America Freedom to Fascism Authorized Version
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=aaron+russo

I agree... interesting. Thanks to the chronic pain.. I acutally had the 2 hours to watch the entire thing. I can't wait to hear Swiftfox's opinon of all this. Some of which we have already discussed ad nauseam.

However, again, interesting that it has been proven that I do NOT have to pay income taxes, yet people like Willie Nelson and Richard Hatch get prison sentences and have property siezed. Why didn't their lawyers get them off on the same principal that there is no law and the Supreme Court states so?

I truly hope that the mainstream media picks up on at least some of this, the tax thing for sure. But, I highly doubt it.

Thanks for helping me kill some time Fy'yr!!

Have you heard about Wesley Snipes?

IRS has seized all of his property, says he owes 12 million in taxes, and Wesley has fled the country.

Demolition Man, hehe.

I can't wait to hear Swiftfox's opinon of all this.

hehe.

I was only part hesitant(in posting this thing) that you guys would pass me some Reynolds to make myself a hat.

The really great scam is SSI and SE, they are just pushing the eligibility age out now. I can't collect anything until 72 now.

I have paid over 300K in taxes in so far, and I will get nothing from it. If I were allowed to invest that, I would have over 2 million in assets. And I am dirt poor.

Funny how things are.

Keep it up and you will have your very own tin foil hat. :devil-lau

I watched it earlier in the week, Infowars.com has been promoting it.

I think what needs to happen is someone needs to make a law addressing this. It isn't necessarily that we don't want to pay taxes for government services, we just want it to be regulated.

Sure, if we could realisticly get away without paying taxes and still enjoy the level of public service we have (such that it is) we would do that, but honestly, nothing is free, not even a military, police, fire protection and interstate road system.

I'm all for abolishing all taxes everywhere.

You pay far, far more than what you think you pay.

Income tax: around 10-15%
Social Security: 7.5%
edicare: 1.5%
Gasoline: 48%
Beer: 48%
Liquor: 72%
Cigarettes: 52%
Loaf of bread: 35%
Can of soda: 18 cents of a 50-cent soda
Hotel Room: ~43%
Airline ticket: $63.60 of a $159 airline ticket.
A utility bill: $153.09, $39.35 in taxes.
Babies’ dresses: 12%
Bicycles: 11%
Brooms: 32%
Brussels sprouts, fresh or chilled: 12%
Certain infant formulas: 18%
Electric blankets: 13%
Fishing rods and parts: 7%
Flashlights: 18%
Frozen blackberries: 11%
Girdles and panty-girdles: 24%
Hammocks: 15%
Disposable hospital apparel: 4%
Nursing nipples and pacifiers: 3%
Peanut butter: 143%
Roses, fresh cut: 7%
School supplies: 5%
Screwdrivers: 6%
Table linen: 12%
Telephone sets: 8%
Health Insurance Premiums: 11%
Life Insurance Premiums: 15%

y personal WTF favorite...

Severance Taxes
ost states impose a variety of severance taxes on natural resources when producers “sever” them from the Earth. These taxes apply to a wide array of products, ranging from oil and gas to turpentine and timber. While the taxes are visible to the initial producers, they are hidden from consumers who buy the finished goods that are made from natural resources. State severance taxes cost Americans $4.6 billion in 1997, or $17 a person.

Everything you touch has hidden taxes within it, right below the surface.
You get up in the morning and hit your alarm clock. The alarm clock was probably imported from China, thus 10% of the sale price is federal import tax. The electricity running through your alarm clock is taxed by federal, state and local gov'ts avg. of 23%. You go to the shower, and turn on the hot water, the gas or electricity used to heat the water is taxed around 23%. The water itself has around 15%-18% tax built into its price. You step out of the shower and go into the kitchen. Every appliance you touch was either imported, thus incurring the import tax, or was made in America, by a worker whose employer had to pay social security taxes, unemployment taxes, worker compensation taxes,, etc.

Do you think the employer at the coffee maker factory ate these costs? No, they are passed directly on to you, the consumer. You make yourself a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. The bread is taxed at 28% of its price, and the peanut butter is taxed at a whopping 143% of the cost of manufacturing!!! 143%! The taxes are 3 times what it cost to make! You get into your clothes, which have their own hidden textile taxes of anywhere from 5% to 18%, and get into your car, which you burn gallons of gas to get to work, and each gallon is taxed at 48%.

You get to work and begin your day, and you are making little actual money. Your employer has to pay 1/2 the cost of your social security taxes, your medicare taxes, and all of your unemployment taxes, your worker's compensation taxes, and of course, pay the same taxes on all the electricity and water that you pay at home. The employer has already figured all these costs into their operating budget, so if all of those were removed, why, then the employer could afford to pay the employee more money to attract better employees. So you are the one actually paying for the employer's side of the equation as well, as the money they pay to the government for you, could go in your pocket instead.

You finish your work and go to a bar to have a beer before you go home. More gas and 48% tax is used, you belly up to the bar, and buy a beer. 42% of that beer's price is taxes. Not to mention, the bar you are in has to pay a host of licensing fees to the state and federal gov't just to operate. Who do you think pays that cost ultimately? Hint: It ain't the grinning bartender or owner of the bar.

You finally get home and prepare yourself a meal. Every piece of food you consume has a hidden tax of between 5%-15%, plus if it was grown here, the farmer used combines, or tractors, and had to pay the 48% in gas tax to operate them. You turn on the TV, and of course, TV sets have at least a 10%-15% import tax assessed on them. The cable running into the back of the TV set also has around 15%-25% tax, depending on your local and state taxes where you live. And the electricity the TV is consuming is of course, also taxed.

You finally flop into bed, which the mattress itself has a hefty tax associated with making, and you turn out the lights. If it's cold, you might have an electric blanket on your bed, which has a 15% tax associated with it, and of course, uses electricity, which is taxed as well.

The tax world is the fvcking matrix folks. You experience it when you get up in the morning, when you go to work, when you look out your window, and it's been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

The truth being that around 80% of everything you make goes into some government's pocket, directly, or indirectly. This is no conspiracy theory. This is reality.

Just when you think you have an honest documentary they toss in that stupid video of the lady getting arrested. Well I knew I had seen it before, and what they showed (or really what they omitted) makes it a bit slanted. This then makes me question the rest of the documentary.


If you watch at least the 1st three short videos you'll see why she was tased and then arrested.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/video/taser_video1.html

Canada's Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional (http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/tax.htm)

I handle my fight personally using a system called the Hart System of Effective Tax Avoidance. Gerry Hart passed avay recently in Winnipeg, but not before becoming Canada's undisputed champion No. 1 tax fighter. Mr. Hart for many years opted to take an aggressive and active position against oppressive government, and he has not paid income tax in nearly 50 years. During that time, he has been imposed upon, charged, harassed, his privacy invaded, and his person subjected to illegal search. But he has never given an inch. He has been to the Manitoba Court of Appeal 22 times, but has never lost....

The two documents - the Supreme Court ruling and the B.N.A. Act - have been the basis of his battle, and the only two cocuments he has needed. He has never had the benefit of legal counsel, and has chosen to appear in court by himself. His only evidence has been those two documents. Charges against him have been thrown out of court 22 times. The last time, some twelve or so years ago, Revenue Canada was told that if it ever brought Gerry Hart back into court, that Revenue Canada itself would be charged with contempt of court.


Hollywood director Russo recalls remarkable "forecast" of coming attack (http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/rockefeller_predicted_event_to_trigger_war_months_ before_911.htm)

Not to derail the thread or discredit his movie, just a side note.

How on earth do you expect to pay for all the wars you want to start in the Middle East, or wherever it strikes the GOP's funny bone next time around, Gunny?

Get a grip guys. Without taxes you wouldn't have money. The government wouldn't have the resources to produce it. Money was only invented so kings could tax people anyway. Think on that and pay your taxes.

Everyone hates taxes, but want their life to be super secure, (safety regulations, police, roads, fire, etc) and they want programs that benefit them

Everyone hates taxes, but want their life to be super secure, (safety regulations, police, roads, fire, etc) and they want programs that benefit themLibertarians in particular want all of the benefits of taxes with none of the drawbacks.

Without taxes, there wouldn't be an Internet. There wouldn't be roads. There wouldn't be cities. We'd probably be living in small tribes that war against their neighbors, with our social evolution permanently arrested.

I'll tell you what, libertarians: if you don't want taxes, don't reap the benefits of our society which were funded by taxes. Go out and live in the wild, and see how you fare.

How on earth do you expect to pay for all the wars you want to start in the Middle East, or wherever it strikes the GOP's funny bone next time around, Gunny?

I realize abolishing all taxes is completely unrealistic, since it would mean that we would all have to be completely and totally self reliant, and people are too addicted to a lot of luxuries to go back to that, myself included. Doesn't mean I'm not for it, but it'll never happen.

It was mainly to draw your attention to the rest of my post, that of the taxes present in everything. I'm surprised sunlight and air have somehow escaped taxation by the US Government.

Since the Tyler Durden Solution will not happen, I would love to see all current taxes abolished, and a new flat tax of 10% insituted for any person, corporation, or anything that makes profit.

We've had this discussion before, but no one can argue that a flat 10% tax is the most equal way of sharing the necessary burden of keeping us relatively secure and safe, and promoting the economy by means of maintaining infrastructure, and commerce pathways throughout the country.

For example, what the hell is up with 148% tax on peanut butter? Simply too many stupid taxes, not enough politicians willing to fix things.

To continue to function effectively as a government, we would have to cut about 75% of the programs in the government, and reduce it down to law enforcement, military defense, and infrastructure (roads, internet, power grid, water lines, sewage, etc).

Everything else can be taken over by private companies or charities if there really is a need for it in society. Sure, private companies and charities aren't perfect, but government waste didn't get infamous in the USA without good cause. Several things in our current society only exist because the government props them up with obscene amounts of taxpayer money. That must cease.

We've had this discussion before, but no one can argue that a flat 10% tax is the most equal way of sharing the necessary burden of keeping us relatively secure and safe, and promoting the economy by means of maintaining infrastructure, and commerce pathways throughout the country.
Oh yes, I could argue it isn't equal at all.

To continue to function effectively as a government, we would have to cut about 75% of the programs in the government, and reduce it down to law enforcement, military defense, and infrastructure (roads, internet, power grid, water lines, sewage, etc).Half our federal tax dollars go towards the military and debt. So right there, you can't "cut about 75% of the programs," even if the military and debt were the only things you allowed the federal government to do.Everything else can be taken over by private companies or charities if there really is a need for it in society.That doesn't mean we won't have to pay for it.Sure, private companies and charities aren't perfect, but government waste didn't get infamous in the USA without good cause.And Corporate America didn't get infamous without good cause: corruption, fraud, mismanagement, and so on.Several things in our current society only exist because the government props them up with obscene amounts of taxpayer money. That must cease.Like what. What thing, what obscene amount of money props it up, and what is your cost-effective alternative?but no one can argue that a flat 10% tax is the most equal way of sharing the necessary burden of keeping us relatively secure and safe, and promoting the economy by means of maintaining infrastructure, and commerce pathways throughout the country.I can. Besides, 10% won't bring in enough revenue. If we implemented a flat tax, the middle class would end up paying more than they're paying now, and the ultra-rich would end up paying a tiny bit less. How would you like paying <i>more</i> taxes just so that a multi-millionaire can buy another yacht?

What about a sliding scale? Something like starting at 5 % and working up to 25 %? based on income of course. Super rich folks pay more..... because......wait for it......they can afford to. Isnt that, at least in part, how the current system works?

Oh yes, I could argue it isn't equal at all.

No, you can't. If everyone of legal age (usually 18) pays 10% of what they take in, no matter the source of income, then it is equal by definition.

Again, this is an extremely simple concept. If everyone pays 10%, then everyone pays the same percentage. If everyone pays the the same percentage, then everyone is treated exactly the same by the system. No one is favored, no one is discriminated against. All are treated alike.

Equality means everyone is treated exactly the same. Any other tax system, including the one we use this very day, means, by definition, there are groups of people not being treated the same as other groups of people, however you want to group them, the two groups are not being treated equally.

Libertarians in particular want all of the benefits of taxes with none of the drawbacks.

Not really.

Half our federal tax dollars go towards the military and debt. So right there, you can't "cut about 75% of the programs," even if the military and debt were the only things you allowed the federal government to do.

ost (Note: Not ALL) of the debt is owed to SS as IOU's on the interest that was supposed to be paid on the money the SS participants have been sending in since it was first signed into law. These IOU's are stored in a cabinet somehwhere in the federal buildings in Washington DC. Part of the tax reform plan would be Congress admitting they took all the money out of SS, so there wasn't any drawing interest like it should have been, and admitting that the SS program didn't work as they expected. They would refund every penny that everyone put into the program, with no interest, and that would be that. If you happen to have drawn out more than you put in, you got lucky.

Take Fyyr's claim of putting in 300,000 dollars. That means, paying in the standard SS rate of 7.5% each year, that Fyrr has made 4,000,000 dollars so far in his career. So under the big SS refund, Fyyr would get the 300k he so far has put in, and then he would be free to do with that as he wished. He would also be able to utilize another 7.5% of his income in the future to do as he pleased with it, since the Social Security program would be the one that is retired.

Besides, 10% won't bring in enough revenue.
It sure would if we limited government expenditures to the ones I listed. There is a great amount of money that you're forgetting about. All the corporate loopholes, tax dodges, and off shore incorporations would be closed. You earn money in the USA, you pay in the USA. No exceptions.

If we implemented a flat tax, the middle class would end up paying more than they're paying now, and the ultra-rich would end up paying a tiny bit less. How would you like paying <i>more</i> taxes just so that a multi-millionaire can buy another yacht?

This is a false dichotomy. I am not paying more taxes to help out the multi-millionare, I am paying my equal and fair part of the costs of running the country's bare essential and necessary services. What is enabling the multi-millionare to buy the extra yacht is his or her ability to make more money than me. Not how much or little taxes he/she or I pay. You are basically admitting that the middle class today are not paying an equal amount of the burden of operating this country; and that the ultra-rich are shouldering a greater load than the rest of us, simply because they can bear the burden easier than the rest of us, because they worked harder, or smarter, or invested their funds more wisely than the rest of us. That is not equal. That is not fair. That is not right.

I'm all for abolishing all taxes everywhere.

You pay far, far more than what you think you pay.

Social Security: 7.5%


Actually, that is double.

Your employer just pays your other half for you.

If you were self employed, you would have to pay the entire amount. And you only get to write off half of it. You have to pay a tax(income and SE) on money you are sending to the IRS(unless it has been changed recently).

Take Fyyr's claim of putting in 300,000 dollars. That means, paying in the standard SS rate of 7.5% each year, that Fyrr has made 4,000,000 dollars so far in his career.

Capital gains taxes were a very big chunk of that.

And as I said above, my SE(self employment social security) tax was double that 15%+change. Which is suppose to be my money, of course(but its not, and never really was).

In all fairness, going back to school has cost the State of California and the taxpayers of my county about 20K per year, times 3 years. They will get that back with my future earnings shortly.

Additionally, I will most likely die before being eligible to collect on what I paid in. That is one of the reasons why the government is moving the age out, hoping I die first. If I were allowed to contribute all of that money instead to an account, the assets, and gains on them would still be mine, my estates, and heirs. The government will keep my money, and if I die, my kids or grandkids will get none of it back. So much for the Roosevelt New Deal, that dealer draws from the bottom, no different than a 3 card Monty scammer.

If I were a yacht builder, worker, or someone who supplied them(boat builder).

Or worked for a marina, or a restaurant on the Bay or Delta.

I would love if another yacht were made, bought, and sold to someone who earned the money to buy one.

The more yachts sold, the more we workers would make, because we would have more customers.

If I were allowed to contribute all of that money instead to an account, the assets, and gains on them would still be mine, my estates, and heirs. The government will keep my money, and if I die, my kids or grandkids will get none of it back. So much for the Roosevelt New Deal, that dealer draws from the bottom, no different than a 3 card Monty scammer.Why do you keep comparing Social Security to a savings account? It's not. It's not even remotely similar, and was never designed to be. It's a tax on current workers to support current old people, just as Medicare is a tax on current workers to support current nonworkers (well, mostly) who need medical care.

The government can't let you save the money yourself, for your own retirement, because they need that money to give to people who are mostly too stupid/lazy/irresponsible to save for <i>their</i> own retirement.

Most (Note: Not ALL) of the debt is owed to SS as IOU's on the interest that was supposed to be paid on the money the SS participants have been sending in since it was first signed into law.WTF are you talking about? First, half of it is war-based debt. The other half belongs to all sorts of creditors, both individuals and corporations, both foreign and domestic. This has nothing to do with Social Security.Take Fyyr's claim of putting in 300,000 dollars. That means, paying in the standard SS rate of 7.5% each year, that Fyrr has made 4,000,000 dollars so far in his career. So under the big SS refund, Fyyr would get the 300k he so far has put in, and then he would be free to do with that as he wished. He would also be able to utilize another 7.5% of his income in the future to do as he pleased with it, since the Social Security program would be the one that is retired.Like Fyyr, you are under the false impression that Social Security is some sort of savings mechanism. It's not, never has been, and never will be.It sure would if we limited government expenditures to the ones I listed. There is a great amount of money that you're forgetting about. All the corporate loopholes, tax dodges, and off shore incorporations would be closed. You earn money in the USA, you pay in the USA. No exceptions.What loopholes. What dodges. You keep making vague statements about how much money you could save, but no specifics.

Just going by military spending and debt -- half the budget -- your 10% figure is still too low. And that's excluding <i>everything</i> else, like roads and education.You are basically admitting that the middle class today are not paying an equal amount of the burden of operating this country; and that the ultra-rich are shouldering a greater load than the rest of us, simply because they can bear the burden easier than the rest of us, because they worked harder, or smarter, or invested their funds more wisely than the rest of us.Of course. Because the burden on the rich to pay X% of their income is a lot less than the burden on the poor to pay X% of their income. Your "equality" is superficial equality, not practical equality.

Why do you keep comparing Social Security to a savings account? It's not. It's not even remotely similar, and was never designed to be. It's a tax on current workers to support current old people, just as Medicare is a tax on current workers to support current nonworkers (well, mostly) who need medical care.
Because, that is how it was sold. That was how it was passed. That was how it was intended.

If it is not going to be what it is intended, then we need to change peoples' opinions on the matter. Change the law, such that we may make so.

The government can't let you save the money yourself, for your own retirement, because they need that money to give to people who are mostly too stupid/lazy/irresponsible to save for <i>their</i> own retirement.
I don't believe I am responsible to pay for these people. They should be, or their families should be.

And IF I am, IF I am forced to, then I should be allowed to request or demand accountability for my money, my time, my labor that is going to them.

Before I read the responses posted since yesterday I need to admit my ignorance about the tax system. While I did know the gas tax was austensibly used for the road system, I actually thought the income tax was used to pay for government programs. Come to think of it, though, I have never seen an accounting of what is done with that money, but I am sure it must be available somewhere.

Now that I have finally finished watching this and looked up Russo to see if he was a kook or something, I have an opinion on it. It still smacks a little bit of paranoia. There seems to be at least a little truth in it. I still fail to believe that there is a vast conspiracy to take over the world a small piece at a time, but I can see how someone could put all of these pieces together to think so. It is enough information to keep one's eyes open to events that are going on.

I knew about the national ID card. I also already knew about the RFID implants. I didn't have any concrete evidence that some company was actually working on a GPS version of one, though it seemed feasible and the next step. Keep in mind, radiation does not travel around corners and it has a hard time getting through dense stone. Just in case you want to hide, should this Orwellian vision come true.

I liked the one quote - "Stop being a good Democrat. Stop being a good Republican.

Now, hand me my tin foil hat please.

EDIT: It seems everyone is stuck on the taxes part of the documentary. There was a lot more there than that.

For the record, I still don't think there is a vast conspiracy. In fact, Russo believes 9/11 was in inside job which takes from his credibility with me. I do, however, not trust government. I never have and I think THAT is a healthy thing. I am wary of how a national ID card could be abused. I do not think there is a vast power base just waiting for this to go live to begin a control movment. I DO think, that without balances and safeguards, it can be abused. I do have to look more into that Lou Dobbs thing about a North America Union. I AM disturbed by the "the constitution is just a .... piece of paper". I haven't found a direct quote yet, just a bunch of people saying it was said.

<-- So, see. My 18gauge steel hat should do me just fine.

No, you can't. If everyone of legal age (usually 18) pays 10% of what they take in, no matter the source of income, then it is equal by definition.

Again, this is an extremely simple concept. If everyone pays 10%, then everyone pays the same percentage. If everyone pays the the same percentage, then everyone is treated exactly the same by the system. No one is favored, no one is discriminated against. All are treated alike.

Equality means everyone is treated exactly the same. Any other tax system, including the one we use this very day, means, by definition, there are groups of people not being treated the same as other groups of people, however you want to group them, the two groups are not being treated equally.

Lets pretend for a moment.

Lets say that your monthly wage is $600, of which $60 is your tax.

y weekly wage is $6000 of which $600 is my tax.

I've got $5400 dollars left to spend on housing, transportation, food, medical care and everything else. You've got $540. For me, the tax doesn't nip into necessities at all, for you it does.

Poor people currently don't pay taxes because of this philosophy that when you take money from them, you're directly impacting their survival, not just their comfort.


<-- So, see. My 18gauge steel hat should do me just fine.
LOL! Old-fashioned but sure!

WTF are you talking about? First, half of it is war-based debt. The other half belongs to all sorts of creditors, both individuals and corporations, both foreign and domestic.

Half is not war based debt. The full debt is 42 trillion dollars. You are believing the government spin doctors when they say that the US debt is "only" 8.2 trillion as of 2005. This is not true. GO here

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/debt-summary-table.htm

And read the table. Hell, read the over 35 pages the site has on all the details of all the debt the US owes. If you're so naive as to continue to argue the government line of bullsh1t that it's "only" 8.2 trillion, you're still way off. 4.7 trillion of the debt is Bonds and T-Bills, of which foreign interests own 42% of that. That's about 2.2 trillion or about 26.8% of the national debt owed to foreign interests.

The other 58% of all the other T-bills and bonds are owned by Americans.The next largest chunk is 3.5 trillion that has been siphoned off of the federal trust funds, such as Social Security, Civil Service Federal Retirement, Postal Worker retirement, etc, etc. There is NO MONEY in ANY of these trust funds. Only notes that say the government took the money and owes the trust fund the money. And rather than pay interest, they put more IOU's in the trust funds in lieu of actual interest.

So, yes, 73.2% of the national debt, just using the government's bullsh1t figures, is owed to Americans, via bonds, T-Bills, and every single federal retirement and savings program to come out since the 1920's. And that's just agreeing with the line of crap the government carefully spoon feeds the public so they don't cop on to the true situation, that of 42 Trillion dollars owed to Americans, by Americans, and between Americans. Wake up.

This has nothing to do with Social Security.Like Fyyr, you are under the false impression that Social Security is some sort of savings mechanism. It's not, never has been, and never will be.

You are under the false impression that the government actually tells you the truth when they tell you what Social Security is and always was. Haven't you glommed on to the fact yet that the government lies? Here's the original 1936 pamphlet link http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/ssb36.html

Some pertient quotes:

From the time you are 65 years old, or more, and stop working, you will get a Government check every month of your life, if you have worked some time (one day or more) in each of any 5 years after 1936, and have earned during that time a total of $2,000 or more.

The checks will come to you as a right. You will get them regardless of the amount of property or income you may have. They are what the law calls "Old-Age Benefits" under the Social Security Act.

The law also creates an "Old-Age Reserve Account" in the United States Treasury, and Congress is authorized to put into this reserve account each year enough money to provide for the monthly payments you and other workers are to receive when you are 65.

OLD-AGE RESERVE ACCOUNT

eanwhile, the Old-Age Reserve fund in the United States Treasury is drawing interest, and the Government guarantees it will never earn less than 3 percent. This means that 3 cents will be added to every dollar in the fund each year

Sorry, Tuda, you are dead wrong on this. It was, it is, and it always should be a retirement savings trust fund. But the SSA and other government agencies are hard at work denying they ever said this back when it was proposed in 1936. But, go on, believe the government like a good little sheep and get sheared each year.


What loopholes. What dodges. You keep making vague statements about how much money you could save, but no specifics.

Because whatever incomplete list I come up with, you will look at and say, "That's it? That's all we will save?", knowing full well that no one truly knows how much tax revenue is lost each year due to tax breaks, loopholes, etc. Any list I can come up with is but the tip of the iceberg to the amount we could be receiving in revenue. But here's one such report that happened to include figures. Notice, it roundly condemns such companies as Haliburton, Tyco, and other not-so-upstanding tax dodgers. If we eliminate all this sh1t, then they will be paying full tax amounts. If you were really interested, you could find such info out yourself.

http://www.citizenworks.org/corp/tax/taxbreif.php

Some more quotes, since apparently, I need to do this, because no one reads the full links I give.

through the use of offshore tax shelters to be $70 billion a year - roughly the same amount that President Bush requested to pay for the first 6 months of the war and occupation of Iraq

The practice of holding intellectual property offshore began in the early 1990s and is now so widespread that it has prompted an aggressive crackdown by the IRS on alleged abuses that one IRS consultant says could total tens of billions of dollars.

released a study in 2002 that estimated that U.S. multinationals used phony pricing schemes to avoid over $53 billion in taxes in 2001

44% of the U.S. profits that big American corporations report to their shareholders are reported to the IRS.

the number of offshore tax havens at Halliburton grew from 9 to 44. During that same period, its taxes shrank from $302 million to a $85 million tax refund (or 387 million dollars the US lost in revenue. For one Fortune 500 company. Do the math.)

Under flax tax, if you make, buy, sell, or do business in any way with America, you will pay the tax on your profits. Period. No exceptions. Simple, easy to understand, and foolproof.

Just going by military spending and debt -- half the budget -- your 10% figure is still too low. And that's excluding <i>everything</i> else, like roads and education.

Arguing over the exact percent is something left up to the voters to decide if we can ever burn the IRS, its laws, and give out postcards each year to file taxes. But I think such a vote would require a lower percent, because whatever you raise it to, everyone pays.

Of course. Because the burden on the rich to pay X% of their income is a lot less than the burden on the poor to pay X% of their income. Your "equality" is superficial equality, not practical equality.

Now you're redefining words and concepts? "superficial" equality? "practical" equality? Are you kidding me? If I have 10 people and a debt pie, and I want to give them equal portions, I divide the pie up in 10 equal slices, and give everyone an equal amount. I don't divide up the debt pie with slices 2x, or 3x as big as other slices, give them out, and then claim "practical" equality. You're just about as good as the US military for doublespeak.

Lets pretend for a moment.

Lets say that your monthly wage is $600, of which $60 is your tax.

y weekly wage is $6000 of which $600 is my tax.

I've got $5400 dollars left to spend on housing, transportation, food, medical care and everything else. You've got $540. For me, the tax doesn't nip into necessities at all, for you it does.

Poor people currently don't pay taxes because of this philosophy that when you take money from them, you're directly impacting their survival, not just their comfort.

I think we've been over this before in another thread, but this actually hurts the poor. You are basically, through your actions, telling them they are so low, so destitute, that they can't make it on their own. That they are so incompetent at running their finances that they need the government's help just to survive. For there to be a truly equal and fair tax system, there can't be any discrimination, or favoritism built into the system, no matter how much we'd like to build it into the system for humanitarian reasons.

We could put on the new tax filing postcard a voluntary "help the poor of our country" checkbox that if you'd like to give 10% more in taxes, you'd help out 10 poor families. It's the same thing the government is doing now, but they aren't giving you the respect of asking first before they take the extra money. I have no problem surviving on 10% less for compassionate giving to feed poor people, but I must be asked first. Americans are known as a very generous and giving people, but there must be some request of aid first. If there's no asking first, it kills the whole compassionate giving concept. Which isn't happening under the current system.

I just can't understand why anyone would be against choice when it comes to this aspect of life. Why not let people choose what they give their money to themselves, beyond the 3 essential catagories of government: 1) Law enforcement, 2) Defense, 3) Infrastructure.

Ah yes, you're hurting the poor by telling them they can't pay taxes because they're too poor. Gotcha. Not one of those so-called compassionate conservatives are you?

I agree... interesting. Thanks to the chronic pain.. I acutally had the 2 hours to watch the entire thing. I can't wait to hear Swiftfox's opinon of all this. Some of which we have already discussed ad nauseam.

However, again, interesting that it has been proven that I do NOT have to pay income taxes, yet people like Willie Nelson and Richard Hatch get prison sentences and have property siezed. Why didn't their lawyers get them off on the same principal that there is no law and the Supreme Court states so?

I truly hope that the mainstream media picks up on at least some of this, the tax thing for sure. But, I highly doubt it.

Thanks for helping me kill some time Fy'yr!!

I hopes that was sarcasm =P

It is impossible to prove that we do NOT have to pay income taxes...because legally we do. The constitution was amended even to ensure it.

Because, that is how it was sold. That was how it was passed. That was how it was intended.Uh, the program began paying benefits the first year it began collecting taxes. How can that possibly be a retirement savings program?

Sure, the government was touting Social Security as a financial safety cushion for when you retire, but it never claimed to be the equivalent of a personal retirement portfolio.I don't believe I am responsible to pay for these people. They should be, or their families should be.The government disagrees with you. Let me put it to you in paranoid-libertarian-anarchist terms: if you don't pay all those old people (who are becoming more numerous every day), they will take all their guns and rise up and revolt against you. This is a relatively cheap way to pacify them.

You are under the false impression that the government actually tells you the truth when they tell you what Social Security is and always was. Haven't you glommed on to the fact yet that the government lies? Here's the original 1936 pamphlet link http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/ssb36.htmlOk. It says it's creating an interest-bearing trust fund, paid for by existing taxpayers, that will guarantee payments to old people. How is that any different from what I'm saying? It was a socialist measure enacted in tough economic times in the hopes of jump starting the economy. It paid out benefits the same year the tax was enacted. It never was intended as a personal savings account, and was never touted as such.Notice, it roundly condemns such companies as Haliburton, Tyco, and other not-so-upstanding tax dodgers. If we eliminate all this sh1t, then they will be paying full tax amounts.Your quotes suggest that these "dodgers" are actually doing something illegal. If so, it doesn't matter what the law is, because they're not following it.

As for off-shore companies, well, we have no jurisdiction over them. It would be nice to tax the world, but we'd have to conquer it first.

On the issue of "loopholes" and "tax shelters," it depends on the situation. Some of these "shelters" were specifically created by the government to encourage certain activities. Charitable organizations are the prime example.Under flax tax, if you make, buy, sell, or do business in any way with America, you will pay the tax on your profits. Period. No exceptions. Simple, easy to understand, and foolproof.So if I'm a Chinese company selling my iPod knockoffs to the U.S., you're going to tax my profits in China? Yeah, right. That's a recipe for disaster, as every trading partner will sever their relations with the United States.Now you're redefining words and concepts? "superficial" equality? "practical" equality? Are you kidding me? If I have 10 people and a debt pie, and I want to give them equal portions, I divide the pie up in 10 equal slices, and give everyone an equal amount.I see. So if you have nine regular guys and one in a wheelchair, you give them each a flight of stairs. It's equal!

Yes, there's a big difference between your superficial equality and true equality.

Arguing over the exact percent is something left up to the voters to decide if we can ever burn the IRS, its laws, and give out postcards each year to file taxes.Implementing a flat tax will not make taxes any simpler. They will never be on a postcard. The tax percentage table (what a flat tax changes) is about one page of the Internal Revenue Code. The other thousands of pages are devoted to the question of what "profit" means, what is taxable, and what isn't. All those questions will remain if there is a flat tax.

Uh, the program began paying benefits the first year it began collecting taxes. How can that possibly be a retirement savings program?

Wrong.

There was a 10 year lag time to build up the fund.

The first people who had to pay, had to pay for 10 years before anyone was eligible for benefits.

The government disagrees with you.
Of course it does. They want to use my time and labor, or rather the product for it, for social engineering. They want the money so that they can change peoples' behaviors.

Let me put it to you in paranoid-libertarian-anarchist terms: if you don't pay all those old people (who are becoming more numerous every day), they will take all their guns and rise up and revolt against you. This is a relatively cheap way to pacify them.
That's ok with me. I have my own reloading equipment, my own guns, and am a very good marksman.

And when the gun powder runs out, I can hit a poker chip with an arrow at 60 yards. Stick 'em in the eye with a 125grn Thunderhead, without them hearing or seeing a thing.

Besides, I am, and you are going to be the generation of old people who will get no benefits, that kinda is the point of all this. I know I want Aidon on my team when we revolt, and maybe Stormy. The rest of you liberal anti-gun commies better find another way to protect yourself.

The two major provisions relating to the elderly were Title I- Grants to States for Old-Age Assistance, which supported state welfare programs for the aged, and Title II-Federal Old-Age Benefits. It was Title II that was the new social insurance program we now think of as Social Security. In the original Act benefits were to be paid only to the primary worker when he/she retired at age 65. Benefits were to be based on payroll tax contributions that the worker made during his/her working life. Taxes would first be collected in 1937 and monthly benefits would begin in 1942. (Under amendments passed in 1939, payments were advanced to 1940.)

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

The rest of you liberal anti-gun commies better find another way to protect yourself.
Compost grenades.

It is impossible to prove that we do NOT have to pay income taxes...because legally we do. The constitution was amended even to ensure it.

Show us the laws please. Former IRS investigator had to resign because he found there is no law saying it is required and the word "Voluntary" is used often.

I'm alright with paying fair taxes, I find it hard to swallow the taxes we are paying with so much waste and corporate tax breaks are plenty.

I see. So if you have nine regular guys and one in a wheelchair, you give them each a flight of stairs. It's equal!

Yes, there's a big difference between your superficial equality and true equality.

No, I'm giving out equal debt burdens on everyone, proportional to their earnings. Your analogy seems to say to the people in poverty: "There's something physically different about you that makes you incapable of shouldering a proportional amount of debt burden as a US citizen."

They don't have to pay the same amount as the guy making 10 million dollars, they just have to pay the same percentage. Yes, it will be hard work to make ends meet. That's one of many reasons to try your absolute dead level best to climb out of poverty. And keep trying, even if you fail at first.

Also, there's nothing stopping anyone in your analogy from lending a hand to the guy in the wheelchair. Some people will feel compelled to do so, in fact.

For any fair tax plan to work, there can be no favoritism or discrimination. Otherwise, you'd get a repeat of the mess we have today, where everyone can find loopholes and exceptions big enough to throw a 18 wheeler through. Sideways.

Besides, I am, and you are going to be the generation of old people who will get no benefits, that kinda is the point of all this. I know I want Aidon on my team when we revolt, and maybe Stormy. The rest of you liberal anti-gun commies better find another way to protect yourself.

:evilgrin:

Revolt? Nah, just hide and wait. I have a point of refuge already laid out for TEOTWAWKI. Reloading dies, plenty of extra cartridge brass, and a spring-fed pond. Plenty of good farmland as well. Meat might be a problem if the deer population gets depleted due to other people trying the same thing. Only thing that I'm concerned about is how many unprepared people I can support healthily.

And Panamah, the old people with guns can't shoot what they can't see, or even know exists.

Ideally, you'd want a sealed limestone cave, double water curtains at the entrance, inside with carbon air scrubbers, and hydroponic gardens, but that's really overkill. That sort of setup is for the big stuff, and I seriously doubt social security people will be upset enough to set off any biological or nuclear weapons.

Will massive civil unrest ever happen though? Probably not. Doesn't hurt to have plans ready, just in case. Paranoid? Yeah, a little. Probably because I don't have any clue what the social security people will do when or if the paychecks suddenly cease. 76 million people is significant, even if they are just armed with sticks.

The first people who had to pay, had to pay for 10 years before anyone was eligible for benefits.Well, I guess we're both wrong. It was three years. Still, far from a lifetime's earning.Your analogy seems to say to the people in poverty: "There's something physically different about you that makes you incapable of shouldering a proportional amount of debt burden as a US citizen."Well, duh. Of course there is: they're poor!

It is impossible to prove that we do NOT have to pay income taxes...because legally we do. The constitution was amended even to ensure it.

Did you watch that video? In the video several well respected professional lawyers and former IRS employees state that the ammendment to the constitution did not give the government the right to new taxes on citizens. The supreme court even ruled the same thing. So, legally, we don't *have* to pay taxes. There is no law stating that the government has the right to tax your labor.

I don't necessarily have a problem with paying taxes, but it would be nice for the goverment to let us know what they are doing with all that money. From the information provided in the documentary, none of the money goes to education, road work, or even the defense budget - but instead it goes to paying the IOU's the government has towards the national debt.

I am not saying that I take everything in that video as truth - I rarely do. But I do believe the point that the law does not exsist that states that the government has the right to tax our labor.

Loaf of bread: 35%

Noone nor any entity in America is legally permitted to tax a loaf of bread.


Can of soda: 18 cents of a 50-cent soda

Again...

A utility bill: $153.09, $39.35 in taxes.

You know...I dont pay 20% sales or consumption taxes on my utitilities...

Babies’ dresses: 12%

Ohio's sales tax is only 7%


Brussels sprouts, fresh or chilled: 12%

Food, again. Not taxable.

Certain infant formulas: 18%

Food, again.

Ok, so not a single one of your examples, except perhaps the sin tax items, were anywhere remotely correct.


y personal WTF favorite...

Severance Taxes
ost states impose a variety of severance taxes on natural resources when producers “sever” them from the Earth. These taxes apply to a wide array of products, ranging from oil and gas to turpentine and timber. While the taxes are visible to the initial producers, they are hidden from consumers who buy the finished goods that are made from natural resources. State severance taxes cost Americans $4.6 billion in 1997, or $17 a person.

Companies should have to pay for the right to rape our land, tyvm. And we don't lose 4.6 billion dollars, we have provided the government with 4.6 additional billion dollars to work with in order to provide us with services we rely upon them for.

Everything you touch has hidden taxes within it, right below the surface.
You get up in the morning and hit your alarm clock. The alarm clock was probably imported from China, thus 10% of the sale price is federal import tax.

Evidently, though, its still cheaper than it would cost to make it here, so why are we bitching?

The electricity running through your alarm clock is taxed by federal, state and local gov'ts avg. of 23%. You go to the shower, and turn on the hot water, the gas or electricity used to heat the water is taxed around 23%. The water itself has around 15%-18% tax built into its price. You step out of the shower and go into the kitchen. Every appliance you touch was either imported, thus incurring the import tax, or was made in America, by a worker whose employer had to pay social security taxes, unemployment taxes, worker compensation taxes,, etc.

Because things were soooo much better when we relied on employers in America to provide security for their workers on their own...<eyeroll> But I'm sure you believe that a worker who is hurt on the job doesn't deserve worker compensation, or that a worker who was not fired for cause doesn't deserve compensation until he can find new employment, or that after 45 years of working hard to earn a living for him and his family...a man doesn't deserve at least the pittance that SSI will give him to live on when he "officially" retires (even though he'll be working for another 10-15 years in order to live).

Do you think the employer at the coffee maker factory ate these costs? No, they are passed directly on to you, the consumer. You make yourself a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. The bread is taxed at 28% of its price, and the peanut butter is taxed at a whopping 143% of the cost of manufacturing!!! 143%! The taxes are 3 times what it cost to make! You get into your clothes, which have their own hidden textile taxes of anywhere from 5% to 18%, and get into your car, which you burn gallons of gas to get to work, and each gallon is taxed at 48%.

Such is the price of living in a nation which provides for its people. Suck it up.

You get to work and begin your day, and you are making little actual money. Your employer has to pay 1/2 the cost of your social security taxes, your medicare taxes, and all of your unemployment taxes, your worker's compensation taxes, and of course, pay the same taxes on all the electricity and water that you pay at home. The employer has already figured all these costs into their operating budget, so if all of those were removed, why, then the employer could afford to pay the employee more money to attract better employees. So you are the one actually paying for the employer's side of the equation as well, as the money they pay to the government for you, could go in your pocket instead.

Except...wait for it now, the employer wouldn't ****ing increase your wages...he'd get himself a new ****ing private jet to fly around to play golf with your ****ing pension. The only wages which would be increased would be the board of directors and the CEO(CFO, CIO, etc).

You finish your work and go to a bar to have a beer before you go home. More gas and 48% tax is used

Before we stop taxing gasoline...lets just stop giving the oil industry huge tax breaks and investigate them for racketeering and price gouging.

you belly up to the bar, and buy a beer. 42% of that beer's price is taxes. Not to mention, the bar you are in has to pay a host of licensing fees to the state and federal gov't just to operate. Who do you think pays that cost ultimately? Hint: It ain't the grinning bartender or owner of the bar.

Drinking at bars is expensive...if you want the company of drinking at the bars, you pay a premium for the benefits. Every college kid with a fake ID has learned that by his second week of college. I don't know why you can't figure it out.

You finally get home and prepare yourself a meal. Every piece of food you consume has a hidden tax of between 5%-15%, plus if it was grown here, the farmer used combines, or tractors, and had to pay the 48% in gas tax to operate them.

...most food doesn't have taxes at all, but is actually subsidized by the government. Now you could suggest that we pay for those subsidies in increased taxes elsewhere, but then you start making your house of cards even more unstable.

You turn on the TV, and of course, TV sets have at least a 10%-15% import tax assessed on them.

Again, if it were less expensive to make the TV's here, rather than importing them with a tariff, we would be, that's the point of import tariffs So suck it up.

The cable running into the back of the TV set also has around 15%-25% tax, depending on your local and state taxes where you live. And the electricity the TV is consuming is of course, also taxed.

waaa waaaa waaaaa, I don't want to share my wealth at all and will ignore the mother****ing services my taxes net me. Have children who go to school? You're using taxes. Drive on public roads? You're using taxes. Want police and fire services to keep you safe? Pay your mother****ing taxes. Do you like not having to worry about being invaded by foreign powers because our military is the mightiest on the planet? Pay your taxes. Do you enjoy the idea that should you have a bad year and you lose it all and you find yourself unable to pay your mortgage, car payments, or feed your family, that there is state and federal programs to help you? Pay the mother****ing taxes. Do you enjoy the regulatory protections that organizations such as the FDA, EPA, FBI, , etc provide? Pay your taxes.

You finally flop into bed, which the mattress itself has a hefty tax associated with making, and you turn out the lights. If it's cold, you might have an electric blanket on your bed, which has a 15% tax associated with it, and of course, uses electricity, which is taxed as well.

The tax world is the fvcking matrix folks. You experience it when you get up in the morning, when you go to work, when you look out your window, and it's been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

The truth being that around 80% of everything you make goes into some government's pocket, directly, or indirectly. This is no conspiracy theory. This is reality.

If this were as true as you'd like to believe...then in european countries (with significantly higher taxes across the board) the people would be losing money every year...

Since the Tyler Durden Solution will not happen, I would love to see all current taxes abolished, and a new flat tax of 10% insituted for any person, corporation, or anything that makes profit.

Yeah, just take those poor and lower class and lower middle class and middle class Americans and bend them over and give them a rough dry **** without a reach around, why don't you?

10% flat tax creates a larger undue burden the poorer you are. Someone making minimum wage can very ill afford to lose 10% of his wages, whereas someone making a million dollars would still make 900K, and you can explain to the guy who was making 10k and now makes 9k how that is anything remotely close to being fair...or the family making 80k and now making 72k even. Flat taxes benefit the wealthy and screw anyone not so wealthy that they would realistically not notice the decrease in income. Of course a flat tax would also ignore the fact that the wealthy could stash millions of dollars in investments whereas the only thing a low wage earning is stashing away is her tip money. There are thousand thousand other examples to be made regarding the inherant disparity in effect such a tax scheme would have.

We've had this discussion before, but no one can argue that a flat 10% tax is the most equal way of sharing the necessary burden of keeping us relatively secure and safe, and promoting the economy by means of maintaining infrastructure, and commerce pathways throughout the country.

I just did. Its not equitable, its not fair, its not just, and its not compassionate. It is the ideology of avaricious amorality.

For example, what the hell is up with 148% tax on peanut butter? Simply too many stupid taxes, not enough politicians willing to fix things.

Perhaps its to offset the huge subisidization our peanut farmers get? I don't know. Maybe peanut farmers are one of the few farmers who don't get massive subsidies.

To continue to function effectively as a government, we would have to cut about 75% of the programs in the government, and reduce it down to law enforcement, military defense, and infrastructure (roads, internet, power grid, water lines, sewage, etc).

Don't forget the EPA, FDA, National Forestry service ,etc etc etc. None of these are sissy compassionate social programs...but necessary.

Everything else can be taken over by private companies or charities if there really is a need for it in society. Sure, private companies and charities aren't perfect, but government waste didn't get infamous in the USA without good cause. Several things in our current society only exist because the government props them up with obscene amounts of taxpayer money. That must cease.

There will be no private companies which can stand up to large industries in need of federal regulation. It took the federal government and its power and wealth to curb most of the excesses to be found in a pure free market economy. Under your ideas we'd revert back to a societal system we, as a nation, rejected a century or more ago. The era of unfettered capitalism is long gone and good riddance. Pure capitalism is as damaging to the average man as is pure Communism, if not more so, for the same reasons. If there is no check on power and greed, corruption comes with it.

Yeah, just take those poor and lower class and lower middle class and middle class Americans and bend them over and give them a rough dry **** without a reach around, why don't you?

Hyperbole much? Everyone must pay into the system for the system to be considered truly equal. You can't treat one group differently than the other group, or then the next-to-bottom group will start in: "You cut taxes for them because they make X, so cut it a little for me because I only make X+1!!!!". No exceptions = no valid basis for complaints.

Flat taxes benefit the wealthy and screw anyone not so wealthy that they would realistically not notice the decrease in income.

You aren't saying,"soak the wealthy, let everyone else ride on their coattails." are you? If you are, I'd rather pay my fair share. It's easy for short-sighted people to throw most or all of the debt burden to the wealthy, because to most Americans, the wealthy are a minority,that very few even know someone that would be considered wealthy by the IRS's standards. It's not about how much debt burden someone feels they can handle. It's about treating everyone equally. The 1,000,000 guy pays 100k. The 10k-year guy is paying 1k. That's 100x what the poverty guy is paying. But that's equal, since they are paying the same percentage.

What if the person making minimum wage feels that you could "realistically" be taxed at 50% of your income and still have enough for 3 meals a day, housing, and car maintenance? He might consider you wealthy, by his standards. The problem with all your theories is they are subjective and wide open to interpretation. If you asked every last American taxpayer what "wealthy" is, you'd get different answers. This is part of the reason the tax code is a big, steaming pile today.

On the other hand, the flat tax, there is no room for interpretation, obsfucation, or misdirection. Everyone knows exactly what they are paying, the guy down the street is paying, and the guy in the high class neighborhood is paying.

I can see that you want to provide a survival level of income for every poverty level person in America. I fully agree with that goal. I am not heartless, nor amoral, and stories of child malnutrition in the US grieve me as much as you. Not one case should ever happen in the US. I don't think, however, that the government has the right to reward poverty as a behavior (before you quote that lone sentence, read on). If you're familiar with tax laws, you know that each Congress "rewards" certain behaviors by cutting taxes on whatever it is they want to promote. For example, last year it was buying hybrid cars and installing solar arrays on your roof (Up to 50% of the cost was tax deductable). Anything the government cuts tax rates, or abolishes them for altogether will be rewarding that particular behavior. Tax cuts and abolishments are social engineering at its most direct levels.

You can already see the unintended effects on certain parts of the government's poverty programs. Before the recent welfare reforms, a certain percentage of single mothers would stay single, and have the number of children that gave them the most income from the government. There was a certain number of children beyond which, gave diminishing returns. Very few single mothers declared more children than that number. (those that still had them, apparently, their relatives would claim them as their own)

People in poverty aren't any more stupid or smarter than the rest of us. They are simply people without a lot of money. If you set up any system in which there is a line of demarciation beyond which, you'd start paying taxes, many people that might be able to go a couple thousand beyond that line would elect to stay below it, as not to reduce their tax breaks/welfare checks/EIC's/whatever monetary rewards are being offered at that level.

Any system with exceptions will result in people finding those exceptions and following them. The first example I can think of is back when we all played EQ, there was much talk of a "soft cap" of AC. If you went over that, you got less for the same effort. So most people stayed at whatever the "soft cap" was that month (if it even existed), and concentrated on things that didn't give diminishing returns.

The same thing applies here. You must have everyone pay the same, or those that are close to, at, or slightly below the poverty line would realize it wouldn't be worth it to accept that $0.25 raise, if it bumped them up into losing some subsidy or tax break they are getting. There is a whole level of unintended social engineering you're not seeing close to the poverty line. We should always encourage people to better themselves in the US, the land of opportunity. The problem is, quite a few of you (you in the general sense here), by your comments, don't see the US as such a land anymore.


Don't forget the EPA, FDA, National Forestry service ,etc etc etc. None of these are sissy compassionate social programs...but necessary.
All of those you mentioned enforce laws passed by Congress. As such, they fall under "law enforcement" agencies. If you break environmental laws, the EPA comes after you. If you break food quality control laws, the FDA revokes their approval seal and/or prevents your product from being sold. If you break poaching laws, or litter in a national park, the Park Rangers and Smokey the Bear jump your butt.


Under your ideas we'd revert back to a societal system we, as a nation, rejected a century or more ago. The era of unfettered capitalism is long gone and good riddance. Pure capitalism is as damaging to the average man as is pure Communism, if not more so, for the same reasons. If there is no check on power and greed, corruption comes with it.

I understand that there must be restraints on greed, avarice, and business. I believe I made provision for that by saying "law enforcement agencies". I was referring to our many law enforcement agencies, in every field imaginable. The whole alphabet federal agency system enforces all the laws in one way or the other. Man is inherently evil, and must be restrained in his behavior towards his fellow man. If that means we'd have to raise the rate to 11%, or 12%, so be it.

Of course it does. They want to use my time and labor, or rather the product for it, for social engineering. They want the money so that they can change peoples' behaviors.


That's ok with me. I have my own reloading equipment, my own guns, and am a very good marksman.

And when the gun powder runs out, I can hit a poker chip with an arrow at 60 yards. Stick 'em in the eye with a 125grn Thunderhead, without them hearing or seeing a thing.

Besides, I am, and you are going to be the generation of old people who will get no benefits, that kinda is the point of all this. I know I want Aidon on my team when we revolt, and maybe Stormy. The rest of you liberal anti-gun commies better find another way to protect yourself.

I ain't takin on no armed WWII vet's...those ****ers are mean and tough.

The Premise

The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification.

The Discovery

Article V of the U.S. Constitution specifies the ratification process, and requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were 48 States in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of 36 states was required for ratification. In February, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment.

In 1984, William J. Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states, and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified the Amendment. Continuing his research at the National Archives in Washington, DC, Bill Benson discovered his Golden Key. This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the ratification process!

The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.

The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.

The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.

The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.

The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.

When his year long project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited every state capitol and knew that not a single state had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution. 33 states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, a power the states do not possess. Since 36 states were needed for ratification, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only 2 states which successfully ratified.


Out of 48 - they claimed 38 ratified, 4 are in question. They need 36, 34 or 35 would make this not ratified.

In the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.[7], the Supreme Court declared taxes on income from property under the 1894 Act to be unconstitutional unapportioned direct taxes. The Court reasoned that a tax on income from property should be treated as a tax on "property by reason of its ownership," and should therefore be required to be apportioned. The reasoning was that taxes on the rents from land, the dividends from stocks and so on burdened the property generating the income in the same way that a tax on "property by reason of its ownership" burdened that property.

This meant that, after Pollock, while income taxes on income from labor (as indirect taxes) were still not required to be apportioned by population, taxes on interest, dividends and rent income were required to be apportioned by population. The Pollock ruling made the source of the income (e.g., property versus labor, etc.) relevant in determining whether the tax imposed on that income was deemed to be "direct" (and thus required to be apportioned among the states according to population) or, alternatively, "indirect" (and thus required only to be imposed with geographical uniformity).

During this period from 1895 to 1913 when the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, while Congress could have re-imposed taxes on income from labor and other non-property sources without apportionment by population, imposing taxes on interest, dividends and rent income would not have been practical (as the income from property in each state would virtually never correspond to the population of that state in relation to the population of the entire nation). The Congress was unwilling to impose an income tax on labor and other non-property sources without also imposing a tax on income from property -- and taxes on income from property were no longer realistic. The Pollock ruling made imposition of an income tax politically unfeasible from 1895 until the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. At the same time, Congress was reflecting the growing concern among many elements of society that the wealthiest Americans had consolidated too much economic power.

The man making 20,000 a year can ill afford to lose 2,000 of that.
Actually, under current tax laws, if you make 20k per year you already pay nearly 2,000$ in federal income taxes. And you can still survive on this, in a ridiculously expensive city like Los Angeles, even.

I actually agree with you. I oppose flat taxes for the exact reason you stated. I want the tax code simplified, but whether we go with a flat tax or a FairTax consumption type scheme, those living at or below poverty level should get massive exmeptions such that they pay almost no taxes.

I am only quibbling over your example, because a person earning 20,000 can definitely afford to pay 2,000 in taxes. Its the 10k guy that has a problem under a flat tax code.

You know, you don't have to reload a sword.

Show us the laws please. Former IRS investigator had to resign because he found there is no law saying it is required and the word "Voluntary" is used often.

Amendment XVI - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

As I said...

I'm alright with paying fair taxes, I find it hard to swallow the taxes we are paying with so much waste and corporate tax breaks are plenty.

The solution is not to stop paying our taxes, but to make our officials enforce the taxes on corporations and to trim the waste. We can start by not giving congress $30,000 raises every few years.

You know, you don't have to reload a sword.

Yes, and this has its benefits, to be sure. Just not quite as beneficial as being able to "stab" someone from 500 meters.

**** equality. Equality is the bastion of the avaricious. It is equity we should be seeking. Mercy. Compassion. The understanding that to make those of lesser means pay more than they currently are while making those of unimaginably wealthy means pay so much less is morally and practically wrong.

I think we're talking at different points here. I am trying to propose something that would make everyone equal before the tax law, and you're talking about personal moral responsibilities. I'll fully agree that it's the moral thing to buy the homeless guy some soup, and also while paying for his dinner, try to tell him ways he might could slowly work his way out of the steep sloped pit he's in.

It's not moral to keep supporting him for the rest of his life. With the proper training and skills, any poverty-stricken person could be an asset to society, not a drain of tax money.

I grew up wealthy. My father is wealthy. He worked very very hard to become so. He taught me that those who were fortunate enough to have financial success have a responsibility and duty to help those less fortunate. He pays more in taxes than he gets to keep, by a decent margin. He is a democrat. He pays his taxes, he donates an average of six figures a year to various charities. He realizes and is grateful that he can do these things and still have enough money to live a life that most Americans dream of.

I didn't grow up wealthy. My family shopped at K-Mart and thrift stores when I was growing up. My father always picked up aluminum cans he saw on the side of the road, to recycle for a bit of extra money for the family, though it embarrassed the hell out of me at the time. He is a republician. After 20 years, he eventually saw the job he was in was going nowhere, and decided to take a risk, and started his own business. In the first year, he made more money than 2 years working for his old job. That's how I know the US is still the land of opportunity, and that penalizing people for succeeding in life and making more money is wrong. He doesn't make six figures, and he still isn't "wealthy", as you define wealth, but he doesn't have to pick up aluminum cans anymore.

No, it it emminently fair and right for someone making many hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay a significanly higher percentage of his income to pick up the tax burden for many people who are scraping.

No, it isn't. I didn't earn that money, and I wouldn't lay claim to any of it, simply on the virtue I make less than someone else.

A 10% flat tax is so patently unfair as to be cruel. The man making 20,000 a year can ill afford to lose 2,000 of that. He risks losing his car, apartment, or being unable to pay his children. Whereas the man making 1,000,000 still has 900,000 left, an astronomical figure to most Americans. Explain the fairness in a tax scheme that leaves the poor much worse off and barely effects the wealthy?

I think we're again talking at cross purposes, or our concepts of fairness and equality are different (well, you already said **** equality, so I guess that's out)

If I go to dinner with 5 friends, and everyone orders a full meal, afterwards, it's fair to expect everyone to pay their share of the bill. It's not fair to expect the richest guy at the table to cover it, simply because he's rich. It's cool of him if he offers voluntarily, but if that were a mandatory, standing rule of the group, how long before the richest guy stopped eating with the rest of them?

So, it's not fair to expect people on survival income to pay what they can ill afford, and it's not fair to expect people to pick up other people's tabs of living expenses simply because they're wealthy. Where does that leave the tax system?

I don't think anyone would consider me wealthy.

But let's say they did. I mean, if people are freaking starving in the US, then if you've got more than enough to pay for basic shelter, food, clothing, and transportation, then you should be forced via taxes to give any extra to the government so they might distribute it to more needy families that don't have the essentials. Right? I mean, none of the money you earn is really yours, you've got to pay for the privilege of all the benefits you get as a US citizen. Might I be bold to suggest there's a bit of NIMBY going on? Just a little, maybe? Maybe not. I think that there are people in this country that would think you or I were wealthy, comparitatively speaking.

The disparity of wealth in America is not subjective. The top 1% of Americans controls 1/3 of her wealth. The next 19% of Americans control 51% of her wealth. Thus 20% of America owns 84% of the wealth. No...your concepts of equality are skewed my friend. Wealth isn't subjective.

Who earned that money? Disregarding the trust fund kids, most of the famous ones today started from scratch. The government shouldn't have the right to confiscate other people's money unless it's for something essential. I'd happily pay double if it went to educational, vocational re-training to get the people out of poverty, and on their way to productive members of society. Teach a man to fish, and all that. But I don't think it's right to make other people pay their money. It's when it's forced upon the populace that gets under my skin. Volunteering to sacrificially give up your money to help others, great, I'm behind that 110%.

I don't need to read on (though I did). Reward poverty as a behavior? Do you have any idea how...elitist you sound? Literally. You sound like one of the asshats from certain non AL Uberguilds who would complain because they made parts of EQ easier and bitch about SOE rewarding people for being newbs...

I'm not elitist. I certainly didn't care if SOE made encounters easier in EQ, nor was I ever in a guild that got past the Planes of Power. I just believe that charging people extra taxes based solely on the fact of how much more money they earned than someone else, is not the right thing to do.

Poverty isn't a behavior. Noone enjoys being poor. Sometimes **** just happens. . . . . . . . And if there had been children involved at all, under your plan, they almost certainly would have ended up dying or being given away to someone else.

I appreciate the example, and I don't doubt things like that happen on a daily basis, but I can't get past the fact that the government is taking money from one end of the spectrum and giving it to another end, all based on how well someone did financially ( or not ). And I don't think that the end argument that flat tax = dead children is very compelling. I'm certain that there would be someone, a relative, a friend, that would help someone out in that circumstance. We have all kinds of volunteer programs where I live that will buy cars out of the classifieds, fix em up, and donate them to a family that needs transportation. Sometimes people will donate their cars if they can.

If making it that much easier for the poor and middle class America to make ends meet at the expense of taxing the wealthy, who will still have more left over than many American's will make in their lifetimes, is social engineering the we need more power Scotty.

The basic difference between me and you, I think is that you want the tax system to be based on need. How much money do you need to live? If you don't have the money you need to live, the government will take more from some guy who has more than enough he needs to live, and give it to you, so that you have enough to meet your needs.

A modified motto for social engineering via taxes I once heard.
"From each according to ability (to earn money), to each according to need (of money)."

What you're wanting seems eerily close to that.

If they can do that, so be it. Good for them. They found an alternative means of making a bit more money at the end of the year. I applaud them. Cheerio, sports! Eventually they will either start earning enough that it no longer behooves them to stay under that line of demarcation or their income will drop a bit.

The bolded part in the above I found horribly wrong. They didn't make a bit more of anything. They are avoiding losing the government check that is given to them exactly because they didn't make money.

However, I didn't say our tax system as it stands now is perfect or even good, its just better than a flat tax.

I disagree.

There needs to be a closing of many loopholes. As it stands right now, a corporation with enough money will simply hire a band of hot shot accountants (Arthur Anderson, for instance...or I guess its just Anderson now?) to find every loophole possible so that Enron is paying virtually nothing compared to its actual tax burden, while Dick and Jane over there can't really afford an accountant and are trying to itemize their returns via turbotax online, missing half of their credits and deductions because they don't know they exist or don't realize they qualify because its easier to learn Russian or Nepalese than it is to understand the US Tax Code.

I agree with the rest of this. Eliminate all tax deductions. Period. Of course, before Dick and Jane have a complete breakdown, you'd also have to eliminate all the hidden taxes. Peanut butter prices would plummet. Gas prices would be halved. Telephone services and cable would become a lot cheaper. Etc.

Simple tax code would be :
Form 1040 EZEST. Take figure in Box 1 of W-2, multiply by 0.10. Remit to Treasury by April 15.
[ ] Check here if you want to pay an extra 2% to help the poor and destitute. Please, think of the children!

Done.

That is happening right now, already. But the answer isn't to increase their tax burden by making them pay a 10% tax they don't currently have to pay. The answer is graduation of benefits rather than hard limits. I don't pretend to be able to develop such a plan...I'm no Nobel laureate...but the US has plenty of the economic laureates who are able to develop such a plan.

Why make yet another complex system that no one understands, including every single member of the organization specifically created to understand it?

That's because the US is not the land of opportunity anymore. Upward social mobility is non-existant for the vast majority of Americans. You aren't going to work yourself up from the mailroom to a Veep office in modern America. Sociological studies are clear...the overwhelming majority of people in America will live and die in the same socio-economic class they started their careers in. The best they can hope for is that their children move up a bit on the economic ladder.

Wow. You've got a grim view of the future. I think I posted above where this is not exactly true.

If you want to encourage people to better themselves, give them opportunity and help them grasp it. You don't punish them because they are poor. The poverty stricken are not shiftless, thriftless, or inferior. The notion of forcing them to improve themselves through hard work (always for very low wages though, so that the guy making 1,000,000 a year can make 1.2 the next, it seems) is so....white of you, in that British Empire way.

If believing that the best way to get out of poverty and stay out is working your ass off (smartly of course) is somehow wrong, then I guess I'm wrong. But before you write me off, you, yourself, said that the way your father became wealthy was ?


No, they are regulatory agencies. There are no EPA police or FDA police (unless you're dealing with drugs in an illegal manner, than the DEA steps in)

Regulation doesn't necessarily have to be SWAT kicking down your door. I believe the EPA can pull business licenses, and the FDA can pull other licenses, and fine the **** out of anyone who disagrees.

The government could not run on a 10% flat tax. Not when 20% of America controls 84% of her wealth. A flat 10% tax would bring ruination, because the increase in tax revenue from the other 80% of America cannot even begin to counteract the massive losses of income from that 20% solely do to the huge disparity of wealth in America (Of course, a 10% flat tax would still lower the tax rate for at least half of that 80% by 5% or so...)

The current, bloated, wastrel government that both Democrats and Republicians have had a hand in equally creating could not run, that is correct. It should be remade into a lean, mean ***-kicking machine. No more overpaying for hammers, toilet seats, planes, trains or railroad tracks. No more pork. You've seen the articles, heard the stories. There is much fat we could trim out of the government. The abolition of the IRS alone would save billions.


So...no, I have no sympathy for the complaints of those wealthy who are upset they have to pay high taxes. They pay more in taxes than most Americans make in a year by a long shot and still retain more money than Americans make in a year by a long shot.If you make 600,000 and only get to keep 300,000...can you really in good concience complain that you only made 300,000 when most Americans are making 30,000?

Well, I am an American making slightly less than 30,000, and I say let them keep the money they've earned, minus the same percentage I'm paying in taxes (whatever that would wind up being, either 10%, 12% or 15%)

:confused:

Oooook. . how the **** did my reply to Aidon's post get above Aidon's post that I replied to?

Hopefully it will clear up on it's own?

Hyperbole much? Everyone must pay into the system for the system to be considered truly equal. You can't treat one group differently than the other group, or then the next-to-bottom group will start in: "You cut taxes for them because they make X, so cut it a little for me because I only make X+1!!!!". No exceptions = no valid basis for complaints.

**** equality. Equality is the bastion of the avaricious. It is equity we should be seeking. Mercy. Compassion. The understanding that to make those of lesser means pay more than they currently are while making those of unimaginably wealthy means pay so much less is morally and practically wrong.



You aren't saying,"soak the wealthy, let everyone else ride on their coattails." are you? If you are, I'd rather pay my fair share. It's easy for short-sighted people to throw most or all of the debt burden to the wealthy, because to most Americans, the wealthy are a minority,that very few even know someone that would be considered wealthy by the IRS's standards. It's not about how much debt burden someone feels they can handle. It's about treating everyone equally. The 1,000,000 guy pays 100k. The 10k-year guy is paying 1k. That's 100x what the poverty guy is paying. But that's equal, since they are paying the same percentage.

I grew up wealthy. My father is wealthy. He worked very very hard to become so. He taught me that those who were fortunate enough to have financial success have a responsibility and duty to help those less fortunate. He pays more in taxes than he gets to keep, by a decent margin. He is a democrat. He pays his taxes, he donates an average of six figures a year to various charities. He realizes and is grateful that he can do these things and still have enough money to live a life that most Americans dream of.

No, it it emminently fair and right for someone making many hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay a significanly higher percentage of his income to pick up the tax burden for many people who are scraping.

A 10% flat tax is so patently unfair as to be cruel. The man making 20,000 a year can ill afford to lose 2,000 of that. He risks losing his car, apartment, or being unable to pay his children. Whereas the man making 1,000,000 still has 900,000 left, an astronomical figure to most Americans. Explain the fairness in a tax scheme that leaves the poor much worse off and barely effects the wealthy?

What if the person making minimum wage feels that you could "realistically" be taxed at 50% of your income and still have enough for 3 meals a day, housing, and car maintenance? He might consider you wealthy, by his standards.

I don't think anyone would consider me wealthy.

The problem with all your theories is they are subjective and wide open to interpretation. If you asked every last American taxpayer what "wealthy" is, you'd get different answers. This is part of the reason the tax code is a big, steaming pile today.

The disparity of wealth in America is not subjective. The top 1% of Americans controls 1/3 of her wealth. The next 19% of Americans control 51% of her wealth. Thus 20% of America owns 84% of the wealth. No...your concepts of equality are skewed my friend. Wealth isn't subjective.

On the other hand, the flat tax, there is no room for interpretation, obsfucation, or misdirection. Everyone knows exactly what they are paying, the guy down the street is paying, and the guy in the high class neighborhood is paying.

...this matters why? Do you think Diego who's stuggling on minimum wage to try and feed his four hermanos y hermanas because their padres died and Abluela is too sick to work anymore (We'll be extremely bombastic here and say they were shot by overzealous Minutemen who didn't seem to realize they were actually US citizens) gives a **** what the guy in the high class neighborhood is paying? No, he'd just want to know why the government thinks its fair to take so much of his paltry salary when his baby sister is wearing shoes that are too small for her and have holes in the soles.

I can see that you want to provide a survival level of income for every poverty level person in America. I fully agree with that goal. I am not heartless, nor amoral, and stories of child malnutrition in the US grieve me as much as you. Not one case should ever happen in the US. I don't think, however, that the government has the right to reward poverty as a behavior (before you quote that lone sentence, read on).

I don't need to read on (though I did). Reward poverty as a behavior? Do you have any idea how...elitist you sound? Literally. You sound like one of the asshats from certain non AL Uberguilds who would complain because they made parts of EQ easier and bitch about SOE rewarding people for being newbs...

Poverty isn't a behavior. Noone enjoys being poor. Sometimes **** just happens.

It isn't fun living out of your car for two weeks because the guy who said you could stay with him in this new city had to change his mind because his girl decided to move back in with their kids; leaving you to try and find your own place, which is neigh on impossible with no or bad credit in a new town with no local prior address and no current job and not enough money to pay the deposit and 1st month up front. Of course, being as you're living out of your car...it becomes progressively more difficult to find a decent job until on the 3rd day you find a minimum wage job working at Schlotsky's, of course you dont' get for almost three weeks after you start, but the manager is a sweetheart of a woman who is willing to loan you fifty bucks until you're paid and look the other way when you eat two meals more than you're allowed to by company rules. So with that 50 bucks and the 350 bucks you were finally able to sell your car to a guy who works at Schlotsky's with you, you finally, at the end of the 2nd week you're able to rent 1 room of a house which costs 200/month including your share of the utilities and its only about 2 1/2 miles away from Schlotsky's so you can just walk to work, rather than need the car you just sold. Fortunately its only Sept. at the moment...but boy Kansas gets bitter ****ing cold in winter, my friend, and come February you're still walking to your job with only a ratty ass medium weight trenchcoat (we're not talking felt, oh no...) and a pair of knit glove liners a friend gave you.

And there had been children involved at all, under your plan, they almost certainly would have ended up dying or being given away to someone else.

If you're familiar with tax laws, you know that each Congress "rewards" certain behaviors by cutting taxes on whatever it is they want to promote. For example, last year it was buying hybrid cars and installing solar arrays on your roof (Up to 50% of the cost was tax deductable). Anything the government cuts tax rates, or abolishes them for altogether will be rewarding that particular behavior. Tax cuts and abolishments are social engineering at its most direct levels.

If making it that much easier for the poor and middle class America to make ends meet at the expense of taxing the wealthy, who will still have more left over than many American's will make in their lifetimes, is social engineering the we need more power Scotty.

You can already see the unintended effects on certain parts of the government's poverty programs. Before the recent welfare reforms, a certain percentage of single mothers would stay single, and have the number of children that gave them the most income from the government. There was a certain number of children beyond which, gave diminishing returns. Very few single mothers declared more children than that number. (those that still had them, apparently, their relatives would claim them as their own)

Ah yes...when the Republicans ****ed over honest people to get the relative few who abused the system. Now, the Feds keep demanding people on assistance work more and more in order to get qualify for aid...but are consequently hamstringing the states from using Federal money to help subsidize the increased transportaton and child care costs which come with any increase in work hours. They still, however, haven't fixed the one thing that truly needed fixing in the welfare system...a graduated benefit plan so that people didn't get cut off from aid simply because they reached an income level which was still insufficient, but higher than the cut off.

People in poverty aren't any more stupid or smarter than the rest of us. They are simply people without a lot of money. If you set up any system in which there is a line of demarciation beyond which, you'd start paying taxes, many people that might be able to go a couple thousand beyond that line would elect to stay below it, as not to reduce their tax breaks/welfare checks/EIC's/whatever monetary rewards are being offered at that level.

If they can do that, so be it. Good for them. They found an alternative means of making a bit more money at the end of the year. I applaud them. Cheerio, sports! Eventually they will either start earning enough that it no longer behooves them to stay under that line of demarcation or their income will drop a bit.

Any system with exceptions will result in people finding those exceptions and following them. The first example I can think of is back when we all played EQ, there was much talk of a "soft cap" of AC. If you went over that, you got less for the same effort. So most people stayed at whatever the "soft cap" was that month (if it even existed), and concentrated on things that didn't give diminishing returns.

Oh, there most certainly was a soft cap =P For wisdom as well <nod>

However, I didn't say our tax system as it stands now is perfect or even good, its just better than a flat tax. There needs to be a closing of many loopholes. As it stands right now, a corporation with enough money will simply hire a band of hot shot accountants (Arthur Anderson, for instance...or I guess its just Anderson now?) to find every loophole possible so that Enron is paying virtually nothing compared to its actual tax burden, while Dick and Jane over there can't really afford an accountant and are trying to itemize their returns via turbotax online, missing half of their credits and deductions because they don't know they exist or don't realize they qualify because its easier to learn Russian or Nepalese than it is to understand the US Tax Code.

The same thing applies here. You must have everyone pay the same, or those that are close to, at, or slightly below the poverty line would realize it wouldn't be worth it to accept that $0.25 raise, if it bumped them up into losing some subsidy or tax break they are getting.

That is happening right now, already. But the answer isn't to increase their tax burden by making them pay a 10% tax they don't currently have to pay. The answer is graduation of benefits rather than hard limits. I don't pretend to be able to develop such a plan...I'm no Nobel laureate...but the US has plenty of the economic laureates who are able to develop such a plan.

There is a whole level of unintended social engineering you're not seeing close to the poverty line. We should always encourage people to better themselves in the US, the land of opportunity. The problem is, quite a few of you (you in the general sense here), by your comments, don't see the US as such a land anymore.

That's because the US is not the land of opportunity anymore. Upward social mobility is non-existant for the vast majority of Americans. You aren't going to work yourself up from the mailroom to a Veep office in modern America. Sociological studies are clear...the overwhelming majority of people in America will live and die in the same socio-economic class they started their careers in. The best they can hope for is that their children move up a bit on the economic ladder.

If you want to encourage people to better themselves, give them opportunity and help them grasp it. You don't punish them because they are poor. The poverty stricken are not shiftless, thriftless, or inferior. The notion of forcing them to improve themselves through hard work (always for very low wages though, so that the guy making 1,000,000 a year can make 1.2 the next, it seems) is so....white of you, in that British Empire way.



All of those you mentioned enforce laws passed by Congress. As such, they fall under "law enforcement" agencies.

No, they are regulatory agencies. There are no EPA police or FDA police (unless you're dealing with drugs in an illegal manner, than the DEA steps in)

While the National Forestry Service does entail some law enforcement...they are primarily conservationists and scientists with some firefighters.

I understand that there must be restraints on greed, avarice, and business. I believe I made provision for that by saying "law enforcement agencies". I was referring to our many law enforcement agencies, in every field imaginable. The whole alphabet federal agency system enforces all the laws in one way or the other. Man is inherently evil, and must be restrained in his behavior towards his fellow man. If that means we'd have to raise the rate to 11%, or 12%, so be it.

And herein I'll explain the practical flaw in your idea.

The government could not run on a 10% flat tax. Not when 20% of America controls 84% of her wealth. A flat 10% tax would bring ruination, because the increase in tax revenue from the other 80% of America cannot even begin to counteract the massive losses of income from that 20% solely do to the huge disparity of wealth in America (Of course, a 10% flat tax would still lower the tax rate for at least half of that 80% by 5% or so...)

So...no, I have no sympathy for the complaints of those wealthy who are upset they have to pay high taxes. They pay more in taxes than most Americans make in a year by a long shot and still retain more money than Americans make in a year by a long shot.If you make 600,000 and only get to keep 300,000...can you really in good concience complain that you only made 300,000 when most Americans are making 30,000?

What did Panamah and I agree on was the number for how much the Homeowners Tax Cut costs the US each year?

80 Billion dollars?

Eliminating that welfare program for rich people, would be a great start toward evening out the playing field.

Indeed...owning a home is rewarding enough in its own right that there need be no incentive to do so.

That tax cut is nothing more than a subsidy for a mortgage industry that doesn't need it anyways.

Indeed...owning a home is rewarding enough in its own right that there need be no incentive to do so.The home mortgage deduction is a bread and butter deduction for middle class homeowners. Remove it, and many of them won't be able to <i>afford</i> their homes. That's bad, as home ownership is very good for society.

Now, if you want to phase it out for the ultra-rich buying $30 million San Francisco mansions, or for loans made for other purposes using home equity, I'd agree.

:confused:

Oooook. . how the **** did my reply to Aidon's post get above Aidon's post that I replied to?

Hopefully it will clear up on it's own?

There was a glitch in the system last friday around 10ish AM EST where the system transposed the posts made then from AM to PM lol.

I don't know if its fixed...now on to our regularly scheduled hyperbole filled bombastic flame ridden discourse on Modern Society. Well in the next post of mine.

Did you watch that video? In the video several well respected professional lawyers and former IRS employees state that the ammendment to the constitution did not give the government the right to new taxes on citizens. The supreme court even ruled the same thing. So, legally, we don't *have* to pay taxes. There is no law stating that the government has the right to tax your labor.

That's because the people suggesting that are well...soft in the head.

What the court ruled in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad is that the 16th amended didn't give the government to levy new taxes on citizens because the government already had that power explicitly given to it in the constitution. Including, mind you, taxation on labor (what most of us think of when we think of income taxes) What the 16th amendment did is broaden the scope of what the government was permitted to do. The Constitution, from its inception, allowed taxation, but stated that direct taxation had to be imposed apportionately, meaning imposed per state based on the states population, much like determining representatives. It also permited the Government to tax other sources of income previously denied, such as dividends and property taxes, without having to apportion the taxes by state.

A quote from the aforementioned decision:

It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived". [cites omitted] "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112), in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. [cites omitted] After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital

I don't necessarily have a problem with paying taxes, but it would be nice for the goverment to let us know what they are doing with all that money. From the information provided in the documentary, none of the money goes to education, road work, or even the defense budget - but instead it goes to paying the IOU's the government has towards the national debt.

That's because, due to the nature of the government, it exists on loans and uses taxes to repay the loans. Income taxes for people are due only once a year...(I think corporations have to pay quarterly). However, people working for the government, or being paid by the government, are not going to wait for payment until sometime after April every year to get one big paycheck. So the government issues tbills and whatnot and then uses taxes to pay off the debts incurred in running the nation for the past year (in a perfect world where the GOP hadn't created a multi-trillion dollar debt).

I am not saying that I take everything in that video as truth - I rarely do. But I do believe the point that the law does not exsist that states that the government has the right to tax our labor.

And I'm telling you that "law" was written into the original Constitution of the United States of America...and the Supreme Court agrees with that (however its usually easier to inform the folks the 16th amendment is why...because otherwise you get arguments about apportionment..and, as you can see, it takes alot longer).

I can assure you...if we didn't have to pay taxes....we A) wouldn't...at least for the one year it would take for B) Congress to fix whatever loophole of the week is currently favored.

Out of 48 - they claimed 38 ratified, 4 are in question. They need 36, 34 or 35 would make this not ratified.

Various federal courts have disabused conspiracy theroists everywhere that the 16th Amendment was improperly ratified.

Regarding the decision you cited...that was the decision which lead to the 16th amendment, not a decision challenging the definition of the scope of the 16th Amendment.

Actually, under current tax laws, if you make 20k per year you already pay nearly 2,000$ in federal income taxes. And you can still survive on this, in a ridiculously expensive city like Los Angeles, even

I actually agree with you. I oppose flat taxes for the exact reason you stated. I want the tax code simplified, but whether we go with a flat tax or a FairTax consumption type scheme, those living at or below poverty level should get massive exmeptions such that they pay almost no taxes.

I am only quibbling over your example, because a person earning 20,000 can definitely afford to pay 2,000 in taxes. Its the 10k guy that has a problem under a flat tax code.


I was simply pulling numbers out of thin air. I had neither the time nor desire to turn myself into a tax accountant for a day for this discussion.

And while a single man could live on that (though I wouldn't enjoy it...), a family, for instance, could not. In the end, we're getting to the same point.

I had a long point by point counterargument, as per usual, but somehow I managed to lose it...so here's just a few counterpoint which really steamed me.

Edit: I guess I posted half of what I had written, somehow...so through my amazing powers of moderation, I consolidate the past two posts! Yay me!

I think we're talking at different points here. I am trying to propose something that would make everyone equal before the tax law, and you're talking about personal moral responsibilities. I'll fully agree that it's the moral thing to buy the homeless guy some soup, and also while paying for his dinner, try to tell him ways he might could slowly work his way out of the steep sloped pit he's in.

It's not moral to keep supporting him for the rest of his life. With the proper training and skills, any poverty-stricken person could be an asset to society, not a drain of tax money.

There is a concept which has been engrained in our legal system since its inception, taken from English Common Law. It is the concept that what is just is not always right, proper, or fair.

This is why the courts in the US (and most, if not all, states) are not simply Courts of Law, but also Courts of Equity. The Courts in the US have the ability to say "Yes, this man broke the law, but the law is overly harsh, this man had no choice, and the damage done was deminimus, thus we shall overlook his crime". The classic example being the man who steals a loaf of bread in order to feed his starving children.

This concept must be considered in all aspects of governance, not merely the courts.

Further, you speak of proper training and education...how? Who will provide it? He certainly will not be able to afford it with his 9,000 a year. Is it better to provide the man with the knowledge to fish, as it were? Certainly. As soon as someone devised the program to do that, I'll be all for it. However, that isn't what Congress has done, its instilled "reform" which is growing more draconian, which do not promote education or skill enhancement, but locks a person into a cycle of poverty from which most never escape.



I didn't grow up wealthy. My family shopped at K-Mart and thrift stores when I was growing up. My father always picked up aluminum cans he saw on the side of the road, to recycle for a bit of extra money for the family, though it embarrassed the hell out of me at the time. He is a republician.


First of all, I got my clothes from K-Mart for the first seven or eight years of my life also. /golfclap. (on a tangent how the **** did Oshkosh go from being a K-mart brand to costing 40-50 bucks for a pair of baby overalls? WTF?)

Yes, I've never understood why so many lower class or lower middle class are republicans. Are they so bitter that they refuse to entertain the concept that life shouldn't be so hard for everyone and that as a society we can work to elleviate such things? Instead they seem to have the attitude of "I had to skill up sense direction the hard way, so should everyone else, get rid of the compass and the maxed sense heading to help newbies now" otherwise known as the "uphill both ways" syndrome.

After 20 years, he eventually saw the job he was in was going nowhere, and decided to take a risk, and started his own business. In the first year, he made more money than 2 years working for his old job. That's how I know the US is still the land of opportunity, and that penalizing people for succeeding in life and making more money is wrong.

First of all, that was a generation ago...not today. Secondly, your father was more fortunate than most. Most small businesses fail and frequently through no fault of the owner. Most people who start up their own business and fail worked hard, put in long hours, and busted their ass...only to be driven out of business by a new Wal-Mart or Starbucks or Home Depot. Thirdly, there is no virtue or piousness or increased moral fiber in being poor. It doesn't make you stronger, it doesn't build character. It makes you miserable and is a status we, as a nation and society, should seek to combat constantly.

He doesn't make six figures, and he still isn't "wealthy", as you define wealth, but he doesn't have to pick up aluminum cans anymore.

I think most people would classify wealthy as a combined family income of over 300k or so. I'm not sure where the highest tax bracket begins...which is, I suppose, the "official" definition of wealthy



No, it isn't. I didn't earn that money, and I wouldn't lay claim to any of it, simply on the virtue I make less than someone else.

Guess what, despite what the ****ing moron Ayn Rand says, the wealthy could not become the wealthy without the hard work and labor of those less wealthy. They make their money on the sweat of other's brows. Society lays claim to a share of their money in order to provide services for those making money for the wealthy who otherwise could not afford the services the government provides.





I think we're again talking at cross purposes, or our concepts of fairness and equality are different (well, you already said **** equality, so I guess that's out)

If I go to dinner with 5 friends, and everyone orders a full meal, afterwards, it's fair to expect everyone to pay their share of the bill. It's not fair to expect the richest guy at the table to cover it, simply because he's rich. It's cool of him if he offers voluntarily, but if that were a mandatory, standing rule of the group, how long before the richest guy stopped eating with the rest of them?

We're not talking about dinner amongst friends here. I'm not friends with the Waltons. They make their money by paying their workers crap, union busting, providing crap benefits, using illegal labor, and other generally unsavory practices. Let them pay a higher percentage of taxes than the poor woman working the register in Paduka for 6.15/hr so that they can continue being billionaires.

So, it's not fair to expect people on survival income to pay what they can ill afford, and it's not fair to expect people to pick up other people's tabs of living expenses simply because they're wealthy. Where does that leave the tax system?

You are mistaking fair with just or equal. They are not the same concepts. It is fair that the wealthy pay a larger percentage of taxes....they control the larger share of the nations wealth.



But let's say they did. I mean, if people are freaking starving in the US, then if you've got more than enough to pay for basic shelter, food, clothing, and transportation, then you should be forced via taxes to give any extra to the government so they might distribute it to more needy families that don't have the essentials. Right? I mean, none of the money you earn is really yours, you've got to pay for the privilege of all the benefits you get as a US citizen.

First off, there are people still starving, very few, but it exists. Secondly, instead we have malnutrition brought on by the lack of time and finances to afford healthy food (which is more expensive than Micky D's); there is less and less time in the American day for cooking a healthy meal, when both mom and dad need to work (if there is both a mom and a dad), and frequently also are trying to improve themselves by going to some manner of schooling at the same time. So no, we're not starving from lack of food, but we're malnurished all the same.

As for the rest, I honestly have little idea what you're driving at...

Might I be bold to suggest there's a bit of NIMBY going on? Just a little, maybe? Maybe not. I think that there are people in this country that would think you or I were wealthy, comparitatively speaking.

Perhaps, but you and I, along with 80% of the rest Americans, only control 20% of the nations wealth...so I'm guess from an objective scale, we're not wealthy. We have a significantly smaller pie to split up amongst a significantly larger number of people. I like pie. When I was growing up, if a few people horded most of the pie from alot of other people...they got beat up. Viva la revolucion! Let the proletariat rise up against the bourguoesie




A modified motto for social engineering via taxes I once heard.
"From each according to ability (to earn money), to each according to need (of money)."

What you're wanting seems eerily close to that.

There was little wrong with the concepts behind communism. The idea that a society is responsible for the wellbeing of all, and that those who become wealthy on the backs of the poor owe a share of their wealth to raising the poor up. What was wrong with communism was its execution and the fact that the communist nations were not even remotely democratic which encouraged rampant and systemic corruption and totalitarian measures. Further, the larger the population, the less efficient communistic society works as less and less percentage of the people get a say in the policies and via the simple inefficiency bred into any economic plan as it grows in size.

Given a choice, however, between a democratic pure capitalistic society and a democratic pure communist society, I'd choose the purely communist society. If for no other reason that, both societies in the end will, by virtue of their democratic nature, end up in roughly the same place: a variable medium between unregulated free market and government controlled communism, but the move from pure communism to a happy medium, in a democratic society, is less reliant upon altruism.

If believing that the best way to get out of poverty and stay out is working your ass off (smartly of course) is somehow wrong, then I guess I'm wrong. But before you write me off, you, yourself, said that the way your father became wealthy was ?

Hard work alone will not bring anyone out of poverty. You can work your fingers to the bone daily for minimum wage and there is zero expectation or guarantee that you will advance in modern America. More likely than not, you will simply be fired when they realize they should be paying you more given your years on the job...by which time you will face a slew of other problems in getting a job.

No...hard work must be coupled with opportunity in order for it to be condusive to the aquisition of wealth and increase in social standing. The sad fact is, though, that opportunity is what the poor lack, not work ethic. The government should worry less about making the poor work hard to stay in a dead end existance, as they seem to do now, and worry more about creating opportunity for the poor. Educate them, create jobs which will teach skills and give them experience which can then be used in the market to advance themselves. Not insist they sweep a street to earn their assistance.


The current, bloated, wastrel government that both Democrats and Republicians have had a hand in equally creating could not run, that is correct.

Um...the Dems had the budget at an annual surplus...and without gutting social programs. The GOP have managed to begin gutting social programs and yet, still increase annual debt increase.

It should be remade into a lean, mean ***-kicking machine. No more overpaying for hammers, toilet seats, planes, trains or railroad tracks. No more pork.

The GOP are the undisputed champeeeeeeeeeens of pork.

As for overpaying on hammers, toilet seats, etc etc. That bothers me less, as it is frequently the means for getting money to areas of defense which...we don't want even showing up in the budget less foreign sources derive some idea that we're working on something which costs x amount of money.

As for railroads...as much as they are evil dirty corrupt corporations surviving on the fat of everyday citizens, such is the cost. We, as a nation, must have a functional rail system for both interstate commerce and for military logistics. I just wish Congress would stop doing **** like letting CSX and NS (two companies in the midwest which have been running in the red for 20 y ears) buy out Conrail, the only midwestern railroad which actually was making money.




Well, I am an American making slightly less than 30,000, and I say let them keep the money they've earned, minus the same percentage I'm paying in taxes (whatever that would wind up being, either 10%, 12% or 15%)

Well, I am an American making a little bit more than you (slightly less than 40), who, hopefully, will be making much more than that in about 5 years (the family finally broke me down, I told them 2 years of doing my current job, which I love doing, and then I'll go to law school) and I say the wealthy have a responsibility to contribution more to the wellbeing of society, especially when 20% of America controls 84% of her wealth.

The home mortgage deduction is a bread and butter deduction for middle class homeowners. Remove it, and many of them won't be able to <i>afford</i> their homes. That's bad, as home ownership is very good for society.

Now, if you want to phase it out for the ultra-rich buying $30 million San Francisco mansions, or for loans made for other purposes using home equity, I'd agree.

I'll concede that the matter would have to be looked into, as would just about any proposistion regarding our tax code, by people far more conversant with economics and the effect of the tax code on the economy than anyone on this board =P

Agree. It probably wouldn't stop me from owning a home if it was taken away. But it might make neighborhoods I could afford to live in a lot less nice to live in, if it discouraged people from buying homes. Renters never take good care of their properties.

It is the concept that what is just is not always right, proper, or fair.

That is the creed of lawyers, and has nothing to do with Justice.

Only a lawyer could argue that in order for something to be just, that it has to be unjust.


We should make up a new word for this kind of Bizzaro World lawyerese gobbledygook. How about JESTice? Because you guys look like clowns when you try to sell that ****.

Agree. It probably wouldn't stop me from owning a home if it was taken away. But it might make neighborhoods I could afford to live in a lot less nice to live in, if it discouraged people from buying homes.

Well, I know that I never would buy, I don't really know about you. It would be stupid to own. Being tied down, chained, and enslaved to a 30 mortgage.

But that is one of the reasons why it is social engineered the way it is. It ties people down with obligation. Make them more stable, predictable, and compliant.

A renter society would be a mobile, erratic, even arguably chaotic. And I would love it.

Renters never take good care of their properties.
Because they don't have any property.

Some people would still buy, and they would definitely buy rental property.

What is nice to live, is only relative anyway. The nicer your place, is only a recognition of how much of the riff raff you can keep out. Segregation, is all it is. Economic segregation to keep the low lifes out.

That is the creed of lawyers, and has nothing to do with Justice.

Only a lawyer could argue that in order for something to be just, that it has to be unjust.

Just and Equal and Fair are three seperate concepts.

Justice is equal under the law, dictated by the law, and impersonal. Equality is well...equal. Justice doesn't not always conform to equality outside of the our requirement that all people are dealt with equally under the law. Laws in and of themselves are not equal (as evidenced by the inequality in how the parties are treated in a criminal sexual assault or rape case). Fairness is not necessarily equal, nor necessarily Just. While Justice may demand that the man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving children be sentenced to x number of days in the county lockup...fairness (which is what a Court of Equity deals with, rather than just the Law) would dictate that the law is overly harsh in this situation and that equity demands the law be countered with mercy in this instance.


We should make up a new word for this kind of Bizzaro World lawyerese gobbledygook. How about JESTice? Because you guys look like clowns when you try to sell that ****.


No, we don't look like clowns. People like yourself look provincial, ignorant, and intellectually stunted. These are concepts championed by some of the greated minds of our times. Great intellectuals like Brandeis, Cardozo, and Marshall. Concepts which have evolved in our legal system over centuries of common law in Britain and early America. Concepts brought down through the ages from Hebraic law through Classical Greek and the Rennaissence.

They are ideas which champion the weak, the downtrodden, the poor...concepts which allow for a more balanced and merciful outlook of law, which allows for a Judge to act as a arbitrator of what is right versus what is simply the law.

You bring up an example from a contrived plot device of a dead French writer...

Justice is not the Law.
Justice is not dictated by the Law.
Law is only the most shallowest of attempts to bring Justice into the real world.
Justice and Law are more further apart from each other than me and your dead French novelist.

Your rationalization of more Justice really means less Justice only pushed them further from each other. And you call me the rube?

I suppose if my bread, which was stolen from a man trying to feed his children, were buttered on that side, I might believe that cr@p too.