Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Bindare_Dundat on October 26, 2008, 09:45:27 PM
-
A 2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview, Obama is discussing redistribution of wealth.
-
republicans redistribute our wealth by stealing via government contracts, war, tax credits, etc...
Sarah Palin helped push through a windfall profit tax in Alaska that was redistributed to every man, woman and child in the state
-
Here's an old show of Politically Incorrect, where a Socialist Party candidate discusses raising the taxes of people making over 250,000 a year. I thought the reaction he gets is pretty interesting considering the current discussions going on today. Starts at 4:40.
-
The man is a fucking Communist , will he ever understand that the government job isn't to redistribute the wealth? ???
Bump for you Democrats who keep denying!
-
Here's an old show of Politically Incorrect, where a Socialist Party candidate discusses raising the taxes of people making over 250,000 a year. I thought the reaction he gets is pretty interesting considering the current discussions going on today. Starts at 4:40.
this show was good back in the day
-
Democrats keep quiet when they see facts....sad :-\
-
The man is a fucking Communist , will he ever understand that the government job isn't to redistribute the wealth? ???
Bump for you Democrats who keep denying!
Yeah, the government has failed if it STEALS (it's a capitalist society after all) in either direction (from poor to rich [i.e. bailing out banks] or vice versa). Tax bands should be calculated on cost to society etc, rather than straight revenue bands.
-
Democrats keep quiet when they see facts....sad :-\
Could you point to one form of government that does not redistribute income/wealth? Just one.
-
Yeah, the government has failed if it STEALS (it's a capitalist society after all) in either direction (from poor to rich [i.e. bailing out banks] or vice versa). Tax bands should be calculated on cost to society etc, rather than straight revenue bands.
In the USA, the government has a constitutional duty to implement taxes and collect those taxes.
I don't know where you get this nonsense about stealing. That's just rightwing drivel.
-
In the USA, the government has a constitutional duty to implement taxes and collect those taxes.
I don't know where you get this nonsense about stealing. That's just rightwing drivel.
It is drivel if you misunderstood or I didn't make it clear.
The tax payer having increased tax to bail out banks is stealing, and vice verse. Taxation is not, and it is a requirement for a modern society.
-
It is drivel if you misunderstood or I didn't make it clear.
The tax payer having increased tax to bail out banks is stealing, and vice verse. Taxation is not, and it is a requirement for a modern society.
I do apologize to you then.
This whole 'taxes are stealing' crowd gets under my skin. Even Palin said paying taxes is not patriotic....which is nothing but a tangent of the former argument.
-
Believing taxation equals stealing certainly is retarded.
-
The man is a fucking Communist , will he ever understand that the government job isn't to redistribute the wealth? ???
Bump for you Democrats who keep denying!
What these fools dont understand is that when you take money from rich people to give it to poor people who did not earn it, the end result is that both will be poor and both wont be working.
The economic ignorance of ZERO is just amazing.
Giving poor people more money who did not earn it in the name of fairness will only result in their squandering it and result in shared poverty for all.
That is the liberal dream, like Lenin and Stalin, shared povery for all.
-
What these fools dont understand is that when you take money from rich people to give it to poor people who did not earn it, the end result is that both will be poor and both wont be working.
The economic ignorance of ZERO is just amazing.
Giving poor people more money who did not earn it in the name of fairness will only result in their squandering it and result in shared poverty for all.
That is the liberal dream, like Lenin and Stalin, shared povery for all.
I have many many links that show welfare and soc. sec. do in fact work. And they work quite well.
Where's your proof that shared poverty for all will happen if anti-poverty programs are implemented. Just look at the US's modern history with anti-poverty programs. You couldn't be more wrong in your conclusion.
-
I have many many links that show welfare and soc. sec. do in fact work. And they work quite well.
Where's your proof that shared poverty for all will happen if anti-poverty programs are implemented. Just look at the US's modern history with anti-poverty programs. You couldn't be more wrong in your conclusion.
Ok, go to Chicago, ZERO's home turf, and tell me that welfare and liberal policies work. Chicago is the murder capital of the USA, worst schools in the nation, and in rubble.
What did ZERO ever do about any of this??? NOTHING!
Taking from producing people in the name of fairness and giving it away to others does not work. Its theft by any other name and will only result in shared poverty.
-
Ok, go to Chicago, ZERO's home turf, and tell me that welfare and liberal policies work. Chicago is the murder capital of the USA, worst schools in the nation, and in rubble.
What did ZERO ever do about any of this??? NOTHING!
Taking from producing people in the name of fairness and giving it away to others does not work. Its theft by any other name and will only result in shared poverty.
I wasn't aware that Obama was czar of Chicago.
Socialistic wealth redistribution is what made this country a world power. Laissez faire capitalism always takes the US to the brink of implosion until social redistribution saves the day.
It happened in the 1930s, it happened in the 1990s and now it will happen in 2008.
-
I have many many links that show welfare and soc. sec. do in fact work. And they work quite well.
Respectfully disagree. We're still fighting the "war on poverty" and how many years has it been?
-
I wasn't aware that Obama was czar of Chicago.
Socialistic wealth redistribution is what made this country a world power. Laissez faire capitalism always takes the US to the brink of implosion until social redistribution saves the day.
It happened in the 1930s, it happened in the 1990s and now it will happen in 2008.
Obama is going to make Carter look good if he is elected.
-
Respectfully disagree. We're still fighting the "war on poverty" and how many years has it been?
The war on poverty has been pretty successful.
Social Security annually lifts some 13 million elderly people out of poverty.
http://www.cbpp.org/2-24-05socsec.htm
Over half the people on Welfare are off the welfare rolls within a year or two.
Time on AFDC Recipients
-------------------------------
Less than 7 months 19.0%
7 to 12 months 15.2
One to two years 19.3
Two to five years 26.9
Over five years 19.6
source: Overview of Entitlement Programs, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994).
Remember, almost all welfare goes to mothers with children. All federal welfare goes to women with children. With children.
The historical evidence is clear: welfare reduces poverty, and the lack of it increases it. In the 1920s, fully half of all Americans could not make ends meet. Roosevelt's New Deal programs had reduced poverty to about 20 percent in the 50s. Johnson's Great Society reduced this to 11.1 percent by 1973. Since the rise of the corporate special interest system in 1975, individual welfare benefits have been shrinking, and poverty has been steadily rising, to over 15 percent today. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarepoverty.htm
-
"Believing taxation equals stealing certainly is retarded."
Of course, taxation is needed. However, its the promise of opportunity and the ability to create wealth that made this country great. We must balance the two.
Its of primary importance to hold the gov accountable for its spending. Government, on both sides of the isle, have taken great liberty with our money. This whole Iraq war is such a disaster and IMO is one of the catalysts to our current economic crisis.
-
A 2001 Chicago Public Radio Interview, Obama is discussing redistribution of wealth.
Good grief. Can it possibly get any more clearer that this guy is all about "spreading the wealth around"? He is bad news. I sure hope the polls are wrong.
-
Good grief. Can it possibly get any more clearer that this guy is all about "spreading the wealth around"? He is bad news. I sure hope the polls are wrong.
What the cult followers dont want to believe and realize is that ZERO used the initial figure of 250k per year, however, once he gets in, between Reid and Pelosi, we all know that number will go far lower.
Also, by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, everyones rates are going to go up by default and thereby make any "tax cut" he pushes will be negligble at best and offset by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
ZERO is truly a marxist.
-
Not to mention all sorts of other taxes will go up under Obama. Why aren't people talking more about the payroll, death, marriage, capital gains, and corporate tax increases? They will affect all of us and I'm sure there's more comming. He believes in a big strong 'fair' gov that makes more decisions for its citizens in the public and private sectors.
I also believe the 250K income tax line could easily be moved by unchecked left wing democratic control.
-
Under Obama's Plan, he'll:
Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.
Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.
Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.
Dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class Americans to do their own taxes in less than five minutes without an accountant.
Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.
Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.
http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/
-
Good grief. Can it possibly get any more clearer that this guy is all about "spreading the wealth around"? He is bad news. I sure hope the polls are wrong.
Would you prefer more borrowing from the Red Chinese to pay our debts?
Does that sound like a good idea?
I know how you feel about 'spreading wealth around', are you just as concerned with spreading debt around too?
That's what we got with your fiscal conservative Bush--he more than doubled the national debt in a mere 8 years. That's what McCain promises with his ridiculous tax cut policy. More backloaded debt that our children cannot afford.
-
Under Obama's Plan, he'll:
Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.
Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.
Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.
Dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class Americans to do their own taxes in less than five minutes without an accountant.
Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.
Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.
http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/
Hey dope - by letting the Bush tax cuts expire the rate are going up by default. Thus, getting $500.00 from ZERO means nothing to me since the rates are going up for everyone.
Pasting propoganda from Zero's website is not indicative of the truth about his plan. Even WSJ did a piece on this and said he is FOS.
-
Hey dope - by letting the Bush tax cuts expire the rate are going up by default. Thus, getting $500.00 from ZERO means nothing to me since the rates are going up for everyone.
Pasting propoganda from Zero's website is not indicative of the truth about his plan. Even WSJ did a piece on this and said he is FOS.
Boy are you smart.
The tax cuts were sold to the american people as part of EGTRRA of 2001. That had a sunset provision in 2010. All the costs of the tax cut were sold on that sunset provision so it would appear to not bankrupt the country. Bush lied. He had the Congress remove the sunset provision.
So you learning challenged young one, the costs of keeping the tax cut as permanent became unrealistic. Especially in light of the fact that the elite rich got more tax cut money than they paid into the system.
Propaganda? You stupid ass hole. That's his platform.
The WSJ's editorial page is stocked with uninformed rightwing lunatics much like yourself.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
What the cult followers dont want to believe and realize is that ZERO used the initial figure of 250k per year, however, once he gets in, between Reid and Pelosi, we all know that number will go far lower.
Also, by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, everyones rates are going to go up by default and thereby make any "tax cut" he pushes will be negligble at best and offset by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
ZERO is truly a marxist.
Plus as shoot said the $250,000 ceiling is probably going to drop.
-
Would you prefer more borrowing from the Red Chinese to pay our debts?
Does that sound like a good idea?
I know how you feel about 'spreading wealth around', are you just as concerned with spreading debt around too?
That's what we got with your fiscal conservative Bush--he more than doubled the national debt in a mere 8 years. That's what McCain promises with his ridiculous tax cut policy. More backloaded debt that our children cannot afford.
I prefer that we pay off our debts, quit borrowing money, cut spending, and cut taxes. That's partly why I'm voting for McCain. Unlike Obama, he has talked about cutting spending. I think McCain will do a far better job of tackling our debt than Obama. All Obama has talked about is writing checks.
-
I prefer that we pay off our debts, quit borrowing money, cut spending, and cut taxes. That's partly why I'm voting for McCain. Unlike Obama, he has talked about cutting spending. I think McCain will do a far better job of tackling our debt than Obama. All Obama has talked about is writing checks.
Don't see how that is possible with the debt we've incurred in the last 8 years.
-
Don't see how that is possible with the debt we've incurred in the last 8 years.
I'm not sure how it's going to be done, but only one person is talking about it.
-
I prefer that we pay off our debts, quit borrowing money, cut spending, and cut taxes. That's partly why I'm voting for McCain. Unlike Obama, he has talked about cutting spending. I think McCain will do a far better job of tackling our debt than Obama. All Obama has talked about is writing checks.
Talk of tax cuts by both sides is irresponsible. Had Bush run the government with an ounce of competency we could be talking about tax cuts now.
Every single conservative candidate of the last 35 years has promised to reign in spending and every single one has failed. The only recent president to put a dent in our debt and our spending was Bill Clinton.
Whose tax plan is closer to Clinton's? Obama's or McCain's?
-
Talk of tax cuts by both sides is irresponsible. Had Bush run the government with an ounce of competency we could be talking about tax cuts now.
Every single conservative candidate of the last 35 years has promised to reign in spending and every single one has failed. The only recent president to put a dent in our debt and our spending was Bill Clinton.
Whose tax plan is closer to Clinton's? Obama's or McCain's?
I don't know. Don't really care. I just want the person with the right mindset in government.
-
I don't know. Don't really care. I just want the person with the right mindset in government.
That's where we part company. The proof is in the pudding. And every single republican president of the last 35 years has been a budgetary disaster. I say we give the young colored fella a chance.
-
That's where we part company. The proof is in the pudding. And every single republican president of the last 35 years has been a budgetary disaster. I say we give the young colored fella a chance.
I disagree. The Democrat-controlled Congress was a disaster. We saw the same thing in Hawaii.
-
I disagree. The Democrat-controlled Congress was a disaster. We saw the same thing in Hawaii.
What gave you that idea? Was it the 3 out of 4 Reagan budgets with proposed spending millions more than the democrats would permit? Or was it the hundreds of billions of dollars that Bush would ask for from his rubberstamp/rubberspined Congress?
-
What gave you that idea? Was it the 3 out of 4 Reagan budgets with proposed spending millions more than the democrats would permit? Or was it the hundreds of billions of dollars that Bush would ask for from his rubberstamp/rubberspined Congress?
What gave me that idea was Democrats controlled Congress for about 40 years, including during the Reagan presidency.
-
What many of you have failed to realize is that you've already been taxed incredibly under the Bush administration. The value of the dollar has plummeted since he's been office thus making our buying power lower. More money has been taken away from us all under Bush than Obama's plan would ever come close to. Sorry, I don't want more of that under McSame's plan. He says he'll cut taxes, but has never said exactly how he's going to do that with a $400 billion budget deficit. If you truly believe you'll be better off under McCain then by all means, keep voting for a devalued dollar.
-
What gave you that idea? Was it the 3 out of 4 Reagan budgets with proposed spending millions more than the democrats would permit? Or was it the hundreds of billions of dollars that Bush would ask for from his rubberstamp/rubberspined Congress?
Yeah...I know that money didn't go for a good cause did it...it didn't help bury the Soviets, or lay the groundwork for the Clinton boom.....or the Tech revolution...nope we just spent it on coke and Miami Vice...it had nothing to do with the Wall coming down...nope all wasted. ::)
-
In the radio interview, Obama delved into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further than it did, so that when "dispossessed peoples" appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal.
Obama said the civil rights movement was victorious in some regards, but failed to create a "redistributive change" in its appeals to the Supreme Court, led at the time by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He suggested that such change should occur at the state legislature level, since the courts did not interpret the U.S. Constitution to permit such change.
"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical," Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend.
"It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.
"And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way -- that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.
"And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that," Obama said.
Burton said Monday the comments on the tape have "nothing to do with Obama's economic plan or his plan to give the middle class a tax cut."
"Here are the facts. In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of 'redistributing' wealth. Obama's point -- and what he called a tragedy -- was that legal victories in the civil rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better. That view is shared by conservative judges and legal scholars across the country," Burton said.
"And so Obama's point was simply that if we want to improve economic conditions for people in this country, we should do so by bringing people together at the community level and getting everyone involved in our democratic process," Burton continued.
John McCain's campaign said the tape proves that Obama is too liberal for the White House.
"Now we know that the slogans 'change you can believe in' and 'change we need' are code words for Barack Obama's ultimate goal: 'redistributive change,'" said McCain-Palin senior policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.
"Barack Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn't been more 'radical' and described as a 'tragedy' the court's refusal to take up 'the issues of redistribution of wealth.' No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench," Holtz-Eakin continued.
National Review reporter Byron York, a FOX News contributor, said the U.S. government already has a progressive tax system that gives money earned by one group to another group, but it's a matter of degree. He added that Obama's outlook on that system hasn't changed.
"It seems clear from listening to this that the Obama of 2001 and probably the Obama of today feels that the government doesn't do that enough, and I think that's probably the big point in this tape," York said.
"You've got to take him at his word," York added. "It seems to me that the tape shows that this is simply a goal he has had for a long time."
In a speech in Cleveland on Monday, McCain said the Obama interview is just another indication that the Democrat wants to increase sharply the amount of government spending.
"Today, he claims he will only tax the rich. But we've seen in the past that he's willing to support taxes that hit people squarely in the middle class, and with a trillion dollars in new spending, the most likely outcome is that everyone who pays taxes will be paying for his spending," McCain said.
Yeah...don't hold on to ur tax cut dream Libs....this prick will spend us into the ground.
-
Yeah...don't hold on to ur tax cut dream Libs....this prick will spend us into the ground.
Too late, ...Bush already did that. Do try to keep up. :D
-
Too late, ...Bush already did that. Do try to keep up. :D
Again Jag.......this is the political board. BTW, how does it feel to get taxed up the ass?
-
Again Jag.......this is the political board. BTW, how does it feel to get taxed up the ass?
If there was even the faintest belief that my tax money would be spent towards the betterment of the country, then I'd have no problem with it personally. However, the government has exploded 400% since Bush's start just 8 years ago and I fail to believe our tax money is going to go to bettering the country when it's being sucked up by the $400 billion budget deficit of the government. And not to mention that even though Bush cut taxes, the value of the dollar dropped which is an indirect tax on our income decreasing our buying power.
-
Believing taxation equals stealing certainly is retarded.
Income Tax IS stealing.
-
Income Tax IS stealing.
According to what? Your opinion? That's fine, the rest of us will follow the law.
-
According to what? Your opinion? That's fine, the rest of us will follow the law.
Did you work for your paycheck or did someone else? Why should the government have access to your property without you having a choice in the matter? I guess your time and effort doesn't mean much to you, so you don't care that the government feels it has a right to your belongings and can dictate how much of your own income you get to keep.
Government should learn how to spend/save the huge amount of taxes they already collect without an Income Tax because so far they suck at it.
-
Did you work for your paycheck or did someone else? Why should the government have access to your property? I guess your time and effort doesn't mean much to you, so you don't care that the government feels it has a right to your belongings and can dictate how much of your own income you get to keep.
Government should learn how to spend/save the huge amount of taxes they already collect without an Income Tax because so far they suck at it.
I'm not saying I agree with taxing to the extent that we get taxed, but lets get real. We're not even in the top 20 countries as far as taxation goes. Secondly, I do agree that the government is far too bloated and excess spending needs to be cut tremendously. There's a $400 billion budget deficit that needs to be addressed immediately and cutting taxes isn't going to help that situation. Without taxes we wouldn't have many of the public services we take for granted, or they'd just paid for through other mediums, which would still be the same.
It's the law that congress has a right to tax income, that's all I was pointing out, not that I agree with your above points because I do.
-
Without taxes we wouldn't have many of the public services we take for granted, or they'd just paid for through other mediums, which would still be the same.
Your Income Tax goes to paying off the interest on the money that's borrowed/debt. Not a dime of it goes to public services.
A 400 billion dollar deficit and 90 years of collecting Income Tax. Doing the same thing year after year and expecting a different result= insanity. Count me out.
-
Did you work for your paycheck or did someone else? Why should the government have access to your property without you having a choice in the matter? I guess your time and effort doesn't mean much to you, so you don't care that the government feels it has a right to your belongings and can dictate how much of your own income you get to keep.
Government should learn how to spend/save the huge amount of taxes they already collect without an Income Tax because so far they suck at it.
Arguing with socialists is useless. They believe the govt owns you and your labor.
They really believe the govt should get 100% of your check and doll it out to you afterwards.
Most people have no idea that the progressive income tax is one of the tenants pushed by Karl Marx as a way to communism. Dont bother trying to get the fools on this board to understand that because they wont.
-
Yeah...I know that money didn't go for a good cause did it...it didn't help bury the Soviets, or lay the groundwork for the Clinton boom.....or the Tech revolution...nope we just spent it on coke and Miami Vice...it had nothing to do with the Wall coming down...nope all wasted. ::)
Reagan's tax policy did not 'lay the groundwork' for the Clinton/tech boom any more than Gerald Ford's tax policies paved the way for the 'Reagan Boom."
That's just hogwash.
The Soviets fell b/c of a 40+ year cold war policy of the US...
-
Income Tax IS stealing.
It's not stealing according the US Constitution's 16th Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
You might want to rethink your opinion.
-
Arguing with socialists is useless. They believe the govt owns you and your labor.
In a way you are correct since We the People are the government.
They really believe the govt should get 100% of your check and doll it out to you afterwards.
I think you believe that.
Most people have no idea that the progressive income tax is one of the tenants pushed by Karl Marx as a way to communism. Dont bother trying to get the fools on this board to understand that because they wont.
Adam Smith was a proponent of the progressive income tax. It was one the tenets of his beliefs as was the "invisible hand."
-
Collecting taxes is not the same as "spreading the wealth around". Collecting taxes should go towards things like defense, infrastructure, schools, libraries, etc.
-
Collecting taxes is not the same as "spreading the wealth around". Collecting taxes should go towards things like defense, infrastructure, schools, libraries, etc.
The Obamabots want to use taxes as a way of social engineering and punishment.
-
The Obamabots want to use taxes as a way of social engineering and punishment.
The entire tax code has carrots and sticks for pushing certain types of behavior. A type of social engineering.
-
The American economy was in shambles when Reagan entered office in 1981. Inflation had soared by 25% over the prior two years, unemployment was heading toward 10%, the prime interest rate hit 21%, poverty was on a 33% upswing and real family income had decreased by almost 10% due to the stagflation of the late 1970s.
Reagan cut the top income-tax rate from 70% to 50%, adopted an additional 25% across-the-board rate cut and sliced capital gains taxes in half. The 1986 tax reform left us with just two tax rates of 15% and 28%. Reagan slashed spending growth, lowered tariffs, reduced regulatory burdens and promoted anti-inflation monetary policies.
The result, the authors explain, was actually a 25-year, noninflationary economic boom, with only two brief, mild recessions in 1990 and 2001. "We call this period, 1982-2007, the 25-year boom — the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet," they write. "Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the 25-year boom than in the previous 200 years."
By 1989, the economy had grown by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany to our U.S. economy. In 1984 alone, real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created in the 1980s, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
Spectacularly, inflation was slashed to 3.2% by 1983. The prime rate fell to 6.25% by 1992, even though opponents had argued that Reagan's tax cuts would increase interest rates. Family income reversed its decline, poverty reversed its rise and tax revenues actually doubled.
-
The American economy was in shambles when Reagan entered office in 1981. Inflation had soared by 25% over the prior two years, unemployment was heading toward 10%, the prime interest rate hit 21%, poverty was on a 33% upswing and real family income had decreased by almost 10% due to the stagflation of the late 1970s.
Reagan cut the top income-tax rate from 70% to 50%, adopted an additional 25% across-the-board rate cut and sliced capital gains taxes in half. The 1986 tax reform left us with just two tax rates of 15% and 28%. Reagan slashed spending growth, lowered tariffs, reduced regulatory burdens and promoted anti-inflation monetary policies.
The result, the authors explain, was actually a 25-year, noninflationary economic boom, with only two brief, mild recessions in 1990 and 2001. "We call this period, 1982-2007, the 25-year boom — the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet," they write. "Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the 25-year boom than in the previous 200 years."
By 1989, the economy had grown by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany to our U.S. economy. In 1984 alone, real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created in the 1980s, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
Spectacularly, inflation was slashed to 3.2% by 1983. The prime rate fell to 6.25% by 1992, even though opponents had argued that Reagan's tax cuts would increase interest rates. Family income reversed its decline, poverty reversed its rise and tax revenues actually doubled.
Reagan's tax cuts had little to do with the economic recovery. Chr. of the Fed Paul Volcker induced a steep recession and then slashed interest rates to help stimulate the economy. When the business cycle turned for the better, that action by the Fed helped cause the major explosion of the economy.
Tax cuts do not govern our country's economic performance. The business cycle and the Fed do that.
-
Reagan's tax cuts had little to do with the economic recovery. Chr. of the Fed Paul Volcker induced a steep recession and then slashed interest rates to help stimulate the economy. When the business cycle turned for the better, that action by the Fed helped cause the major explosion of the economy.
Tax cuts do not govern our country's economic performance. The business cycle and the Fed do that.
..and the Fed's been doing a great job at it. ::)
Anyway, once i get some more time today I'll post some court decisions and other information that support my stance on the income tax. I'd like to hear your opinions on it Decker.
-
..and the Fed's been doing a great job at it. ::)
Anyway, once i get some more time today I'll post some court decisions and other information that support my stance on the income tax. I'd like to hear your opinions on it Decker.
Dont bother, he thinks that the govt should tax us at 100%. Since already paying 50% is not enough to him, 100% is where he is at.
-
..and the Fed's been doing a great job at it. ::)
Anyway, once i get some more time today I'll post some court decisions and other information that support my stance on the income tax. I'd like to hear your opinions on it Decker.
Yeah, it should be fun.
the fucking Fed. hrumph hrumph
-
Dont bother, he thinks that the govt should tax us at 100%. Since already paying 50% is not enough to him, 100% is where he is at.
Good point!
Have you been practicing writing your checks to the IRS yet?
-
Yeah, it should be fun.
the fucking Fed. hrumph hrumph
1. 1861 - Income tax first appears in American law as an income DUTY (see The Income Duty of 1861), and a Federal Employee Agreement (see The Federal Employment Tax) I’m sure you are aware that duties are imposed on goods leaving the country and not on domestic productivity, and as such, this tax did not affect U.S. citizens domestic earnings, ONLY foreigners and Federal officers and employees. The Federal Judges become the first "tax protesters" by refusing to submit to the tax for 70 years until 1932.
2. 1898 - In Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. (1898)) the Supreme Court strikes down an Act of Congress that attempted to expand the application of the income tax and impose it on the interest and dividends from funds on deposit at U.S. banks, ruling that the tax was UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it was a direct tax without apportionment, as required by Article 1 for all direct taxes (Referenced Sections of the Constitution).
3. 1913 - The 16th Amendment is passed and allegedly ratified by 3/4ths of the States, although to this day, the Federal government still will not produce or release for examination the ratification documents supposedly received from the states.
4. 1916 - The Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. (1916) decision rules that the 16th amendment IS constitutional because it is NOT a direct tax, but rather, is an INDIRECT tax that is part of a tariff act, which does not have to be apportioned because tariffs are one form of an impost, which must be uniform, but do not have to be apportioned. The Court further refers the reader to Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. (1911) for the definition of what an excise tax is, thus laying the groundwork for the Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms income taxes of Subtitle E (Title 26). This ruling means that the 16th Amendment has no legal effect except to permanently entrench the income tax in the indirect category of taxation as either an impost, or an excise. In Flint vs. Stone Tracy the Court ruled that excise taxes are:
"taxes on the manufacture, consumption and sale of commodities within the country,
on licenses to pursue certain occupations,
and on corporate privileges."
Given this fact, how would income tax be applied to income of citizens NOT derived from these three defined excise taxable activities ? Treasury Decision 2313 was issued by the commissioner of the IRS as a result of this Supreme Court decision. It clearly states that non-resident aliens are liable for the tax, and that the income of those nonresident aliens is to be reported on Form 1040. It does NOT say "citizens" or "all persons" because it was properly understood that citizens are not subject to the tax unless they are engaging in PRIVILEGED activities. Citizens have a RIGHT TO WORK, and our rights cannot be taxed. In fact, this Treasury Decision explicitly references an exemption (for citizens, at Sec. 6654. Failure to Pay Estimated Tax, Exceptions), as paragraph C, that nonresident aliens cannot claim.
5. 1916 - Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916) the Court rules that the 16th Amendment "CONFERS NO NEW POWERS OF TAXATION" upon Congress. It does not create a new authority to tax citizens directly without apportionment (because it is an indirect tax), according to the Supreme Court itself. So if it was unconstitutional to tax the interest and dividends (of citizens) before the 16th (according to Pollock), and no new powers to tax are created by the 16th, how can the income tax be constitutionally imposed today on those sources when Pollock has never been overturned or reversed ?
6. 1918 - The 75 year Canadian Tax treaty is signed and Section 213 (Section 22(a) in the 1939 Code - now Section 61) are added to the United States Code, defining the sources of taxable income from the Canadian sources subject to the income tax under the new tax treaty. Income earned in a foreign country under a tax treaty is taxable income, and therefore, is subject to the income tax.
7. 1918 - 1935 The income tax is properly collected, not from all U.S. citizens, but only from those who derive income from the territories or from privileged or licensed activities, as determined by the Supreme Court in Brushaber, The income tax is also properly collected from foreigners earning money in the U.S., from any source, per the instructions issued in Treasury Decision 2313.
1935 - Social Security begins (Subtitle C - Employment taxes). Foreigners are required, citizens may volunteer to participate but are not required to do so by law. Those who voluntarily take a number and provide it to an employer, voluntarily subject their wages to tax. This begins the withholding of tax at the source from U.S. citizens, but not for income tax purposes (under Subtitle A), just for Social Security (Subtitle C) purposes. The W-4 (or its predecessor) provides a legal authority for the withholding of employment tax from the citizen by the EMPLOYER. The use of W-4s by citizens originates under Sec. 3402. Income Tax Collected at Source, subsection (p) - Voluntary Withholding Agreements. This Form becomes the legal basis and ONLY legal authority in the U.S. Code under which the withholding of tax from U.S. citizens is authorized. Social security taxes are now withheld from wages, which are covered (under social security) earnings.
1939 - Involvement in World War II begins and there is sudenly lots of new money for the government (and debt for the People), provided by the very same bankers who just 2 years earlier supposedly did not have a penny to loan to farmers and businesses for peace, but suddenly had unlimited billions for a war the America people did not even want to be in.
1942 - The Victory tax is imposed and it is withheld from citizens’ wages. (This tax was probably unconstitutionally direct but no one challenged it.)
1944 - Present. The victory tax is repealed and the authority to withhold tax from citizens expires with it, but the withholding of tax continues after the passage of the Current Tax Payment Act, and Form W-4 is modified to include a voluntary request to "claim a number of deductions". This of course relates to income tax, not Social Security (or employment taxes under Subtitle C). The W-4 is now a voluntary withholding agreement that covers BOTH Employment taxes AND Income taxes, which are withheld at the voluntary request of the citizen on the W-4. However, under the law, only foreign persons and certain federal employees are required to make a "return of income" to the Treasury as a result of their "employment". Additionally, the law provides that the W-2 is to be accepted by the IRS as a SUBSTITUTE FORM 1040 (see Form W-2 Can Substitute For A Form 1040 !!).
It should be carefully noted that Employers are authorized BY statute to withhold employment taxes under Subtitle C (26 USC 3402) from those who participate in Social Security and have provided a number, but are authorized BY REQUEST (on the W-4 under 26 USC 3402(p)) to withhold Subtitle A INCOME tax from citizens. The statutory authority to withhold income tax is granted to Withholding Agents under Subtitle A, not employers. The definition of a "withholding agent" is provided in Sec. 7701. Withholding Agent & Definitions, where the agent is authorized to deduct and withhold from foreigners, and only foreigners, exactly as the tax was authorized and collected for the first 16 years (1916-1932) of its existence as part of a tariff act.
The last paragraph accurately reflects the legal reality of today’s situation. While you are correct that the tax laws are imposed as "liabilities" NOT filing requirements, the only code sections that exist in the U.S.C. that actually specify or establish liability for tax are Sec. 1461. Liability for Withheld Tax and Sec. 3403. Liability for Tax. If you believe that there is another code section that establishes liability for the income tax, Please cite it now.
If you believe that Sec. 1. Tax Imposed establishes LIABILITY, you need to read it more closely. It imposes a tax on "taxable income", but does not mention liability. If Section 1 creates liability, who is liable ? Where does it say that ? The truth is that 26 CFR 602.101 - The Form Required reveals the true extent of any liability that may be imposed under Section 1 as being limited to a liability for "taxable income", earned in foreign countries under foreign tax treaties.
QUESTION: Where are the laws regarding income tax contained in the U.S. Code ?
QUESTION: How many Chapters are there in that Subtitle ?
QUESTION: Where in those 6 chapters do you find the withholding of income tax from American citizens ?
Please respond with a cite of the specific code section that you claim establishes this authority.
The Eisner vs Montgomery Case defines "income" as gains or profits that are made from some activity.
-
I'd like your opinion on this IRS commisioners answers as well. What do you make of it?
-
New York Times reporter, David Cay Johnston, asks IRS Commissioner Mark Everson - "What law requires Americans to file or pay income taxes?"
-
2. 1898 - In Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. (1898)) the Supreme Court strikes down an Act of Congress that attempted to expand the application of the income tax and impose it on the interest and dividends from funds on deposit at U.S. banks, ruling that the tax was UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it was a direct tax without apportionment, as required by Article 1 for all direct taxes (Referenced Sections of the Constitution).
Most tax protester arguments that a tax on incomes is a “direct tax” rely in one way or another on the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1894), on reh’ng 158 U.S. 601 (1895).
In the first Pollock decision, a majority of the court (7 of the 9 justices) began with the premise that a tax on the income from property is the same as a tax on the value of the property itself, a premise completely inconsistent with every other Supreme Court decision before or since (and repudiated by the Supreme Court in New York v. Graves, 300 U.S. 308 (1937)).
The Court then concluded that a tax on rents received from real property was a “direct tax” and unconstitutional unless apportioned. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1894). On rehearing, a narrower majority (5 of the 9 justices) decided that a tax on dividends, interest, and other income from personal property (property other than land) was also a “direct tax” and so unconstitutional unless apportioned. Pollock v. Farmers Bank and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895).
However, the Pollock decisions were rendered in 1894-5 and there is no question but that the 16th Amendment, which was proposed in 1909 and ratified by the required three-fourths of the states in slightly less than four years, was intended to over-rule the Pollock decisions.
“[T]there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided....”
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
-
3. 1913 - The 16th Amendment is passed and allegedly ratified by 3/4ths of the States, although to this day, the Federal government still will not produce or release for examination the ratification documents supposedly received from the states.
The 16th Am was 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.
According to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U. S. House of Representatives, the dates of ratification by the states were (chronologically): Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8, 1910; South Carolina, February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910; Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8, 1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19, 1911; Idaho, January 20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington, January 26, 1911; Montana, January 30, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911; California, January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota, February 3, 1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February 11, 1911; Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911; Kansas, February 18, 1911; Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April 7, 1911; Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it earlier); Wisconsin, May 26, 1911; New York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 6, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912; Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; New Mexico, February 3, 1913. The amendment was subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected it on March 2, 1911). The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#ratification
-
4. 1916 - The Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. (1916) decision rules that the 16th amendment IS constitutional because it is NOT a direct tax, but rather, is an INDIRECT tax that is part of a tariff act, which does not have to be apportioned because tariffs are one form of an impost, which must be uniform, but do not have to be apportioned. The Court further refers the reader to Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. (1911) for the definition of what an excise tax is, thus laying the groundwork for the Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms income taxes of Subtitle E (Title 26). This ruling means that the 16th Amendment has no legal effect except to permanently entrench the income tax in the indirect category of taxation as either an impost, or an excise. In Flint vs. Stone Tracy the Court ruled that excise taxes are:
"taxes on the manufacture, consumption and sale of commodities within the country,
on licenses to pursue certain occupations,
and on corporate privileges."
Following the ratification of the 16th Amendment, Congress enacted a general income tax, and the constitutionality of that tax was challenged once again, but the Supreme Court held unanimously that the income tax was constitutional because “in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment.” Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
As for the direct/indirect tax confusion, It is true that there is an apportionment requirement in the Constitution for “direct taxes,” but the 16th Amendment clearly eliminates the apportionment requirement from all taxes on incomes.
The meaning of “direct tax” urged by many tax protesters as a “tax imposed directly” would trivialize the Constitution, because it reduces the constitutional definition of “direct tax” to a mere question of how the tax is collected. So, if the U.S. were to impose a tax on employees for the wages they receive, that would be a “direct tax” according to the tax protester definition, but if the U.S. were to impose a tax on employers for wages paid (or a tax on banks for the payment of interest, or on corporations for the payment of dividends), that would be an “indirect tax” and constitutional, even though the net effect would be exactly the same (i.e., the employees or depositors or shareholders would bear the burden of the tax through reduced wages and salaries, interest, or dividends). The meaning of “direct tax” that has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court is much more sensible (as well as consistent with the known intent of the framers of the Constitution), because it focuses on what is being taxed (the value of property, but not transfers of property) rather than on how the tax is collected.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#individual
-
5. 1916 - Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916) the Court rules that the 16th Amendment "CONFERS NO NEW POWERS OF TAXATION" upon Congress. It does not create a new authority to tax citizens directly without apportionment (because it is an indirect tax), according to the Supreme Court itself. So if it was unconstitutional to tax the interest and dividends (of citizens) before the 16th (according to Pollock), and no new powers to tax are created by the 16th, how can the income tax be constitutionally imposed today on those sources when Pollock has never been overturned or reversed ?
The Pollock decisions were rendered in 1894-5 and...the 16th Amendment, which was proposed in 1909 and ratified by the required three-fourths of the states, was intended to over-rule the Pollock decisions.
This 'No New Powers of Taxation" statement is taken from language in the opinions of the United States Supreme Court in the Brushaber and Stanton cases and, unlike most other tax protester nonsense, it is actually true.
The problem is not that the statement is false, but that it doesn’t mean what tax protesters think it means and it doesn’t lead to the conclusion that tax protesters want to reach.
Tax protesters believe that, before the adoption of the 16th Amendment, a tax on incomes was unconstitutional and therefore outside the power of Congress. This is not correct because it was clear even before the 16th Amendment that Congress could tax wages and earnings from employment, as well as income from business operations. By incorrectly asserting that a tax on incomes was unconstitutional before the 16th Amendment, and then asserting that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax, tax protesters reach the incorrect conclusion that a tax on incomes must be unconstitutional even after the adoption of the 16th Amendment, which is ridiculous.
It is ridiculous because it would mean that the 16th Amendment does not mean what it says. The amendment plainly states that “The Congress shall have the power to tax incomes” and tax protesters nevertheless try to claim that Congress does not have the power to tax incomes.
It is also ridiculous because it would mean that Congress proposed a constitutional amendment, and the states ratified a constitutional amendment, that changed nothing and has no meaning....
The Supreme Court has never stated that the 16th Amendment gave Congress “no new power” without also affirming that Congress already had the power to tax incomes even before the 16th Amendment.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#individual
-
6. 1918 - The 75 year Canadian Tax treaty is signed and Section 213 (Section 22(a) in the 1939 Code - now Section 61) are added to the United States Code, defining the sources of taxable income from the Canadian sources subject to the income tax under the new tax treaty. Income earned in a foreign country under a tax treaty is taxable income, and therefore, is subject to the income tax.
7. 1918 - 1935 The income tax is properly collected, not from all U.S. citizens, but only from those who derive income from the territories or from privileged or licensed activities, as determined by the Supreme Court in Brushaber, The income tax is also properly collected from foreigners earning money in the U.S., from any source, per the instructions issued in Treasury Decision 2313.
Here are the holdings from the Brushaber case:
1. The Sixteenth Amendment removes the requirement that income taxes be apportioned among the states according to population. The Revenue Act of 1913, imposing income taxes that are not apportioned among the states according to each state's population, is not unconstitutional.
2. The Federal income tax statute does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law.
3. The Federal income tax statute does not violate the uniformity clause of Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
US citizens are subject to income taxation—foreigners are also subject to income taxation if they have a US source of income.
-
1935 - Social Security begins (Subtitle C - Employment taxes). Foreigners are required, citizens may volunteer to participate but are not required to do so by law. Those who voluntarily take a number and provide it to an employer, voluntarily subject their wages to tax. This begins the withholding of tax at the source from U.S. citizens, but not for income tax purposes (under Subtitle A), just for Social Security (Subtitle C) purposes. The W-4 (or its predecessor) provides a legal authority for the withholding of employment tax from the citizen by the EMPLOYER. The use of W-4s by citizens originates under Sec. 3402. Income Tax Collected at Source, subsection (p) - Voluntary Withholding Agreements. This Form becomes the legal basis and ONLY legal authority in the U.S. Code under which the withholding of tax from U.S. citizens is authorized. Social security taxes are now withheld from wages, which are covered (under social security) earnings.
…the federal income tax is not based on contract or consent, but is an obligation imposed by law. Similarly, Form W-4 is not an “agreement” but a document required by law to be filed with the employer (and not the IRS). And if an employee does not file a Form W-4 with the employer, the consequence is not freedom from tax by tax withholding at the highest possible rate. (There are also possible civil penalties.)
I.R.C. section 3402(f)(2)(A) provides as follows:
“On or before the date of the commencement of employment with an employer, the employee shall furnish the employer with a signed withholding exemption certificate relating to the number of withholding exemptions which he claims, which shall in no event exceed the number to which he is entitled.”
And Treas. Reg. section 31.3402(f)(5)-1(a) states that “Form W-4 is the form prescribed for the withholding exemption certificate required to be filed under section 3402(f)(2).”
The words “shall” in the statute, and “required” in the regulation, show that the furnishing of the form is not optional, and not the basis of an agreement.
The failure to provide a Form W-4 to an employer means that the employer must withhold income tax at the rate for a single employee with no exemptions (i.e., the highest possible rate).
“The employer is required to request a withholding exemption certificate from each employee, but if the employee fails to furnish such certificate, such employee shall be considered as a single person claiming no withholding exemptions.”
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#individual
-
QUESTION: Where are the laws regarding income tax contained in the U.S. Code ?
More semantic games from people desperate to evade taxes.
Tax protesters claim that, before anyone can be liable for a tax, there must be a statute that specifically says that the person is liable for the tax (and must use the word “liable”). However, that is not what the law requires.
In its various subsections, 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.. ..”
As explained in the regulations:
“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.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#liable
-
New York Times reporter, David Cay Johnston, asks IRS Commissioner Mark Everson - "What law requires Americans to file or pay income taxes?"
I can't watch that at work.
Here's the law that gives the congress the power to levy income taxes: 16th amendment.
“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).
-
I'd like your opinion on this IRS commisioners answers as well. What do you make of it?
If you could paraphrase what he said, that would help.
-
I'd love to have the time to read all of those posts thoroughly but posting at work does not allow the time. I like this post:
"Collecting taxes is not the same as "spreading the wealth around". Collecting taxes should go towards needed things like defense, infrastructure, schools, libraries, etc"
The gov's job should be to make sure corporations are playing by the same rules. I don't believe taxes in this country were ever meant to punish people for being sucessful. If we made everyone (including business) pay their stated taxes, we wouldn't have to raise taxes on the upper middle class and wealthy.
-
I can't watch that at work.
Here's the law that gives the congress the power to levy income taxes: 16th amendment.
“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).
i'm at work now too so don't have the time. Feel free to view the videos later and comment.
-
i'm at work now too so don't have the time. Feel free to view the videos later and comment.
Why are you even bothering with some of these people?
-
Why are you even bothering with some of these people?
Do you understand how crazy you appear from the sort of posts you make?
This is a forum for discussion.
We are discussing.
You are asking him not to discuss.
We've already agreed to discuss.
If you want to jump in and shut me down with better arguments, be my guest.
Otherwise you just appear afraid b/c you're cutting off debate at the knees.
-
Do you understand how crazy you appear from the sort of posts you make?
This is a forum for discussion.
We are discussing.
You are asking him not to discuss.
We've already agreed to discuss.
If you want to jump in and shut me down with better arguments, be my guest.
Otherwise you just appear afraid b/c you're cutting off debate at the knees.
Because no matter what he says or shows to you, your mind is made up.
-
Because no matter what he says or shows to you, your mind is made up.
Show me I'm wrong. I'll admit it.
-
Why are you even bothering with some of these people?
Decker is actually one of the more intelligent people on the boards in regards to this stuff so I don't mind having a "debate" with him. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I'm just producing information that I interpret a certain way. I'm not a lawyer, I believe I perceive certain words to have a different meaning than maybe lawyers or people studying law do, so I value his views, even though we may disagree. I think a perfect example of this wording/words situation and how it can sway decisions one way or another becomes clear when you remember Bill Clintons famous, "it depends what the meaning of the word is, is." Lawyers/politicians are great at bending syntax to suit their needs in that kind of way.
But on a deeper level, I just don't understand how anyone could feel combfortable complying with an institution that claims to value the basics of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness and then turns around and offers no choice to the citizens as to how they may manage their own property. The word liberty is peppered in all kinds of political speeches but what does it mean? If people took the words seriously I can't see how the Income Tax in particular could exist anymore.
I didn't get a chance to look over all of the answers to my post ,(I will go through it) but one thing that's pretty clear is that when politicians or the forces behind them want something bad enough they push and push and push until they get it even if it may be morally wrong or against the original rule of law.
-
Decker is actually one of the more intelligent people on the boards in regards to this stuff so I don't mind having a "debate" with him. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I'm just producing information that I interpret a certain way. I'm not a lawyer, I believe I perceive certain words to have a different meaning than maybe lawyers or people studying law do, so I value his views, even though we may disagree. I think a perfect example of this wording/words situation and how it can sway decisions one way or another becomes clear when you remember Bill Clintons famous, "it depends what the meaning of the word is, is." Lawyers/politicians are great at bending syntax to suit their needs in that kind of way.
But on a deeper level, I just don't understand how anyone could feel combfortable complying with an institution that claims to value the basics of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness and then turns around and offers no choice to the citizens as to how they may manage their own property. The word liberty is peppered in all kinds of political speeches but what does it mean? If people took the words seriously I can't see how the Income Tax in particular could exist anymore.
I didn't get a chance to look over all of the answers to my post ,(I will go through it) but one thing that's pretty clear is that when politicians or the forces behind them want something bad enough they push and push and push until they get it even if it may be morally wrong or against the original rule of law.
That's awful nice of you to say. I enjoy your posts as well. You support what you say and contrary to how this forum works sometimes, I learn stuff in earnest here.
I don't think we can equate liberty with license to do as one pleases. Liberty is an ideal aspired to in a framework of social demands. There is a national interest. There's a state interest. Those interests cannot be met if the citizens don't pay taxes. We can't view our country as an aggregate of totally free individuals doing as they please. That's anarchy.
I'll take a look at those videos tomorrow when I work from home.