no problem with a top marginal rate of 70% for money earned in excess of million.
But that's me.
Anyway, the as we've noted, the rich make most of their wealth through either inheritance or capital gains--selling stocks, selling businesses, etc.
-
Here is a link to the report Joseph R. Banister wrote regarding these three issues:
- Due to limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution, filing of Federal Income Tax Returns and Payment of Federal Income Tax is VOLUNTARY not MANDATORY.
....
The income tax is voluntary.
This is a corruption of statements made by the IRS, the courts, and Congress to encourage taxpayer compliance with the tax laws, without the need for legal action against taxpayers.
A quotation frequently taken out of context by tax protesters is the following by the U.S. Supreme Court:
“Our tax system is based upon voluntary assessment and payment and not upon distraint.”
Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 175.
This quotation is out of context, because the court first noted that the government could collect the tax by exercising its power of distraint, “but we cannot believe that completing resort to this extraordinary procedure is either wise or in accord with congressional intent.” 362 U.S. at 175. In other words, Congress can collect taxes by force, but the court believed that Congress intended to give taxpayers an opportunity to comply before exercising that force.
This is better explained in Helvering v. Mitchell, (which was cited in the Flora decision), as follows:
“In assessing income taxes, the Government relies primarily upon the disclosure by the taxpayer of the relevant facts. This disclosure it requires him to make in his annual return. To ensure full and honest disclosure, to discourage fraudulent attempts to evade the tax, Congress imposes sanctions. Such sanctions may confessedly be either criminal or civil.”
Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399 (1938).
When confronted by claims that income taxes are “voluntary,” courts readily explain that the payment of income tax is mandatory, not optional:
“Appellants’ claim that payment of federal income tax is voluntary clearly lacks substance.”
United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. den. 510 U.S. 1193 (1994).
“The payment of income taxes is not optional ... and the average citizen knows that payment of income taxes is legally required.”
Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 834 (2nd Cir. 1990).
“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (6) the income tax is voluntary... “
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
“Any assertion that the payment of income taxes is voluntary is without merit. It is without question that the payment of income taxes is not voluntary. [citations omitted] The assertion that the filing of an income tax return is voluntary is, likewise, frivolous.”
United States v. Hartman, 915 F.Supp. 1227 (M.D.Fla. 1996).
“Based on his belief that the income tax system is based on voluntary compliance, Beresford wrote the IRS to explain that he had voluntarily chosen not to comply and would not be paying overdue income taxes for 1987, 1988, and 1989. The IRS issued a federal tax lien against him, which it satisfied by withholding $14,609.97 from the sale of Beresford’s house in October 1999. Beresford seeks to recover that sum plus interest and costs. He also seeks a permanent injunction ‘forbidding defendant from contacting him against his wishes and from directly or indirectly interfering in any other aspect of his life.’ Complaint at 11. ... Beresford’s primary contention, however, that the federal income tax system is based on voluntary compliance, has been held to be ‘completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous.’”
Steven M. Beresford v. IRS, et al., 86 AFTR2d Par. 2000-5200, No. 00-293-KI (July 13, 2000).
“The federal income tax is not voluntary, and a person may not elect to opt out of the federal tax laws by a unilateral act of revocation and recission.”
United States v. John L. Sasscer, 86 AFTR2d Par. 2000-5317, No. Y-97-3026 (D.C. Md. 9/25/2000), (footnote omitted).
“Upon review of May’s amended peition, we find no allegations of fact which could give rise to a valid claim; rather, the complaint merely contains conclusory assertions attacking the constitutionality of the Internal Revenue Code and its application to the taxpayer.[Footnote omitted.] Tax protest cases like this one raise no genuine controversy; the underlying legal issues have long been settled. See, e.g., Abrams, 82 T.C. at 406-07 (citing cases rejecting similar arguments). Because May’s petition raised no justiciable claims, the Tax Court properly dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim.”
May v. C.I.R., 752 F.2d 1301, 1302 (8th Cir. 1985), (among other things, May’s amended complaint alleged that “The filing of an ‘imcome’ [sic] tax return is ‘VOLUNTARY’ and penalties can not be instituted against a voluntary act since to do so would make the act ‘mandatory.’” 752 F.2d at 1304, note 3).
“His [Harris’s] claims that the payment of federal income taxes is voluntary, and that the IRS fraudulently induced him to pay his taxes by withholding that fact, are clearly without merit.”
Harris v. Irene Kinahan, et al., 87 AFTR2d Par. 2001-984, No. 00-5258 (3rd Cir. 18 May 2001).
See also, United States v. Raymond, 228 F.3d 804, 812 (7th Cir. 2000); Hyslep v. United States, 765 F.2d 1083, 1084 (11th Cir. 1985); Ginter v. Southern, 611 F.2d 1226, 1229 & n.2 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. den., 446 U.S. 967 (1980); Funk v. Commissioner, 687 F.2d 264, 265 (8th Cir. 1982); Lesoon v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 141 F.3d 1185, 1998 WL 166114 (10th Cir. 1998); Damron v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 18 F. Supp. 2d 812, 819-20 (E.D. Tenn. 1998), aff’d, 188 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 1999); Wilcox v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988).
The claims that “(1) Compliance with the internal revenue laws is voluntary or optional and not required by law, including arguments that: a. Filing a Federal tax or information return or paying tax is purely voluntary under the law, or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2007-20, 2007-14 I.R.B. ___....” has been identified by the IRS as a “frivolous position” that can result in a penalty of $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions. Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. ___.
[/list]
-
Here is a link to the report Joseph R. Banister wrote regarding these three issues:
- Due to limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution, filing of Federal Income Tax Returns and Payment of Federal Income Tax is VOLUNTARY not MANDATORY.
- The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never legally ratified.
- The U.S. Government finances its operations from the UNCONSTITIONAL creation of fiat money, not with revenue from income taxes.
Info about Joseph Banister (www.freedomabovefortune. com):
This report was prepared by Joseph R. Banister, who graduated in 1986 from San Jose State University with a Bachelor's Degree in Accounting. He spent three years at KPMG Peat Marwick on their professional staff as a senior tax specialist and staff auditor. He then spent nearly two years in the venture capital industry during which time he became a licensed Certified Public Accountant (CPA) in the State of California. Mr. Banister left public practice as a CPA in 1993 when he accepted appointment as a Special Agent (criminal investigator) in the Department of the Treasury, IRS Criminal Investigation Division (IRS-CID). Unable to resolve conflicts between the way the IRS administered the Federal Income Tax and Mr. Banister's oath of office, he resigned from IRS-CID on February 25, 1999.
Dude I have discussed this with tax protesters in the past. I don't think it makes much sense to fight the system the way most tax protesters do. Why risk jail, etc.? I just suck it up and pay . . . with an attitude. I HATE paying taxes. >:(
-
...- The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was never legally ratified.
The 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.
Although the Constitution describes how to ratify amendments, it doesn’t say who is supposed to keep track of the ratification process and let us know when the required three-fourths of the states have ratified an amendment. After some confusion about the status of some amendments (including the infamous “Titles of Nobility” amendment that fell at least one state short of ratification, but appeared in numerous copies of the Constitution in the early and middle 1800s), Congress decided that the Secretary of State should certify what amendments have been ratified. Congress proposed the 16th Amendment on July 12, 1909, and, on February 3, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox certified that it had been ratified.
The argument that the 16th Amendment was not ratified is best explained (and refuted) by this quotation from U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986):
“Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states’ ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.
“Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “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.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.
“Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.
“Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas’. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review.”
U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986).
It has also been claimed that the votes of Georgia legislature were recorded incorrectly and that Georgia actually rejected the amendment, contrary to Knox’ report. However, no Congressman or other official from Georgia has ever complained about the “error” and, even if there was an error and Georgia did not ratify the amendment, there would still have been thirty-seven ratifications, one more than the thirty-six required. (Article V of the Constitution requires that amendments to the Constitution be approved by the legislatures of three fourths of the states, and there were forty-eight states in 1913.)
Another claim is that the ratification of the 16th Amendment by several states was invalid because the constitutions of those states prohibited an income tax. A similar argument as to the 19th Amendment has been flatly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with a different constitutional amendment:
“The second contention is that in the Constitutions of several of the 36 states named in the proclamation of the Secretary of State there are provisions which render inoperative the alleged ratifications by their Legislatures. The argument is that by reason of these specific provisions the Legislatures were without power to ratify. But the function of a state Legislature in ratifying a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution, like the function of Congress in proposing the amendment, is a federal function derived from the federal Constitution; and it transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a state.”
Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 136-137 (1922).
These technical arguments against the ratification of the 16th Amendment are troubling because they are so undemocratic (as are many other tax protester arguments). Except for a couple of claims about the votes of two states, there is really no doubt that Congress proposed an amendment that would give it the power to tax incomes, and that three fourths of the states approved the amendment. But tax protesters would like for the courts to nullify the amendment, and so nullify the power of Congress and the states to amend the Constitution, and so deny to the people the power to govern themselves, because of typographical errors.
But can courts even consider attacks on the validity of constitutional amendments? As noted by the 7th Circuit in Thomas, the argument that the 16th Amendment is invalid is not only legally and factually wrong, but it is an argument that federal courts are unable (or at least reluctant) to consider. The federal courts have always recognized limits upon their powers, and one of those limits is that the courts should not get involved in issues that the Constitution has entrusted to other branches of the government. The Constitution says that Congress may propose amendments, and the states may ratify them. Whether an amendment has been properly ratified is considered to be a “political question” to be resolved by Congress and the states, and not in court. In a challenge to the validity of the 19th Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that official notices of the state legislatures to the Secretary of State were “binding upon him, and, being certified by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts.” Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922).
Other decisions confirming (or refusing to consider) the validity of the 16th Amendment:
“Despite plaintiff’ and numerous other tax protesters’ contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified, courts have long recognized the Sixteenth Amendment’ ratification and validity.”
Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 295 (1998).
“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: .. .. (4) the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution is either invalid or applies only to corporations . . . .”
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
See also, United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 273; Pollard v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 603 (11th Cir. 1987); United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1991); Sochia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 1994), reh. den. 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 22014; United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 888; United State v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2nd Cir. 1988); Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 239-41 (7th Cir. 1989); Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 707 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Buckner, 830 F.2d 102 (1987); United States v. Dube, 820 F.2d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 1986); Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70-71 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 833 (7th Cir. 1980); Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (1984) (“Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it.”), cert. den. 474 U.S. 830 (1985); United States v. Matheson, (9th Cir. 1986); Lysiak v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 311, 312 (7th Cir. 1987); Quijano v. United States, 93 F.3d 26, 30 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994).
In Rev. Rul. 2005-19, 2005-14 I.R.B. 819, the IRS confirmed that the argument that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified is “frivolous” and reliance on it can result in civil and criminal penalties.
The claim that “[t]he Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, has no effect, contradicts the Constitution as originally ratified, lacks an enabling clause, or does not authorize a non-apportioned, direct income tax” has been identified by the IRS as a “frivolous position” that can result in a penalty of $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions. Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. ___.
Tax Protester “Evidence”
A related (and even sillier) claim made by tax protesters is that the ratification of the 16th Amendment by Ohio was invalid because Ohio did not become a state until 1953(!). This strange claim is based on a strange action that Congress took in 1953 to confirm that Ohio was indeed a state. Briefly:
By an act of April 30, 1802 (2 Stat. 173), section 1, Congress provided that “the inhabitants of the eastern division of the territory northwest of the river Ohio, be, and they are hereby authorized to form for themselves a constitution and state government, and to assume such name as they shall deem proper, and the said state, when formed, shall be admitted into the Union, upon the same footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever.” (This was consistent with the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, which provided that there should be formed from the territory at least three but not more than five states.)
A convention met in Ohio on November 1, 1802, and adopted a constitution on November 29, 1802.
On January 19, 1803, a special committee of Congress reported that “the said Constitution and government so formed is republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in the articles of the ordinance made on the 13th day of July 1787, for the Government of the said Territory: and that it is now necessary to establish a district court within the said State, to carry into complete effect the laws of the United States within the same.” Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., 2d sess., p. 21.
Congress then enacted legislation to declare that all of the laws of the United States shall be in force within the state of Ohio and to establish a federal district court in Ohio, stating in the preamble that “the said state has become one of the United States of America.” Act of February 19, 1803 (2 Stat. 201).
Ohio began sending Representatives and Senators to Congress, began voting in Presidential elections, and has been considered to be a state ever since.
So what’ the problem? When Ohio was preparing for the 150th anniversary of its statehood, researchers discovered that they couldn’t establish the exact date that Ohio became a state, and that there was some confusion on the issue. For example, the Senate Manual (S. Doc. 5, 82d Cong., p. 570) gave the date as March 3, 1803, while the Congressional Biographical Directory (H. Doc. 607, 81st Cong., p. 76, note 9) gave the date as November 29, 1802. Further research showed that Ohio was unique because Congress declared that Ohio would become a state upon fulfilling certain conditions but had never formally declared that the conditions had been met. In admitting other states, Congress either declared that the state would be admitted as of a certain date, or passed an enabling act and then later declared that the state was admitted. In the case of Ohio, Congress passed an enabling act but never formally declared that the conditions of the enabling act had been met, either due to an oversight or due to a belief that a formal declaration was not intended and not needed.
In a 1953 report to Congress, the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress stated that the lack of a formal resolution “may be considered unessential.” (1953 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2126, 2128.) However, Ohio asked for a formal declaration, sending a new petition for statehood to Washington by horseback (yes, in 1953), and Congress complied (with a certain number of snide jokes), passing a joint resolution that declared Ohio to be one of the United States of America as of March 1, 1803. P.L. 82-204, 67 Stat. 407. The Senate Report to the resolution states that the purpose was “to make formal, legal declaration of the de facto situation with respect to the admission of Ohio as a State of the United States.” Senate Report No. 720, 1953 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2124.
So the fact of the matter was that Ohio was accepted as a state of the United States sometime in 1802 or 1803 and Congress declared the admission to be as of a certain date in 1803, but the declaration was not made until 1953.
-
Thank you, I respect your reasoning as well.
The challenges that Joe Bannister makes are not original nor are they sustainable in a tax court of law. He is not a tax lawyer. I have been schooled in tax law (I'm a retirement benefits attorney) and I'm telling you, just read this link to disprove each of Mr. Bannister's contentions: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#direct
The income tax schedule asks those with the strongest arms (the highest earners) to pay more.
The progressive tax schedule can be characterized as 'punishing success' but in my books, that's sort of shirking one's duty. It's kind of cowardly to ask the weakest links in society to contribute as much as the best and brightest. It is selfishness drawn to ridiculous lengths.
Paying our taxes ensures our American Way of Life. That is an honor and it is honorable to pay one's taxes.
Now I am not calling you a coward or anything of the like. I think you are a smart guy. As a matter of fact, I think tax relief is important and should be done every now and then just as taxes need to be raised every now and then. But there are bills to be paid, roads to be built and armies to be supported.
Thanks for the link, Decker. I'm going to check it out once I've completed thoroughly reading Banister's report.
Okay, we're in agreement here. Taxes are a necessary for the government to function and for us, as Americans, to enjoy the quality of life we have and to ensure other have access to an equal playing field to succeed and live the American dream.
That said, I think there are a lot of very smart people (much more educated in this than I am) who keep asking very interesting questions and it alarms me that OUR government will not directly answer them.
-
That tax rate applies to each dollar earned over $400,000. In the 1950s, that's a hell of a lot of money. 94% is pretty high but that is a graded scale where for each bracket, that wealthy person pays that bracket's tax percent. I would have no problem with a top marginal rate of 70% for money earned in excess of million.
But that's me.
Anyway, the as we've noted, the rich make most of their wealth through either inheritance or capital gains--selling stocks, selling businesses, etc.
Geeze man. A 70 percent tax rate? Sounds like socialism to me. I think even Canada is "only" at about 50 percent for higher income earners.
And the vast majority of the "rich" (those with a high net worth) in this country did not inherit their wealth, etc. They earned it through hard work, saving, conservative investing, and living below their means. You should read "The Millionaire Next Door" and "The Millionaire Mind." Clearly shows most American millionaires did not inherit their money and worked very hard to obtain what they have.
-
The 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.
Although the Constitution describes how to ratify amendments, it doesn’t say who is supposed to keep track of the ratification process and let us know when the required three-fourths of the states have ratified an amendment. After some confusion about the status of some amendments (including the infamous “Titles of Nobility” amendment that fell at least one state short of ratification, but appeared in numerous copies of the Constitution in the early and middle 1800s), Congress decided that the Secretary of State should certify what amendments have been ratified. Congress proposed the 16th Amendment on July 12, 1909, and, on February 3, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox certified that it had been ratified.
The argument that the 16th Amendment was not ratified is best explained (and refuted) by this quotation from U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986):
“Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states’ ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.
“Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “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.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.
“Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.
“Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas’. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review.”
U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986).
It has also been claimed that the votes of Georgia legislature were recorded incorrectly and that Georgia actually rejected the amendment, contrary to Knox’ report. However, no Congressman or other official from Georgia has ever complained about the “error” and, even if there was an error and Georgia did not ratify the amendment, there would still have been thirty-seven ratifications, one more than the thirty-six required. (Article V of the Constitution requires that amendments to the Constitution be approved by the legislatures of three fourths of the states, and there were forty-eight states in 1913.)
Another claim is that the ratification of the 16th Amendment by several states was invalid because the constitutions of those states prohibited an income tax. A similar argument as to the 19th Amendment has been flatly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with a different constitutional amendment:
“The second contention is that in the Constitutions of several of the 36 states named in the proclamation of the Secretary of State there are provisions which render inoperative the alleged ratifications by their Legislatures. The argument is that by reason of these specific provisions the Legislatures were without power to ratify. But the function of a state Legislature in ratifying a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution, like the function of Congress in proposing the amendment, is a federal function derived from the federal Constitution; and it transcends any limitations sought to be imposed by the people of a state.”
Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 136-137 (1922).
These technical arguments against the ratification of the 16th Amendment are troubling because they are so undemocratic (as are many other tax protester arguments). Except for a couple of claims about the votes of two states, there is really no doubt that Congress proposed an amendment that would give it the power to tax incomes, and that three fourths of the states approved the amendment. But tax protesters would like for the courts to nullify the amendment, and so nullify the power of Congress and the states to amend the Constitution, and so deny to the people the power to govern themselves, because of typographical errors.
But can courts even consider attacks on the validity of constitutional amendments? As noted by the 7th Circuit in Thomas, the argument that the 16th Amendment is invalid is not only legally and factually wrong, but it is an argument that federal courts are unable (or at least reluctant) to consider. The federal courts have always recognized limits upon their powers, and one of those limits is that the courts should not get involved in issues that the Constitution has entrusted to other branches of the government. The Constitution says that Congress may propose amendments, and the states may ratify them. Whether an amendment has been properly ratified is considered to be a “political question” to be resolved by Congress and the states, and not in court. In a challenge to the validity of the 19th Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that official notices of the state legislatures to the Secretary of State were “binding upon him, and, being certified by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts.” Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922).
Other decisions confirming (or refusing to consider) the validity of the 16th Amendment:
“Despite plaintiff’ and numerous other tax protesters’ contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified, courts have long recognized the Sixteenth Amendment’ ratification and validity.”
Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 295 (1998).
“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: .. .. (4) the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution is either invalid or applies only to corporations . . . .”
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
See also, United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 273; Pollard v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 603 (11th Cir. 1987); United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1991); Sochia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 1994), reh. den. 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 22014; United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 888; United State v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2nd Cir. 1988); Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 239-41 (7th Cir. 1989); Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 707 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Buckner, 830 F.2d 102 (1987); United States v. Dube, 820 F.2d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 1986); Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70-71 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 833 (7th Cir. 1980); Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (1984) (“Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it.”), cert. den. 474 U.S. 830 (1985); United States v. Matheson, (9th Cir. 1986); Lysiak v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 311, 312 (7th Cir. 1987); Quijano v. United States, 93 F.3d 26, 30 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994).
In Rev. Rul. 2005-19, 2005-14 I.R.B. 819, the IRS confirmed that the argument that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified is “frivolous” and reliance on it can result in civil and criminal penalties.
The claim that “[t]he Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, has no effect, contradicts the Constitution as originally ratified, lacks an enabling clause, or does not authorize a non-apportioned, direct income tax” has been identified by the IRS as a “frivolous position” that can result in a penalty of $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions. Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. ___.
Tax Protester “Evidence”
A related (and even sillier) claim made by tax protesters is that the ratification of the 16th Amendment by Ohio was invalid because Ohio did not become a state until 1953(!). This strange claim is based on a strange action that Congress took in 1953 to confirm that Ohio was indeed a state. Briefly:
By an act of April 30, 1802 (2 Stat. 173), section 1, Congress provided that “the inhabitants of the eastern division of the territory northwest of the river Ohio, be, and they are hereby authorized to form for themselves a constitution and state government, and to assume such name as they shall deem proper, and the said state, when formed, shall be admitted into the Union, upon the same footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever.” (This was consistent with the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787, which provided that there should be formed from the territory at least three but not more than five states.)
A convention met in Ohio on November 1, 1802, and adopted a constitution on November 29, 1802.
On January 19, 1803, a special committee of Congress reported that “the said Constitution and government so formed is republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in the articles of the ordinance made on the 13th day of July 1787, for the Government of the said Territory: and that it is now necessary to establish a district court within the said State, to carry into complete effect the laws of the United States within the same.” Annals of Congress, 7th Cong., 2d sess., p. 21.
Congress then enacted legislation to declare that all of the laws of the United States shall be in force within the state of Ohio and to establish a federal district court in Ohio, stating in the preamble that “the said state has become one of the United States of America.” Act of February 19, 1803 (2 Stat. 201).
Ohio began sending Representatives and Senators to Congress, began voting in Presidential elections, and has been considered to be a state ever since.
So what’ the problem? When Ohio was preparing for the 150th anniversary of its statehood, researchers discovered that they couldn’t establish the exact date that Ohio became a state, and that there was some confusion on the issue. For example, the Senate Manual (S. Doc. 5, 82d Cong., p. 570) gave the date as March 3, 1803, while the Congressional Biographical Directory (H. Doc. 607, 81st Cong., p. 76, note 9) gave the date as November 29, 1802. Further research showed that Ohio was unique because Congress declared that Ohio would become a state upon fulfilling certain conditions but had never formally declared that the conditions had been met. In admitting other states, Congress either declared that the state would be admitted as of a certain date, or passed an enabling act and then later declared that the state was admitted. In the case of Ohio, Congress passed an enabling act but never formally declared that the conditions of the enabling act had been met, either due to an oversight or due to a belief that a formal declaration was not intended and not needed.
In a 1953 report to Congress, the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress stated that the lack of a formal resolution “may be considered unessential.” (1953 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2126, 2128.) However, Ohio asked for a formal declaration, sending a new petition for statehood to Washington by horseback (yes, in 1953), and Congress complied (with a certain number of snide jokes), passing a joint resolution that declared Ohio to be one of the United States of America as of March 1, 1803. P.L. 82-204, 67 Stat. 407. The Senate Report to the resolution states that the purpose was “to make formal, legal declaration of the de facto situation with respect to the admission of Ohio as a State of the United States.” Senate Report No. 720, 1953 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2124.
So the fact of the matter was that Ohio was accepted as a state of the United States sometime in 1802 or 1803 and Congress declared the admission to be as of a certain date in 1803, but the declaration was not made until 1953.
LOL... whoa slow down, cowboy. I'm not a lawyer like you. Just a simple database administrator. I'll read it all but it's gonna take me some time.
-
Geeze man. A 70 percent tax rate? Sounds like socialism to me. I think even Canada is "only" at about 50 percent for higher income earners.
And the vast majority of the "rich" (those with a high net worth) in this country did not inherit their wealth, etc. They earned it through hard work, saving, conservative investing, and living below their means. You should read "The Millionaire Next Door" and "The Millionaire Mind." Clearly shows most American millionaires did not inherit their money and worked very hard to obtain what they have.
I did not say that the vast majority of people inherit their wealth. The annual rate for new millionaires from inheritance is Little less than 50% of all new millionaires.
I'm saying that rich people get most of their money from capital gains and not income. That is undeniable.
-
LOL... whoa slow down, cowboy. I'm not a lawyer like you. Just a simple database administrator. I'll read it all but it's gonna take me some time.
I am sorry about the length of that post. I generally try to paraphrase. It's a bad habit to cut and paste like I did.
-
I did not say that the vast majority of people inherit their wealth. The annual rate for new millionaires from inheritance is Little less than 50% of all new millionaires.
I'm saying that rich people get most of their money from capital gains and not income. That is undeniable.
So tax capital gains. Leave income alone.
I'm sure you're better educated on this than I am. How did the United States government run prior to the taxation of income?
-
So tax capital gains. Leave income alone.
I'm sure you're better educated on this than I am. How did the United States government run prior to the taxation of income?
Nah.. Taxing dividens, interest from bonds and other investments would be like double taxation.. I assume that's what capital gains are? And besides doesn't the US tax capital gains anyways?
Income tax is a necessary evil..
-
I did not say that the vast majority of people inherit their wealth. The annual rate for new millionaires from inheritance is Little less than 50% of all new millionaires.
I'm saying that rich people get most of their money from capital gains and not income. That is undeniable.
The "etc." in my post includes capital gains: "Anyway, the as we've noted, the rich make most of their wealth through either inheritance or capital gains--selling stocks, selling businesses, etc."
I disagree with this. The majority of American millionaires made their money through savings, smart conservative investing, investing in real estate, living below their means, and owning their own businesses. This is undeniable. There is a myth that "wealthy" Americans inherited their money. That is by and large not true.
And yes capital gains constitutes a large part of the income for wealthy people, but that's not necessarily how they made their money. One of the most important factors is establishing a comfortable lifestyle, maintaining that lifestyle as income increases, and investing the difference. American millionaires clip coupons, shop at thrift stores, buy used cars, etc. These people worked hard for their money.
-
So tax capital gains. Leave income alone.
I'm sure you're better educated on this than I am. How did the United States government run prior to the taxation of income?
I'm not a big tax historian but here's how I remember it. Prior to the constitution, the states were taxed by Britain as part of a royal/corporate venture. During the revolution, the states levied taxes as they saw fit. After the constitution, a federal government was established. The framers knew that money was needed for the government to effectuate national purposes. The Congress has the power to levy taxes and such. B/c that power was attached to an apportionment context, the 16th amendment removed that provision. So Income taxes became constitutional.
Boy, I just realized how little I remember about fundamental history. I think Colossus would find that funny.
Have a great day w8lftr, I'm off to the docs w/ my wife.
-
I'm not a big tax historian but here's how I remember it. Prior to the constitution, the states were taxed by Britain as part of a royal/corporate venture. During the revolution, the states levied taxes as they saw fit. After the constitution, a federal government was established. The framers knew that money was needed for the government to effectuate national purposes. The Congress has the power to levy taxes and such. B/c that power was attached to an apportionment context, the 16th amendment removed that provision. So Income taxes became constitutional.
Boy, I just realized how little I remember about fundamental history. I think Colossus would find that funny.
Have a great day w8lftr, I'm off to the docs w/ my wife.
Enjoy your time with your wife.
Let me know when you've read Banister's report. I'm curious what you think of it from a lawyer's point of view.
-
The "etc." in my post includes capital gains: "Anyway, the as we've noted, the rich make most of their wealth through either inheritance or capital gains--selling stocks, selling businesses, etc."
I disagree with this. The majority of American millionaires made their money through savings, smart conservative investing, investing in real estate, living below their means, and owning their own businesses. This is undeniable. There is a myth that "wealthy" Americans inherited their money. That is by and large not true.
And yes capital gains constitutes a large part of the income for wealthy people, but that's not necessarily how they made their money. One of the most important factors is establishing a comfortable lifestyle, maintaining that lifestyle as income increases, and investing the difference. American millionaires clip coupons, shop at thrift stores, buy used cars, etc. These people worked hard for their money.
Selling property or a business is a capital gain.
New millionaires from inheritance number between 10-40% depending on how you define inheritance--amounts subject to probate or living trusts, etc. There is no doubt that most new millionaires are self-made. I'm not talking about the creation of new millionaires. That's a poor benchmark for analyzing wealth in this country. Earned Income is not a great indicator of wealth or who is truly rich.
I am talking about the top 5% of our population which owns more than the other 95%--true bluebloods.
The rich own more wealth and make almost all of that wealth through capital gains: the sale of stocks, bonds, properties, businesses etc. They are of immense assets and have strong political influence. Taxable earned income just does not figure into this definition of rich/wealthy.
-
Enjoy your time with your wife.
Let me know when you've read Banister's report. I'm curious what you think of it from a lawyer's point of view.
My wife's been cancer free for a year and half and we'd like to keep it that way. I go along with her to the doctor's so we have another set of ears and eyes paying attention to her case.
I've read portions of his report 'Investigating the Federal Income Tax'. His allegations are matters that are well-settled in tax court law. The legal Q & A that I posted http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html addresses his assertions and debunks them. While I admire his enthusiasm and sense of justice, he does not do adequate research to support his contentions in the framework of constitutional law, case law, statutory law, and tax policy.
-
My wife's been cancer free for a year and half and we'd like to keep it that way. I go along with her to the doctor's so we have another set of ears and eyes paying attention to her case.
I've read portions of his report 'Investigating the Federal Income Tax'. His allegations are matters that are well-settled in tax court law. The legal Q & A that I posted http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html addresses his assertions and debunks them. While I admire his enthusiasm and sense of justice, he does not do adequate research to support his contentions in the framework of constitutional law, case law, statutory law, and tax policy.
Are you going to submit yourself for the reward?
Based on what you're telling me it should be easy money for you.
-
Selling property or a business is a capital gain.
New millionaires from inheritance number between 10-40% depending on how you define inheritance--amounts subject to probate or living trusts, etc. There is no doubt that most new millionaires are self-made. I'm not talking about the creation of new millionaires. That's a poor benchmark for analyzing wealth in this country. Earned Income is not a great indicator of wealth or who is truly rich.
I am talking about the top 5% of our population which owns more than the other 95%--true bluebloods.
The rich own more wealth and make almost all of that wealth through capital gains: the sale of stocks, bonds, properties, businesses etc. They are of immense assets and have strong political influence. Taxable earned income just does not figure into this definition of rich/wealthy.
I was taking issue with this:
Quote from: Decker on April 23, 2007, 12:27:28 PM
That tax rate applies to each dollar earned over $400,000. In the 1950s, that's a hell of a lot of money. 94% is pretty high but that is a graded scale where for each bracket, that wealthy person pays that bracket's tax percent. I would have no problem with a top marginal rate of 70% for money earned in excess of million.
But that's me.
Anyway, the as we've noted, the rich make most of their wealth through either inheritance or capital gains--selling stocks, selling businesses, etc.
You've just said "New millionaires from inheritance number between 10-40% depending on how you define inheritance," which means between 60 and 90 percent of new millionaires do not inherit their wealth. And I believe capital gains help increase wealth, they don't generally create it. Perhaps wer're talking about two different issues (wealth creation versus wealth maintenance/increase)?
But I think the larger point you're trying to make is a disproportionate taxing of people with high net worth? If so, sounds like class warfare to me, and the redistribution of wealth.
-
Are you going to submit yourself for the reward?
Based on what you're telling me it should be easy money for you.
No. He engages in semantic games. Here are the answers to his questions.
Q. What statute in the Code makes me liable to pay income taxes?
A. The law does not require "liability". section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code says that
“There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual, or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table.. ..”
“Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ....” Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).
The word “impose” means “to establish or apply as compulsory; levy.” So how can a tax be “imposed” if no one is compelled to pay it? The answer is that it can’t. If a tax is imposed on a person’s income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law. The imposition of a tax is certainly a function of government and creates an obligation to pay.
His contention is semantic sophistry.
Q. 2. How can I file a 1040 tax return without waiving my 5th Am. rights?
A. I assume this is his argument (there are several 5th A arguments):
You cannot be required to file an income tax return because a tax return is a form of testimony and the 5th Amendment guarantees that you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.
The 5th Amendment applies to criminal proceedings, not civil proceedings, and collecting taxes is a civil proceeding, not a criminal proceeding. You cannot refuse to file an income tax return because of the 5th Amendment.
source: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#5th
You have my permission to use those answers to collect the reward.
Due to the intricacies of contract law, you would lose b/c of the way that Bannister frames the questions.
-
I was taking issue with this:
You've just said "New millionaires from inheritance number between 10-40% depending on how you define inheritance," which means between 60 and 90 percent of new millionaires do not inherit their wealth. And I believe capital gains help increase wealth, they don't generally create it. Perhaps wer're talking about two different issues (wealth creation versus wealth maintenance/increase)?
But I think the larger point you're trying to make is a disproportionate taxing of people with high net worth? If so, sounds like class warfare to me, and the redistribution of wealth.
You are correct. My casual reference was intended to show how the rich make ends meet annually instead of how they became rich. It's like the guy who parlays a hotdog cart into 20 hotdog carts. He takes that earned income and starts playing the market, buying other business ventures etc.
Adam Smith, the creator of the 'invisible hand' of capitalism believed in progressive tax rates. Progressive income taxation puts more of the burden to pay on those able to pay. We are not asking those americans floating at the poverty level to kick in to the national pot when they can't even make ends meet.
Redistribution of wealth is biconditional. It goes both ways. Gov. subsidies, tax breaks, tax abatements, etc. The role of government is to act in the national interest: that includes the poor as well as the wealthy.
Class warfare is over. The rich have won decisively. We now have inequality of wealth in this country that is surpassing that of the 1920s pre-crash society.
-
You are correct. My casual reference was intended to show how the rich make ends meet annually instead of how they became rich. It's like the guy who parlays a hotdog cart into 20 hotdog carts. He takes that earned income and starts playing the market, buying other business ventures etc.
Adam Smith, the creator of the 'invisible hand' of capitalism believed in progressive tax rates. Progressive income taxation puts more of the burden to pay on those able to pay. We are not asking those americans floating at the poverty level to kick in to the national pot when they can't even make ends meet.
Redistribution of wealth is biconditional. It goes both ways. Gov. subsidies, tax breaks, tax abatements, etc. The role of government is to act in the national interest: that includes the poor as well as the wealthy.
Class warfare is over. The rich have won decisively. We now have inequality of wealth in this country that is surpassing that of the 1920s pre-crash society.
I see this quite differently Decker. "The rich" have been demonized just like "corporations." In reality, these are by and large hard working people who paid their dues, made good decisions, and are living the American dream. The government shouldn't be attacking "the rich" solely because they are successful. Many of these "rich" are small business owners. They employ a number of people. Help the support the economy. They contribute in a large way to the greatness of our country.
I am adamantly opposed to the government attacking "the rich" as a means to support the rest of the country. They already pay disproportionate shares of taxes to help run the country. The state and federal governments should be finding ways to let everyone keep more of their own money. The government shouldn't be looking for ways to penalize success. It's just wrong.
-
I see this quite differently Decker. "The rich" have been demonized just like "corporations." In reality, these are by and large hard working people who paid their dues, made good decisions, and are living the American dream. The government shouldn't be attacking "the rich" solely because they are successful. Many of these "rich" are small business owners. They employ a number of people. Help the support the economy. They contribute in a large way to the greatness of our country.
I am adamantly opposed to the government attacking "the rich" as a means to support the rest of the country. They already pay disproportionate shares of taxes to help run the country. The state and federal governments should be finding ways to let everyone keep more of their own money. The government shouldn't be looking for ways to penalize success. It's just wrong.
We americans are in this together. We are the government. Our government is by and for the people.
As a matter of principle you have those with the strongest arms do the heaviest lifting. You don't have your grandmother move your barbells from the basement to the attic and you don't have the poor pay the same income tax rate as the affluent.
Progressive graded tax rates are fair and in the best interest of our country. A man is entitled to the fruits of his labor but no man is an island nor should he want to be. His successes are built on the shoulders of those that came before him. These things were developed by his citizen predecessors: roads, phones, internet, justice system, defense, currency, moderated market place all depend on tax dollars for maintenance.
Further, the rich people/employers that create jobs are only part of the equation. The worker that fills those positions should be just as revered. Let's see the wealthy operate their factories and service industries without workers. See that type of contention just shows that both employer/leader and employee/follower are necessary pieces to the labor puzzle: We are in this together.
Out of that arrangement, the employer takes a larger share of the workproduct's reward.
He pays more in taxes because he earns more money. The country needs all the leaders it can get. These people shouldn't be complaining and crying about the tax burden. They should be proud that they are major contributors to our society. That doesn't mean don't be vigilant in reassessing what is the proper tax rate though.
-
We americans are in this together. We are the government. Our government is by and for the people.
As a matter of principle you have those with the strongest arms do the heaviest lifting. You don't have your grandmother move your barbells from the basement to the attic and you don't have the poor pay the same income tax rate as the affluent.
Progressive graded tax rates are fair and in the best interest of our country. A man is entitled to the fruits of his labor but no man is an island nor should he want to be. His successes are built on the shoulders of those that came before him. These things were developed by his citizen predecessors: roads, phones, internet, justice system, defense, currency, moderated market place all depend on tax dollars for maintenance.
Further, the rich people/employers that create jobs are only part of the equation. The worker that fills those positions should be just as revered. Let's see the wealthy operate their factories and service industries without workers. See that type of contention just shows that both employer/leader and employee/follower are necessary pieces to the labor puzzle: We are in this together.
Out of that arrangement, the employer takes a larger share of the workproduct's reward.
He pays more in taxes because he earns more money. The country needs all the leaders it can get. These people shouldn't be complaining and crying about the tax burden. They should be proud that they are major contributors to our society. That doesn't mean don't be vigilant in reassessing what is the proper tax rate though.
You're not talking about togetherness. You're talking about punishing success. What I hear you saying is go get an education, work, save, invest, etc., but if you make too much money, we (the government) will take it from you and decide how best to spend it. You're advocating a 70 percent tax rate for income over a million. That's almost like stealing in my book. It's punitive. It's telling Americans you can be successful, but not too successful, or we'll grab what you earn and spend it elsewhere. That isn't togetherness. It's socialism.
-
No. He engages in semantic games. Here are the answers to his questions.
Q. What statute in the Code makes me liable to pay income taxes?
A. The law does not require "liability". section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code says that
“There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual, or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table.. ..”
“Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ....” Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).
The word “impose” means “to establish or apply as compulsory; levy.” So how can a tax be “imposed” if no one is compelled to pay it? The answer is that it can’t. If a tax is imposed on a person’s income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law. The imposition of a tax is certainly a function of government and creates an obligation to pay.
His contention is semantic sophistry.
Q. 2. How can I file a 1040 tax return without waiving my 5th Am. rights?
A. I assume this is his argument (there are several 5th A arguments):
You cannot be required to file an income tax return because a tax return is a form of testimony and the 5th Amendment guarantees that you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.
The 5th Amendment applies to criminal proceedings, not civil proceedings, and collecting taxes is a civil proceeding, not a criminal proceeding. You cannot refuse to file an income tax return because of the 5th Amendment.
source: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#5th
You have my permission to use those answers to collect the reward.
Due to the intricacies of contract law, you would lose b/c of the way that Bannister frames the questions.
First off thanks for taking the time to post this and educate me on tax law.
But.... this also shows that the U.S. tax code is very complicated and confusing for the majority of Americans. No offense but the law should not be complex that it requires a lawyer to pick it apart and explain it to the common man.
-
We americans are in this together. We are the government. Our government is by and for the people.
As a matter of principle you have those with the strongest arms do the heaviest lifting. You don't have your grandmother move your barbells from the basement to the attic and you don't have the poor pay the same income tax rate as the affluent.
Progressive graded tax rates are fair and in the best interest of our country. A man is entitled to the fruits of his labor but no man is an island nor should he want to be. His successes are built on the shoulders of those that came before him. These things were developed by his citizen predecessors: roads, phones, internet, justice system, defense, currency, moderated market place all depend on tax dollars for maintenance.
Further, the rich people/employers that create jobs are only part of the equation. The worker that fills those positions should be just as revered. Let's see the wealthy operate their factories and service industries without workers. See that type of contention just shows that both employer/leader and employee/follower are necessary pieces to the labor puzzle: We are in this together.
Out of that arrangement, the employer takes a larger share of the workproduct's reward.
He pays more in taxes because he earns more money. The country needs all the leaders it can get. These people shouldn't be complaining and crying about the tax burden. They should be proud that they are major contributors to our society. That doesn't mean don't be vigilant in reassessing what is the proper tax rate though.
Nicely written, Decker, and you make valid points but I still think the "you make more money so can afford to pay more taxes" is morally wrong. When those with the strong arms do ALL the lifting you can't be surprised when they get pissed about it.
I look at it like this. I have $100.00 and you have $25.00. We both have access to a public service but I have to give up 40 percent of my money to use that same service you get to use and you pay a smaller percentage.
In my opinion that is theft and does nothing but create resentment.
If we're truly all in this together and (God help us all) direct income of our taxes never goes away then make it EQUAL. By that I mean a flat tax across the board. Everyone plays an equal percentage. At least that pill isn't as bitter to swallow.
-
You're not talking about togetherness. You're talking about punishing success. What I hear you saying is go get an education, work, save, invest, etc., but if you make too much money, we (the government) will take it from you and decide how best to spend it. You're advocating a 70 percent tax rate for income over a million. That's almost like stealing in my book. It's punitive. It's telling Americans you can be successful, but not too successful, or we'll grab what you earn and spend it elsewhere. That isn't togetherness. It's socialism.
In my world, Socialism is where the workers own the means of production--like an ESOP (employee stock ownership plan--Microsoft had one and all the participants-janitors to managers-retired millionaires).
Progressive taxation is not Socialism. Our government is special. It is not the oppressive Soviet Style big government nor is it an arbitrarily run dictatorship--We are the government and we are governed only by our consent.
Government by its nature is a redistributive force: subsidizing the creation/maintenance of the Internet, encouraging people to start businesses through loan programs, bailing out major industries like the auto industry when it fails in the free market and helping the poor stay viable members of society through assistance programs etc.
We may argue about what constitutes the proper highest marginal rate--you say 70% is confiscatory--and that's good. It is what we should be doing. Remember, the highest marginal rate is paid only on dollars earned in that bracket. In the 1950s, only dollars earned over $400,000 were subject this robust tax rate. Back then that was a lot of money.
Why do we tax that way? The rationale reverberates through many many US laws: The US has an interest in keeping money flowing, properties moving and citizens productive. We don't want an aristocratic or leisure class of society. Taxes keep individuals from making a mint and resting on their laurels. We don't want whole class of Paris Hiltons. We want productive citizens.
There's a certain amount of sense in that.
-
Nicely written, Decker, and you make valid points but I still think the "you make more money so can afford to pay more taxes" is morally wrong. When those with the strong arms do ALL the lifting you can't be surprised when they get pissed about it.
I look at it like this. I have $100.00 and you have $25.00. We both have access to a public service but I have to give up 40 percent of my money to use that same service you get to use and you pay a smaller percentage.
In my opinion that is theft and does nothing but create resentment.
If we're truly all in this together and (God help us all) direct income of our taxes never goes away then make it EQUAL. By that I mean a flat tax across the board. Everyone plays an equal percentage. At least that pill isn't as bitter to swallow.
Thanks. I really appreciate you taking the time to discuss this stuff. I understand your point. It makes sense that at its core fairness means everyone is treated in the same manner. The flat tax is easy to understand from that point.
Your analogy comparing $100 guy to a $25 guy and the taxes they pay is good but it's not enough. There is a cost to maintaing our civilization--tax dollars. The $100 guy can pay a larger share and still have enough left over to live a life. If the $25 guy pays the same rate, it's likely he won't have enough left over to make ends meet. Then he falls through the cracks and contributes little or nothing to our society and in fact becomes a drag. But we are talking dollar amounts that are miles away from the $100 to $25 ratio. It's hard not see a difference btn a guy earning $20 million and another earning $40,000 w/ a family to support.
The middle class and lower middle class are able to pay income tax so that the high-end earners do not have to carry the load alone tax-wise.
To me, with these attendant considerations, progressive rates are fairer and more sensible than a flat rate.
-
Thanks. I really appreciate you taking the time to discuss this stuff. I understand your point. It makes sense that at its core fairness means everyone is treated in the same manner. The flat tax is easy to understand from that point.
Your analogy comparing $100 guy to a $25 guy and the taxes they pay is good but it's not enough. There is a cost to maintaing our civilization--tax dollars. The $100 guy can pay a larger share and still have enough left over to live a life. If the $25 guy pays the same rate, it's likely he won't have enough left over to make ends meet. Then he falls through the cracks and contributes little or nothing to our society and in fact becomes a drag. But we are talking dollar amounts that are miles away from the $100 to $25 ratio. It's hard not see a difference btn a guy earning $20 million and another earning $40,000 w/ a family to support.
The middle class and lower middle class are able to pay income tax so that the high-end earners do not have to carry the load alone tax-wise.
To me, with these attendant considerations, progressive rates are fairer and more sensible than a flat rate.
In all fairness to the $25.00 guy I would exclude him from paying any taxes at all. However, the government better do it's damnest to teach that guy to fish so he can contribute to society.
-
In all fairness to the $25.00 guy I would exclude him from paying any taxes at all. However, the government better do it's damnest to teach that guy to fish so he can contribute to society.
hahaha. I like that. I have to tell that one to my brother.
-
In my world, Socialism is where the workers own the means of production--like an ESOP (employee stock ownership plan--Microsoft had one and all the participants-janitors to managers-retired millionaires).
Progressive taxation is not Socialism. Our government is special. It is not the oppressive Soviet Style big government nor is it an arbitrarily run dictatorship--We are the government and we are governed only by our consent.
Government by its nature is a redistributive force: subsidizing the creation/maintenance of the Internet, encouraging people to start businesses through loan programs, bailing out major industries like the auto industry when it fails in the free market and helping the poor stay viable members of society through assistance programs etc.
We may argue about what constitutes the proper highest marginal rate--you say 70% is confiscatory--and that's good. It is what we should be doing. Remember, the highest marginal rate is paid only on dollars earned in that bracket. In the 1950s, only dollars earned over $400,000 were subject this robust tax rate. Back then that was a lot of money.
Why do we tax that way? The rationale reverberates through many many US laws: The US has an interest in keeping money flowing, properties moving and citizens productive. We don't want an aristocratic or leisure class of society. Taxes keep individuals from making a mint and resting on their laurels. We don't want whole class of Paris Hiltons. We want productive citizens.
There's a certain amount of sense in that.
One of the problems is the system is unfair in its current state and you're advocating making it even worse. Taking 70 percent of a person's income will discourage them from trying to be successful. And we don't need progressive taxation to begin with. Several states have no income tax. That's about as fair as you can get.
And what is wrong with people "making a mint and resting on their laurels"? What business does the government have dictating (pun intended) what a person does with whatever that person has legally earned?
-
My wife's been cancer free for a year and half and we'd like to keep it that way. I go along with her to the doctor's so we have another set of ears and eyes paying attention to her case.
I've read portions of his report 'Investigating the Federal Income Tax'. His allegations are matters that are well-settled in tax court law. The legal Q & A that I posted http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html addresses his assertions and debunks them. While I admire his enthusiasm and sense of justice, he does not do adequate research to support his contentions in the framework of constitutional law, case law, statutory law, and tax policy.
I hope your wife remains cancer free, may god bless her.
And i'll pray for her. I hate cancer. I've lost many good friends to that god awful disease.
Cherish each day with her.
-
One of the problems is the system is unfair in its current state and you're advocating making it even worse. Taking 70 percent of a person's income will discourage them from trying to be successful. And we don't need progressive taxation to begin with. Several states have no income tax. That's about as fair as you can get.
And what is wrong with people "making a mint and resting on their laurels"? What business does the government have dictating (pun intended) what a person does with whatever that person has legally earned?
Progressive taxation makes the most sense in terms of the practical payment of necessary tax dollars. The rich have more money to spare on taxes b/c they earn more. The poor and middle class do not have such an advantage.
Judge Smehls was right: "The world needs ditch diggers too!" And the world does need laborers. Not everyone can be boss. Rags to riches through hard work happens, but not everyone is fundamentally suited to achieve such success.
You gravely underestimate the determination of the rich/successful when you state that they will be discouraged from being successful. Whether these Type A people are proving themselves for salary or notoriety, they will always strive to the top. The reward is achievement. Smaller recompense for that is not a deal killer.
The 80-90% tax bracket in the 1950s did not dissuade success. In fact that decade was extremely prosperous--rock 'n roll, the Golden Age of Hollywood, the Beats, the GDP grew steadily, IBM grew, the auto industry exploded.
As far as the government's legislating tax policy...I used to agree with you. But the idea of keeping individuals viable as contributing members of society also has its appeal. Do you want a group of FOPS living off interest or do you want productive members of society?
Note that the above is a policy. We do live in a free society. There is no law against becoming rich and retiring young in this country.
-
I hope your wife remains cancer free, may god bless her.
And i'll pray for her. I hate cancer. I've lost many good friends to that god awful disease.
Cherish each day with her.
Thank you. That means a lot to me. It has been difficult for us but she's a great person and she's hanging in there. I'm sorry that you had to have first-hand experience of a good friend having this awful disease. It really isn't fair.
-
Thank you. That means a lot to me. It has been difficult for us but she's a great person and she's hanging in there. I'm sorry that you had to have first-hand experience of a good friend having this awful disease. It really isn't fair.
Lost my best friend of 10 years to the disease, she was like a sister to me, she battled it 10 years. I moved to her city, hour away from my gym for the last year of her life to help her husband with their son and chores around the house, he was always busy working or taking her to the doc so i chipped in.
Funny thing is, as tired as i was from a year of back and forth traveling, it was the most special year of my life. I found out I really can be a friend that a friend would like to have.
Rooster is not all bad.
-
Lost my best friend of 10 years to the disease, she was like a sister to me, she battled it 10 years. I moved to her city, hour away from my gym for the last year of her life to help her husband with their son and chores around the house, he was always busy working or taking her to the doc so i chipped in.
Funny thing is, as tired as i was from a year of back and forth traveling, it was the most special year of my life. I found out I really can be a friend that a friend would like to have.
Rooster is not all bad.
You are a decent guy. Well done.
My wife was diagnosed over a year ago and since she's under age 40, those types of cancer tend to be aggressive. So far we've been lucky.