Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Decker on October 13, 2008, 07:41:11 AM
-
Why do tax protesters keep violating the laws, and keep litigating, even after it is clear that they have lost and have no valid arguments?
One answer, and simplest answer, is greed. People would rather have more money than less, and the appeal of not paying income taxes is enough to make at least some people believe almost anything.
“Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. ‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 69 (7th Cir. 1986).
Pure self-centered avarice can explain the initial appeal of tax protester arguments, but why do tax protesters become so mindlessly devoted to their beliefs? In many cases, judges have taken the time in pre-trial conferences to explain to tax protesters that they are totally wrong, and that if they persist with their arguments, the judge will not only rule against them but will sanction them (i.e., impose a fine) for wasting court time with their nonsense. And yet the tax protesters persist. Why?
My own observations of tax protesters lead me to believe that the actions of tax protesters are driven by emotional or psychological needs that are more complicated than simple greed, and that the “arguments” they present to the IRS and the courts are really nothing but elaborate rationalizations (or delusions) that they have constructed in order to avoid a reality that they are unable to accept. Sometimes the unacceptable reality is a sense of personal financial failure. Unable to accept the idea that their own incomes (or the lack thereof) might be the result of their own lack of skill or effort, or a matter of impersonal economics, tax protesters instead decide that the income tax system is the problem and begin finding reasons why it should not exist. In other cases, the unacceptable reality may be a moral or legal failure. An unhappy encounter with the government, such as a bad result in a divorce or a child custody dispute, or even something as minor as a speeding ticket, can lead to a belief that the government is broken, corrupt, or otherwise dysfunctional, which can then lead to a fixation on the federal tax system as symbolic of that dysfunction. In the case of almost every persistent tax protester, there is some personal, financial, or legal trauma or crisis that precedes the tax protester’s obsession with the tax system.
What the narcissist is unable to work out through fantasy is simply repressed, put out of mind and kept from awareness. Beyond these, narcissists invent alibis, excuses, and “proofs” that seem [to themselves] plausible and consistent, and convince them of their continued stature and perfection. These flimsily substantiated rationalizations are offered with an air of confidence and authority. As noted earlier, however, narcissists may never have learned to be skillful at public deception; they usually said and did what they liked without a care for what others thought. Their poorly conceived rationalizations may, therefore, fail to bring relief and, more seriously, may evoke scrutiny and deprecating comments from others. At these times narcissists may be pushed to the point of employing projection as a defense. Unable to disentangle themselves from lies and inconsistencies, and driven by their need to maintain their illusion of superiority, they may begin to turn against others, accusing the latter of their own deceptions, their own selfishness, and their own irrationalities.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ __________________
To summarize, pay your goddam taxes and take pride in the fact that you are supporting the greatest nation on earth.
Doesn't that last paragraph of the cited material sound like a lot of GetBig members? Especially the projection part.
-
Why does no one post in Decker's threads?
He's one of the best informed and most intelligent posters on this board... he's the only one who takes the moronic right-wingers to task on their delusions.
This thread has potential... it raises a serious topic and should be bumped.
The Luke
-
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ __________________
To summarize, pay your goddam taxes and take pride in the fact that you are supporting the greatest nation on earth.
Doesn't that last paragraph of the cited material sound like a lot of GetBig members? Especially the projection part.
Wait don't you hate America?
-
Thanks.
I'm mostly interested in the 'taxes are theft' crowd. To me, there's a dangerous form of anti-government quasi-libertarianism on the loose. It corrodes our national fiber and atomizes our country's citizens.
I don't like that.
-
Wait don't you hate America?
Yes, I do hate America. In fact I have OBL on the phone right now planning my next post on GetBig. Since I am a liberal, I am by definition, a traitor to my country.
-
Why does no one post in Decker's threads?
He's one of the best informed and most intelligent posters on this board... he's the only one who takes the moronic right-wingers to task on their delusions.
This thread has potential... it raises a serious topic and should be bumped.
The Luke
Because he's a Fabian Socialist. I'm still waiting for him to defend Keynesian Economics in light of our current situation.
-
Paying taxes is patriotic. Just ask Joe Biden.
-
Why do tax protesters keep violating the laws, and keep litigating, even after it is clear that they have lost and have no valid arguments?
One answer, and simplest answer, is greed. People would rather have more money than less, and the appeal of not paying income taxes is enough to make at least some people believe almost anything.
“Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. ‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 69 (7th Cir. 1986).
Pure self-centered avarice can explain the initial appeal of tax protester arguments, but why do tax protesters become so mindlessly devoted to their beliefs? In many cases, judges have taken the time in pre-trial conferences to explain to tax protesters that they are totally wrong, and that if they persist with their arguments, the judge will not only rule against them but will sanction them (i.e., impose a fine) for wasting court time with their nonsense. And yet the tax protesters persist. Why?
My own observations of tax protesters lead me to believe that the actions of tax protesters are driven by emotional or psychological needs that are more complicated than simple greed, and that the “arguments” they present to the IRS and the courts are really nothing but elaborate rationalizations (or delusions) that they have constructed in order to avoid a reality that they are unable to accept. Sometimes the unacceptable reality is a sense of personal financial failure. Unable to accept the idea that their own incomes (or the lack thereof) might be the result of their own lack of skill or effort, or a matter of impersonal economics, tax protesters instead decide that the income tax system is the problem and begin finding reasons why it should not exist. In other cases, the unacceptable reality may be a moral or legal failure. An unhappy encounter with the government, such as a bad result in a divorce or a child custody dispute, or even something as minor as a speeding ticket, can lead to a belief that the government is broken, corrupt, or otherwise dysfunctional, which can then lead to a fixation on the federal tax system as symbolic of that dysfunction. In the case of almost every persistent tax protester, there is some personal, financial, or legal trauma or crisis that precedes the tax protester’s obsession with the tax system.
What the narcissist is unable to work out through fantasy is simply repressed, put out of mind and kept from awareness. Beyond these, narcissists invent alibis, excuses, and “proofs” that seem [to themselves] plausible and consistent, and convince them of their continued stature and perfection. These flimsily substantiated rationalizations are offered with an air of confidence and authority. As noted earlier, however, narcissists may never have learned to be skillful at public deception; they usually said and did what they liked without a care for what others thought. Their poorly conceived rationalizations may, therefore, fail to bring relief and, more seriously, may evoke scrutiny and deprecating comments from others. At these times narcissists may be pushed to the point of employing projection as a defense. Unable to disentangle themselves from lies and inconsistencies, and driven by their need to maintain their illusion of superiority, they may begin to turn against others, accusing the latter of their own deceptions, their own selfishness, and their own irrationalities.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ __________________
To summarize, pay your goddam taxes and take pride in the fact that you are supporting the greatest nation on earth.
Doesn't that last paragraph of the cited material sound like a lot of GetBig members? Especially the projection part.
I think this guy knows what he's talking about, write him a letter and dispute him all you want Decker, I'm sure you know more than him. :)
Joe Banister, former IRS Criminal Investigative Division (CID) Special Agent and CPA, speaks to a group in February, 2000, one year after his resignation from the IRS.
He discusses how he came to realise the truth: that the IRS is operating outside the law, and that the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution (which the IRS claims gives it support to tax US citizens) was never ratified - and thus null and void.
On Thursday, June 23, 2006, a federal jury found former IRS Criminal Investigative Division (CID) Special Agent and CPA Joseph Banister not guilty of all counts alleging criminal tax fraud and conspiracy related to actions he took on behalf of a California business owner who had openly defied the IRS over several years by stopping withholding of all income and employment taxes from the paychecks of his workers.
Joe appears in Aaron Russo's film, "America: Freedom to Fascism."
Starts at 5 min.
There are many videos of him disucussing this, if you're interested.
-
Sherry Peel Jackson Ex IRS Agent on Income Tax
More videos/info of her around, if you're really interested.
-
Because he's a Fabian Socialist. I'm still waiting for him to defend Keynesian Economics in light of our current situation.
When the pump has been primed by trillion dollar tax cuts, where is the spending to come from? More borrowing. Print more money.
I'm still waiting for Goldbugs like yourself to point out how an inelastic basis of money--gold--can fend off inflation before it becomes depression.
Here's a clue....the 1700s are over. The 1800s are over. When was the last time this country had a depression after implementing Keynesian economics? That's right, never.
I'm an American not a brit. I'm a populist.
Please try to stay on topic in this thread. It's about tax protesters.
-
Why do tax protesters keep violating the laws, and keep litigating, even after it is clear that they have lost and have no valid arguments?
Shreveport attorney, Tom Cryer, won a unanimous NOT GUILTY verdict in federal district court defeating the IRS's claim that Tom "willfully" failed to file federal income tax returns. Tom refused to file tax returns because the IRS could not show him any law making him liable for 'filing' a tax return.
-
Paying taxes is patriotic. Just ask Joe Biden.
What's an acceptable tax rate?
Or are you looking for a free ride like the rest of the tax protester crowd.
Your motto:
AMERICA! THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH...NO THANKS TO MY CHEAP NON-TAX PAYING ASS!
-
I think this guy knows what he's talking about, write him a letter and dispute him all you want Decker, I'm sure you know more than him. :)
Joe Banister, former IRS Criminal Investigative Division (CID) Special Agent and CPA, speaks to a group in February, 2000, one year after his resignation from the IRS.
He discusses how he came to realise the truth: that the IRS is operating outside the law, and that the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution (which the IRS claims gives it support to tax US citizens) was never ratified - and thus null and void.
On Thursday, June 23, 2006, a federal jury found former IRS Criminal Investigative Division (CID) Special Agent and CPA Joseph Banister not guilty of all counts alleging criminal tax fraud and conspiracy related to actions he took on behalf of a California business owner who had openly defied the IRS over several years by stopping withholding of all income and employment taxes from the paychecks of his workers.
Joe appears in Aaron Russo's film, "America: Freedom to Fascism."
Starts at 5 min.
There are many videos of him disucussing this, if you're interested.
Banister is a fraud and a kook. His clients have lost their cases and gone to jail on his advice.
Joseph R. Banister is a bit of a puzzle, because he is (or has been) a certified public accountant, and did work for the Internal Revenue Service, so he should know something about tax law, and yet he ended up buying into the tax protester craziness and quitting the IRS. He has since become one of the darlings of the tax protester cult and has apparently earned substantial fees for speaking at tax protester events.
His known clients have not fared well in court. For example, Banister advised Walter “Al” Thompson and apparently encouraged him not to file tax returns or pay employment taxes, as a result of which Thompson was indicted and convicted and is now in prison. Banister himself was indicted for conspiring with Thompson to evade taxes but his trial was separated from Thompson’s and Banister was acquitted after a jury trial. (Interestingly enough, Thompson was also acquitted of the charge that he conspired with Banister even though Thompson was convicted on all other charges, so two different juries in two separate trials agreed that the government’s evidence of conspiracy was insufficient to convict either of the alleged conspirators.)
Although Banister escaped criminal liability for his advice to Thompson, the Office of Professional Responsibility of the U.S. Treasury moved to bar Banister from practice before the Internal Revenue Service because of his advice to Thompson and others. A hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge, and Banister was disbarred from IRS practice, the ALJ finding that Banister had violated the rules for practice before the IRS by his “absolutely wrong” advice to his clients and by failing to file personal tax returns for 1999 through 2002. See IR-2004-5 (1/12/2004). Banister appealed the disbarment to the Secretary of the Treasury, who upheld the disbarment for the advice given to clients but held that there was insufficient evidence introduced at the hearing that Banister had enough income to require income tax returns for the years for which he failed to file returns. Banister could have filed a further appeal to federal District Court, but chose not to.
Based on the Treasury action, the California Board of Accountancy issued an decision revoking Banister’s CPA license on January 26, 2007. Banister has publicly stated that he intends to appeal that decision.
There is also still a possibility of criminal charges against Banister for his own failure to file tax returns.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
He's an atypical nut b/c of his background but he's a nut nonetheless.
-
Sherry Peel Jackson Ex IRS Agent on Income Tax
More videos/info of her around, if you're really interested.
Another dangerously misinformed individual preying on the starry-eyed dreamers out there. For god's sake the woman admits she didn't know the origins of the income tax until some tax protesting nutcase 'educated' her.
Please, if you think the 16th Amendment was never ratified or that income tax is not applicable to you then go to this link and learn how the tax world works: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
-
Why do tax protesters keep violating the laws, and keep litigating, even after it is clear that they have lost and have no valid arguments?
Shreveport attorney, Tom Cryer, won a unanimous NOT GUILTY verdict in federal district court defeating the IRS's claim that Tom "willfully" failed to file federal income tax returns. Tom refused to file tax returns because the IRS could not show him any law making him liable for 'filing' a tax return.
Really?
B/c here's the law that mandates the payment of income tax: the 16th Amendment If he won, the court must have missed the Constitution.
He's another emotionally unstable crackpot.
Tommy K. Cryer has some fairly good legal credentials, including having graduated with honors from LSU Law School as a member of the Order of the Coif (kind of the legal equivalent of the Phi Beta Kappa honor society). However, he was indicted for tax evasion in 2006 and responded by filing a motion to dismiss that is a classic (84-page) rehash of tax protester nonsense, including that the Internal Revenue Code does not impose any liability, that the I.R.C. does not define “income,” that the 16th Amendment did not give Congress any new power to tax, that the source of income must be determined in order to decide if it is taxable, the section 861 argument, that the federal government cannot tax activities that it cannot regulate, that the income from a person’s own labor is “fundamental right” that cannot be taxed, that compensation for labor is an “equal exchange” that does not result in gain, and that wages are not “income” within the meaning of the 16th Amendment. United States v. Tommy K. Cryer, No. 06-50164-10 (W.D. La. 2/7/2007). In its response, the United States refers to these arguments as “various tax protester claims” and as “pages upon pages of protester arguments that courts have previously rejected and discredited.” Docket #26 (2/15/2007). And the government is right.
Like many others who have joined the tax protester cult, Cryer seems to have a history of emotional and financial problems. In defending himself against a disciplinary complaint that he had neglected a legal matter (for which he received a public reprimand), Cryer claimed to have suffered from depression. The commissioner of the Louisiana State Bar Association concluded during the period in question he had been “on the brink of an emotional breakdown and also in severe financial straits,” and the Louisiana Supreme Court agreed that his “inexplicable behavior” were due to “emotional problems.” Louisiana State Bar Association v. Cryer, 441 S.2d 734, 1983 La. LEXIS 12346 (11/29/1983). Cryer’s financial situation apparently did not improve, because he filed for bankruptcy in 1998. And a web site apparently run by Cryer himself describes his wife, Carolyn, as “severely disabled” (“Welcome to the Lie-Free Zone”). He is therefore someone who has been under a lot of emotional and financial pressures over the years, and seems to have “snapped” and found his refuge in delusions.http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
-
Why do tax protesters keep violating the laws, and keep litigating, even after it is clear that they have lost and have no valid arguments?
One answer, and simplest answer, is greed. People would rather have more money than less, and the appeal of not paying income taxes is enough to make at least some people believe almost anything.
“Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. ‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 69 (7th Cir. 1986).
Pure self-centered avarice can explain the initial appeal of tax protester arguments, but why do tax protesters become so mindlessly devoted to their beliefs? In many cases, judges have taken the time in pre-trial conferences to explain to tax protesters that they are totally wrong, and that if they persist with their arguments, the judge will not only rule against them but will sanction them (i.e., impose a fine) for wasting court time with their nonsense. And yet the tax protesters persist. Why?
My own observations of tax protesters lead me to believe that the actions of tax protesters are driven by emotional or psychological needs that are more complicated than simple greed, and that the “arguments” they present to the IRS and the courts are really nothing but elaborate rationalizations (or delusions) that they have constructed in order to avoid a reality that they are unable to accept. Sometimes the unacceptable reality is a sense of personal financial failure. Unable to accept the idea that their own incomes (or the lack thereof) might be the result of their own lack of skill or effort, or a matter of impersonal economics, tax protesters instead decide that the income tax system is the problem and begin finding reasons why it should not exist. In other cases, the unacceptable reality may be a moral or legal failure. An unhappy encounter with the government, such as a bad result in a divorce or a child custody dispute, or even something as minor as a speeding ticket, can lead to a belief that the government is broken, corrupt, or otherwise dysfunctional, which can then lead to a fixation on the federal tax system as symbolic of that dysfunction. In the case of almost every persistent tax protester, there is some personal, financial, or legal trauma or crisis that precedes the tax protester’s obsession with the tax system.
What the narcissist is unable to work out through fantasy is simply repressed, put out of mind and kept from awareness. Beyond these, narcissists invent alibis, excuses, and “proofs” that seem [to themselves] plausible and consistent, and convince them of their continued stature and perfection. These flimsily substantiated rationalizations are offered with an air of confidence and authority. As noted earlier, however, narcissists may never have learned to be skillful at public deception; they usually said and did what they liked without a care for what others thought. Their poorly conceived rationalizations may, therefore, fail to bring relief and, more seriously, may evoke scrutiny and deprecating comments from others. At these times narcissists may be pushed to the point of employing projection as a defense. Unable to disentangle themselves from lies and inconsistencies, and driven by their need to maintain their illusion of superiority, they may begin to turn against others, accusing the latter of their own deceptions, their own selfishness, and their own irrationalities.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ __________________
To summarize, pay your goddam taxes and take pride in the fact that you are supporting the greatest nation on earth.
Doesn't that last paragraph of the cited material sound like a lot of GetBig members? Especially the projection part.
Translation = "Jeez, I hope Osam.. er, Obama gets elected. This way we can keep taxing more and more and if anyone asks we can just keep saying that things have to be paid for. We can keep this going indefinitely without any accountability or rationalization whatsoever!!! BWAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!"
-
The only real problem that I have with taxes is I hope mine don't go up. lol I believe the government can do with what it has. It is our government(not just our citizens) that are living beyond their means. There is no need to increase taxes. Just cut the fat from the bloated belly called our national "budget".
Why is my tax percentage higher than Warren Buffet's? That's some bullshit right there.
By the way Decker...I do enjoy your posts, and appreciate your civility when debating, but you misstepped a little in a past post. Anarchists are the ones that don't want any taxes period. Liberterians on the otherhand, while do want less government, taxes, etc., do realise that taxes must be paid and are needed; just not to the extent at which we are paying now. Just a thought. Carry on.
-
Almost forgot ;D
"Goddamn those pesky Americans wanting to keep more of their own money!!! AAAARRRGGGHHHH!!!!!"
MELTDOWN!!!
-
The only real problem that I have with taxes is I hope mine don't go up. lol I believe the government can do with what it has. It is our government(not just our citizens) that are living beyond their means. There is no need to increase taxes. Just cut the fat from the bloated belly called our national "budget".
Why is my tax percentage higher than Warren Buffet's? That's some bullshit right there.
By the way Decker...I do enjoy your posts, and appreciate your civility when debating, but you misstepped a little in a past post. Anarchists are the ones that don't want any taxes period. Liberterians on the otherhand, while do want less government, taxes, etc., do realise that taxes must be paid and are needed; just not to the extent at which we are paying now. Just a thought. Carry on.
Thank you sir, but I didn't mean to insult libertarians. Justin Raimondo is one of my favorite libertarian writers. The impression I was trying to make was that these tax protesters appear to be libertarians gone bad...that's why I called them "quasi-libertarians" and not libertarians.
Sorry if I offended you, the error comes from my inability to rightly characterize these people with the proper words.
-
Translation = "Jeez, I hope Osam.. er, Obama gets elected. This way we can keep taxing more and more and if anyone asks we can just keep saying that things have to be paid for. We can keep this going indefinitely without any accountability or rationalization whatsoever!!! BWAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!"
Does everyone see this?
This is the character flaw that the author of the FAQ is talking about.
As explained above, most tax protesters are irrational, delusional, or otherwise unable to understand that they are wrong about the tax laws, so when one of their arguments lose, they simply find another argument to reach the same conclusion (that the law is inapplicable, invalid, unenforceable, or unconstitutional).
Now it's 'accountability'....
I can help. I'm not being an asshole either (for once). I am trying to tell you how it is and you are telling me how you wish it were. We can't get anywhere unless you start from reality--how it is.
-
Thank you sir, but I didn't mean to insult libertarians. Justin Raimondo is one of my favorite libertarian writers. The impression I was trying to make was that these tax protesters appear to be libertarians gone bad...that's why I called them "quasi-libertarians" and not libertarians.
Sorry if I offended you, the error comes from my inability to rightly characterize these people with the proper words.
No offense taken. I really just didn't want anybody to call you on it or anything of the sort.
I will google Justin Raimondo, always looking for something else to read.
-
Thing is Decker, do you believe that we will see higher taxes even if Obama makes it to office?
-
Banister is a fraud and a kook. His clients have lost their cases and gone to jail on his advice.
He's an atypical nut b/c of his background but he's a nut nonetheless.
If an agency can write the rules is it a wonder they can win 99% of the time? Does the ability to write the rules mean you are being morally correct/right?
People suffer emotional and financial problems dealing with the IRS? Uh, who wouldnt? They threaten to and DO take everything you own away from you.
In your questions are you talking about all taxes or one in particular? Do you believe that your income taxes go to all the services you say it does?
-
Thing is Decker, do you believe that we will see higher taxes even if Obama makes it to office?
Yes I do. I see higher taxes for high end earners.
Over the past 8 years we've doubled the national debt. Debt is necessary for growth. Excessive debt hurts as does debt for the wrong reasons--trillion dollar tax cuts when there are pressing bills to pay (Reagan's prefunding of Soc. Sec. comes to mind that money's been borrowed and should be repaid) and 2 billion a week wasted in Iraq. That's bad debt.
We can't afford another 4 year fantasy of tax cuts as our main vehicle for stimulating the economy. That's weakening our country. Japan and China own over half of our national debt. This can't continue.
-
Greed? Give me a fucking break.
I'm against the current progressive tax system because it's morally wrong.
I'm against it because it takes an unfair percentage of money from me which I use to support my family and plan for my future.
Greed? The very idea is insulting and arrogant.
-
If an agency can write the rules is it a wonder they can win 99% of the time? Does the ability to write the rules mean you are being morally correct/right?
People suffer emotional and financial problems dealing with the IRS? Uh, who wouldnt? They threaten to and DO take everything you own away from you.
In your questions are you talking about all taxes or one in particular? Do you believe that your income taxes go to all the services you say it does?
The rules/laws are out there. And yes, sometimes they are unfair. But I work rather closely with IRS and DOL regulations and I can tell you, the laws are constantly changing to meet the demands of the public. IT's far from perfect--this responsivity--but it exists.
Judges rule against the IRS all the time. Not only does the IRS lose but it sometimes is penalized by the courts as well. However, this never happens with tax protesters b/c taxpayer arguments are uninformed and ridiculous.
When TPs are told this, they don't try to learn what composes a valid argument, instead they get more absurd and belligerent.
The IRS doesn't take everything from everyone. That's hyperbole. I live well and I don't blame the IRS b/c I recently lost some money in the market. I don't blame my losses on taxation ....I blame it on my stupidity. (It's a good thing I listened to Neurotoxin)
The FAQ seems to address all taxes associated with income.
-
Greed? Give me a fucking break.
I'm against the current progressive tax system because it's morally wrong.
I'm against it because it takes an unfair percentage of money from me which I use to support my family and plan for my future.
Greed? The very idea is insulting and arrogant.
The FAQ addresses the legal arguments made by Tax Protesters. It doesn't address personal feelings of morality re the progressive graded income tax schedule.
What you view as unfair, is viewed as eminently fair when considered in light of the taxpayer's ability to pay. Should those making $15,000 a year pay the same flat rate as someone earning 1.5 million a year? In a way, they do.
Why? B/c with the progressive income tax--we all pay the same tax rate at the same bracket.
Think about that a second. The higher tax rates of the higher tax brackets apply only to the dollars earned in those higher brackets.
-
The FAQ addresses the legal arguments made by Tax Protesters. It doesn't address personal feelings of morality re the progressive graded income tax schedule.
What you view as unfair, is viewed as eminently fair when considered in light of the taxpayer's ability to pay. Should those making $15,000 a year pay the same flat rate as someone earning 1.5 million a year? In a way, they do.
Why? B/c with the progressive income tax--we all pay the same tax rate at the same bracket.
Think about that a second. The higher tax rates of the higher tax brackets apply only to the dollars earned in those higher brackets.
We've gone round and round on this, my online friend. We always agree to disagree.
IMO, the flat tax (with ABSOLUTELY ZERO deductions) is the best compromise between the consumption tax and the progressive tax system.
It simplifies the tax code and eliminates loop holes.
If you make x amount of dollars.
10 percent of x is y.
Pay your tax.
Have a nice day.
-
We've gone round and round on this, my online friend. We always agree to disagree.
IMO, the flat tax (with ABSOLUTELY ZERO deductions) is the best compromise between the consumption tax and the progressive tax system.
It simplifies the tax code and eliminates loop holes.
If you make x amount of dollars.
10 percent of x is y.
Pay your tax.
Have a nice day.
I understand. That makes sense. I do enjoy reading your posts.
-
What's an acceptable tax rate?
Or are you looking for a free ride like the rest of the tax protester crowd.
Your motto:
AMERICA! THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH...NO THANKS TO MY CHEAP NON-TAX PAYING ASS!
An acceptable rate is the lowest rate possible.
I'm not a tax protestor. I know a couple of them. They're playing with fire.
I do not like paying taxes. I do not like sending my money to Washington D.C. where it is routinely squandered. I do not like the fact my money is being used for this "bailout." I do not like paying for pork barrel projects. If they keep it up I might move to one of those islands that has no taxes.
-
The FAQ addresses the legal arguments made by Tax Protesters. It doesn't address personal feelings of morality re the progressive graded income tax schedule.
What you view as unfair, is viewed as eminently fair when considered in light of the taxpayer's ability to pay. Should those making $15,000 a year pay the same flat rate as someone earning 1.5 million a year? In a way, they do.
Why? B/c with the progressive income tax--we all pay the same tax rate at the same bracket.
Think about that a second. The higher tax rates of the higher tax brackets apply only to the dollars earned in those higher brackets.
I disagree. People making $15,000 a year probably pay zero with the earned income tax credit.
-
The rules/laws are out there. And yes, sometimes they are unfair. But I work rather closely with IRS and DOL regulations and I can tell you, the laws are constantly changing to meet the demands of the public. IT's far from perfect--this responsivity--but it exists.
Judges rule against the IRS all the time. Not only does the IRS lose but it sometimes is penalized by the courts as well. However, this never happens with tax protesters b/c taxpayer arguments are uninformed and ridiculous.
When TPs are told this, they don't try to learn what composes a valid argument, instead they get more absurd and belligerent.
The IRS doesn't take everything from everyone. That's hyperbole. I live well and I don't blame the IRS b/c I recently lost some money in the market. I don't blame my losses on taxation ....I blame it on my stupidity. (It's a good thing I listened to Neurotoxin)
The FAQ seems to address all taxes associated with income.
Internal Revenue Code Book
Codes.
Written by lawyers.
From a law society.
Not my society. I don't understand the words they use because it's not my language. If I can't understand something, why should I be forced to participate in it? The meanings of words always change to fit their interpretation. Has anyone read the Code book? Do people understand it? Do the people that work for the IRS understand it? If they don't, then from where and why do they get the authority to enforce the codes in it?
By virtue of the fact you were born here, I believe you are entitled to certain things, (your natural/God given rights/freedom/not a slave). These things to which you are entitled to are not a result of "them" giving you something. Nobody gives you your rights, and if you operate upon that assumption, they can then take them away. They offer "benefits" for taxes, I want my rights.
Liberty: The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor
When I work for an employer, I don't go to them as an agent of the government. I go as a free man. I am not offering my services to my employer so that some of my money can be taken away by a third party. The contract is between me and my employer, I shouldnt be forced to extend part of my private services to the government if i don't want to.