The Income Tax

spunkles182 said:
I honestly cant believe that anyone could believe that video.
Click to expand...



"...in a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"

-George Orwell

The most disturbing thing is when Aaron Russo asked the former
IRS commissioner if the IRS is above the Supreme court's 1916 decision on income tax and he says "it doesn't apply to the IRS"

If you can't believe that the government would lie to you in order to get 900 billion dollars and that most of the incredulous people in the film are either funded directly by the income tax or benefit from it in some way would lie too, then you are a very trusting soul !

The facts in the film can be researched by anyone. The "We the People" organization is offering $50,000 to anyone who can show them the law that says you must pay income tax!
 
The facts in the film can be researched by anyone. The "We the People" organization is offering $50,000 to anyone who can show them the law that says you must pay income tax!
Click to expand...

16th Amendment says it clearly...I want my 50k as well as several Federal laws that will put you in prison for not doing so.

This reminds me of an old joke bet: I bet I can smoke this cigarette until it says marlboro. Then the guy smokes it down to the print on the paper near the butt.

Basically they are making a bet by wording it to a way you can't win but in the long run it doesn't matter what any of them say because it's a crime not to pay. Just ask Al Capone.
 
anabolicrhino said:
"...in a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"

-George Orwell

The most disturbing thing is when Aaron Russo asked the former
IRS commissioner if the IRS is above the Supreme court's 1916 decision on income tax and he says "it doesn't apply to the IRS"

If you can't believe that the government would lie to you in order to get 900 billion dollars and that most of the incredulous people in the film are either funded directly by the income tax or benefit from it in some way would lie too, then you are a very trusting soul !

The facts in the film can be researched by anyone. The "We the People" organization is offering $50,000 to anyone who can show them the law that says you must pay income tax!
Click to expand...



I only got 5 minutes into it and saw that it was worthless. i got to where he said the bankers were to profit over the enacting of the Federal Reserve. which makes no sense. the Fed Reserve is not for profit. any profits goes back to the government.
And anyone who says that the government is better suited for controlling the money supply isnt worth listening to.
 
Jayhawkk said:
16th Amendment says it clearly...I want my 50k as well as several Federal laws that will put you in prison for not doing so.

This reminds me of an old joke bet: I bet I can smoke this cigarette until it says marlboro. Then the guy smokes it down to the print on the paper near the butt.

Basically they are making a bet by wording it to a way you can't win but in the long run it doesn't matter what any of them say because it's a crime not to pay. Just ask Al Capone.
Click to expand...

16th admendment...
dang it.. too late for my $50,000.
 
Yeah, um constitutional or not you goota pay, man. Fair or not you gotta pay up. This whole earth is full of corruption and unfairness and this country ain't no different. So pay up or pay the consequences, cus the guys in charge wont get rid of taxes anytime in the next forever.
 
spunkles182 said:
I only got 5 minutes into it and saw that it was worthless. i got to where he said the bankers were to profit over the enacting of the Federal Reserve. which makes no sense. the Fed Reserve is not for profit. any profits goes back to the government.
And anyone who says that the government is better suited for controlling the money supply isnt worth listening to.
Click to expand...

Short attention spans are good for governments!

Go back to sleep all is well, all is well ...goodnight, sweet dreams !
 
Jayhawkk said:
16th Amendment says it clearly...I want my 50k as well as several Federal laws that will put you in prison for not doing so.

This reminds me of an old joke bet: I bet I can smoke this cigarette until it says marlboro. Then the guy smokes it down to the print on the paper near the butt.

Basically they are making a bet by wording it to a way you can't win but in the long run it doesn't matter what any of them say because it's a crime not to pay. Just ask Al Capone.
Click to expand...

Exactly, there is no law but you still have to pay or else they
put you in jail!

You can call it what ever you want just don't call it freedom!
 
ok, I see you are still awake, good then there is still some hope!


spunkles182 said:
I only got 5 minutes into it and saw that it was worthless. i got to where he said the bankers were to profit over the enacting of the Federal Reserve. which makes no sense.

Are you sure it makes no sense that a banker is not interested in profit?

the Fed Reserve is not for profit. any profits goes back to the government.

Actually, the direct opposite is true the Federal Reserve derives its profits from the government(tax payers)

The Federal Reserve is not a federal agency. it is a private organization.

There is no reserve of money or gold.

They simple create debt then lend that debt to the US Treasury so they can print money and then the Treasury(taxpayers) has to pay back the debt with interest, this is the main cause of inflation.


And anyone who says that the government is better suited for controlling the money supply isnt worth listening to.

You are entitled to your opinion but the power to print money is a power specifically granted to congress by the US constitution.

When the congress prints money there is no interest due on its creation. There would be no "built in" inflation...and the world would be a better place!
Click to expand...
 
anabolicrhino said:
ok, I see you are still awake, good then there is still some hope!
Click to expand...

Well then, i should really go back to my school, turn in my degree, tell them everything that taught me was wrong and get my money back. :icon_lol:

Are you sure it makes no sense that a banker is not interested in profit? Actually, the direct opposite is true the Federal Reserve derives its profits from the government(tax payers)

After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury.

Invalid Link Removed

They simple create debt then lend that debt to the US Treasury so they can print money and then the Treasury(taxpayers) has to pay back the debt with interest, this is the main cause of inflation.

Inflation is caused by the volume of the money supply. Increase the money supply = inflation. decrease the money supply = deflation. nation's money supply could be lowered by selling government securities, raising the amount of money that banks need to set aside for reserve requirements, raise interest rates, Importing more goods... there are probably others that i cant think of at the moment but all would help to lower, or keep low, the inflation rate. To increase the money supply, and inflation, buying back gov securities, lowering the reserve amonunt, lowering interest rate, exporting more goods,... etc etc blah blah blah...

ou are entitled to your opinion but the power to print money is a power specifically granted to congress by the US constitution.
When the congress prints money there is no interest due on its creation. There would be no "built in" inflation...and the world would be a better place!


sorry if i sound like a ****, but this couldnt be more wrong. again inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply. governments would and have printed off money to pay for their debts. i will have to look it up when i get home and then i could tell you the stories in countires which this has happened.
 
spunkles182 said:
Well then, i should really go back to my school, turn in my degree, tell them everything that taught me was wrong and get my money back. :icon_lol:

Are you sure it makes no sense that a banker is not interested in profit? Actually, the direct opposite is true the Federal Reserve derives its profits from the government(tax payers)

After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury.

Invalid Link Removed

They simple create debt then lend that debt to the US Treasury so they can print money and then the Treasury(taxpayers) has to pay back the debt with interest, this is the main cause of inflation.

Inflation is caused by the volume of the money supply. Increase the money supply = inflation. decrease the money supply = deflation. nation's money supply could be lowered by selling government securities, raising the amount of money that banks need to set aside for reserve requirements, raise interest rates, Importing more goods... there are probably others that i cant think of at the moment but all would help to lower, or keep low, the inflation rate. To increase the money supply, and inflation, buying back gov securities, lowering the reserve amonunt, lowering interest rate, exporting more goods,... etc etc blah blah blah...

ou are entitled to your opinion but the power to print money is a power specifically granted to congress by the US constitution.
When the congress prints money there is no interest due on its creation. There would be no "built in" inflation...and the world would be a better place!


sorry if i sound like a ****, but this couldnt be more wrong. again inflation is caused by an increase in the money supply. governments would and have printed off money to pay for their debts. i will have to look it up when i get home and then i could tell you the stories in countires which this has happened.
Click to expand...

Please, just for a moment,you don't have to believe that there is anyone trying to take advantage of you.

..but if you would consider that the possibility exists? then would you also consider that they would not print the truth on their own website ?!!!

You are absolutely correct about the definition of inflation.

if you can take it to the next step for a moment, the Federal Reserve lends the treasury credit to print money, that credit is paid back with interest, that interest is the "extra money" that greatly increases the inflation of our money supply.

Thanks for you time!
 
anabolicrhino said:
Please, just for a moment,you don't have to believe that there is anyone trying to take advantage of you.

..but if you would consider that the possibility exists? then would you also consider that they would not print the truth on their own website ?!!!

You are absolutely correct about the definition of inflation.

if you can take it to the next step for a moment, the Federal Reserve lends the treasury credit to print money, that credit is paid back with interest, that interest is the "extra money" that greatly increases the inflation of our money supply.

Thanks for you time!
Click to expand...



true (although i think you meant governement securities) but regardless i agree. but that is just one variable in the inflation equation. I mean even with your example has gone down so just the interst paid on securites isnt a good indicator of inflation. i mean even our imports and exports have an effect on inflation. and inflation is not always a bad thing. In the short run higher inflation can cuase lower unemployment, and vice versa (phillips curve)
 
anabolicrhino said:
Please, just for a moment,you don't have to believe that there is anyone trying to take advantage of you.

..but if you would consider that the possibility exists?
Click to expand...

Reverse it. Think about it.
 
All of these arguments are good, on both sides, but I am just CURIOUS, as is Rhino I'm sure, as to why the IRS can actually LOSE a case when trying to "legally" claim its own rightful taxes. How does that happen? You can blame the judicial system I guess, but this has happened more than once or twice.

I think some of you reject the idea because you don't think it is patriotic and you don't like people who talk about things that seem that way to you. OR, you like to call out those who seem ridiculous for throwing out ideas. OR you genuinely have a good point.

I appreciate everyone commenting on my topic, even if you heavily, even disgustedly disagree with me. :thumbsup:
 
Bobo said:
Don't care. Still doesnt change a thing.
Click to expand...

I dunno, depends on if more people are able to use this. However all it will do is cause the PRA to be changed. Stealing your hard earned dollar is way more important to the government.
 
Tiberius said:
I dunno, depends on if more people are able to use this. However all it will do is cause the PRA to be changed. Stealing your hard earned dollar is way more important to the government.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they "steal" it. :rolleyes:
 
Tiberius said:
I dunno, depends on if more people are able to use this. However all it will do is cause the PRA to be changed. Stealing your hard earned dollar is way more important to the government.
Click to expand...


They don't steal it, they missplace it. :thumbsup:

Or perhaps they fill in a blank for you, as in War on _____ (terror, drugs or whatever we'll believe).
 
anabolicrhino said:
Think about this. Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Ok, im not an expert on this, i really have no idea im just going by what the article says, it states "Lawrence's sole defense was he was not required to file an IRS Form 1040 because it displays an invalid OMB control number." then it states " Any information collection form, such as IRS Form 1040, which lacks bona fide statutory authority or which conflicts with the Constitution, cannot be issued an OMB control number."

so if statement 2 was correct then there would be no control number but statement one contridicts this, it says there was a control number but it was invalid.

its flawed logic.
 
bigSMokey said:
They don't steal it, they missplace it. :thumbsup:

Or perhaps they fill in a blank for you, as in War on _____ (terror, drugs or whatever we'll believe).
Click to expand...

You forgot War on traffic, health care, social security, etc..thats been tapping the pocket before any war and will do so after the fact.
 
spunkles182 said:
Ok, im not an expert on this, i really have no idea im just going by what the article says, it states "Lawrence's sole defense was he was not required to file an IRS Form 1040 because it displays an invalid OMB control number." then it states " Any information collection form, such as IRS Form 1040, which lacks bona fide statutory authority or which conflicts with the Constitution, cannot be issued an OMB control number."

so if statement 2 was correct then there would be no control number but statement one contridicts this, it says there was a control number but it was invalid.

its flawed logic.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly the point!!!

the OMB number displayed on the 1040 form is fraudulent!

If the IRS continued with their case they would have to enter the 1040 form as evidence. Once entered as evidence the 1040 form would be open to examination. When the defense sited the Paper Work Reduction Act, they forced the prosecution to show that the form in question was a valid US government document.

All valid US documents have to display a valid OMB number.

The 1040 form displays an OMB number, but it is invalidated by the premise that the form is in conflict with the US Constitution.

The IRS was aware that they could not establish the validity of the 1040 document.

The IRS was also aware that any cross examination would bring their invalid 1040 form unwanted exposure to the public.

so, they wisely dropped the case !

Better to lose one then to have the whole fraud exposed!
 
anabolicrhino said:
Yes, that is exactly the point!!!

the OMB number displayed on the 1040 form is fraudulent!

If the IRS continued with their case they would have to enter the 1040 form as evidence. Once entered as evidence the 1040 form would be open to examination. When the defense sited the Paper Work Reduction Act, they forced the prosecution to show that the form in question was a valid US government document.

All valid US documents have to display a valid OMB number.

The 1040 form displays an OMB number, but it is invalidated by the premise that the form is in conflict with the US Constitution.

The IRS was aware that they could not establish the validity of the 1040 document.

The IRS was also aware that any cross examination would bring their invalid 1040 form unwanted exposure to the public.

so, they wisely dropped the case !

Better to lose one then to have the whole fraud exposed!
Click to expand...


ahh well i finally decided to read the whole thing. ha ha... and no the number is not valid because its unconstitutional. It states in the document "The IRS and OMB have continually violated PRA Section 3507(g) and 5 CFR Section 1320.8(b)(1). Those sections mandate that OMB control numbers must expire after three years, even if the IRS made no changes to its 1040 form during that time. Form 1040 has had the same OMB control number for 24 years."

I have no idea what an OMB control number is, i dont care what an OMB number really is and the whole premise is that this OMB control number violates an act designed to decrease paper work. i dont think it really matters.
 
spunkles182 said:
ahh well i finally decided to read the whole thing. ha ha... and no the number is not valid because its unconstitutional. It states in the document "The IRS and OMB have continually violated PRA Section 3507(g) and 5 CFR Section 1320.8(b)(1). Those sections mandate that OMB control numbers must expire after three years, even if the IRS made no changes to its 1040 form during that time. Form 1040 has had the same OMB control number for 24 years."

I have no idea what an OMB control number is, i dont care what an OMB number really is and the whole premise is that this OMB control number violates an act designed to decrease paper work. i dont think it really matters.
Click to expand...

This case is actually a pretty big event.

PRA act was created to save court time. It eliminates unconstitutional information forms at the experiential evidence level. So, if the court knows they cannot produce a constitutional document it can be immediately dismissed.

These cases used to have to go at least to the appeals level before dismissal. It saves at least one costly step.

The IRS and the Federal Reserve answer to no "over site" committee. So they voluntarily agreed to expedite their collection process. They must of somehow missed the depth of this law on their operation. I imagine they will try to have it changed.
 
anabolicrhino said:
This case is actually a pretty big event.

PRA act was created to save court time. It eliminates unconstitutional information forms at the experiential evidence level. So, if the court knows they cannot produce a constitutional document it can be immediately dismissed.

These cases used to have to go at least to the appeals level before dismissal. It saves at least one costly step.

The IRS and the Federal Reserve answer to no "over site" committee. So they voluntarily agreed to expedite their collection process. They must of somehow missed the depth of this law on their operation. I imagine they will try to have it changed.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and then I'll bet they'll try to violate grandfathering and retroactively bust people.


And Bobo, I guess your right it isn't theft, it's extortion. "Give us your money or we'll throw you in jail." Unfotunately though because they define the laws they get to conveniently declare it legal. So yeah, it's legal for them to extort money from the citizens but that doesn't make it right. The Revolution started because of taxes.
 
Tiberius said:
Exactly, and then I'll bet they'll try to violate grandfathering and retroactively bust people.


And Bobo, I guess your right it isn't theft, it's extortion. "Give us your money or we'll throw you in jail." Unfotunately though because they define the laws they get to conveniently declare it legal. So yeah, it's legal for them to extort money from the citizens but that doesn't make it right. The Revolution started because of taxes.
Click to expand...

well then should we just let the people who dont want to pay taxes not have to pay them? i mean if its illegal or unconstitional to make them pay taxes they shouldnt have to. And since they are not choosing to pay they shouldnt receive the beneifts that come with taxes. that means no property rights, no police, fire, schools, food... etc etc... they dont steal or extort from me. i am happy to pay my fair share beacuse i benefit more by what it provides then in actually what i pay
 
spunkles182 said:
well then should we just let the people who dont want to pay taxes not have to pay them? i mean if its illegal or unconstitional to make them pay taxes they shouldnt have to. And since they are not choosing to pay they shouldnt receive the beneifts that come with taxes. that means no property rights, no police, fire, schools, food... etc etc... they dont steal or extort from me. i am happy to pay my fair share beacuse i benefit more by what it provides then in actually what i pay
Click to expand...


Yeah I don't benefit much from the fed. You could say they protect me but their foreign policy has increased danger to the US from terrorist organizations as per the CIA's own reports. They are doing a heck of a job decreasing the value of the dollar too. The fed should really only be there to do a few very small things. First and foremost would be defense. But that means defense, not attack. Second would be managing interstate laws. Last would be managing foreign trade relations. That's it. Leave the rest to the individual states; they do a better job, have less red tape, and are better able to match the desires of their citizens and residents.


I benefit mostly from the state and my local municipality. So I'm perfectly happy to pay my flat state income tax. I'm perfectly happy to pay my sales tax. I'm a little miffed at paying property tax but I don't really see how else the town can make enough money to run itself. So I'm ok there; the property taxes aren't too high and the town I live in doesn't overspend.

Yeah I do see it as extortion that the fed simply takes money from me and then make my life worse with that money.
 
Tiberius said:
Exactly, and then I'll bet they'll try to violate grandfathering and retroactively bust people.


And Bobo, I guess your right it isn't theft, it's extortion. "Give us your money or we'll throw you in jail." Unfotunately though because they define the laws they get to conveniently declare it legal. So yeah, it's legal for them to extort money from the citizens but that doesn't make it right. The Revolution started because of taxes.
Click to expand...

I would hate to see you in Europe.
 
Bobo said:
I would hate to see you in Europe.
Click to expand...

I think perhaps you mean "I would hate to see you if you owned a European company". I've gone to various in places in Europe plenty of times. Doesn't bother me at all.


Btw, why would you even say that since from your previous posts, you hate European politics even more than I do?
 
Tiberius said:
Yeah I don't benefit much from the fed. You could say they protect me but their foreign policy has increased danger to the US from terrorist organizations as per the CIA's own reports. They are doing a heck of a job decreasing the value of the dollar too. The fed should really only be there to do a few very small things. First and foremost would be defense. But that means defense, not attack. Second would be managing interstate laws. Last would be managing foreign trade relations. That's it. Leave the rest to the individual states; they do a better job, have less red tape, and are better able to match the desires of their citizens and residents.


I benefit mostly from the state and my local municipality. So I'm perfectly happy to pay my flat state income tax. I'm perfectly happy to pay my sales tax. I'm a little miffed at paying property tax but I don't really see how else the town can make enough money to run itself. So I'm ok there; the property taxes aren't too high and the town I live in doesn't overspend.

Yeah I do see it as extortion that the fed simply takes money from me and then make my life worse with that money.
Click to expand...


I agree. the government should only be involved with things that beneift society as a whole and that the private sector will not undertake, like roads for example. idont mind paying for that. its the entitlements and redistribution of wealth that i dont like. social security, medicare, medicaid, affirmative action, farm subsities...etc. its such a waste.
 
Some of it has honest beginnings and turn to **** though. If we hired minorities/females when it wasn't required to do so then we wouldn't be where we are today...as one example.
 
Jayhawkk said:
Some of it has honest beginnings and turn to **** though. If we hired minorities/females when it wasn't required to do so then we wouldn't be where we are today...as one example.
Click to expand...

well for example, in minnesota if you are a teacher and are hired in the st paul school distirict and are native american you can get 10% of your student loans paid off by the government for every year you teach. doesnt matter if youre a good teacher or bad teacher. you get it just becuase. why should that person get paid more just becuase of the color of their skin. i dunt get it
 
The theory is their disadvantage of coming up with inferior educations, housing etc. is offset by giving them a headstart into higher education.
 
Jayhawkk said:
The theory is their disadvantage of coming up with inferior educations, housing etc. is offset by giving them a headstart into higher education.
Click to expand...

well then shouldnt the subsidy be based on those factors (inferior education, housing etc) and not on the color of ones skin? Just as there are disadvantaged people in a race class there are also advantaged people. it seems to me like its governement subsidized racism.
 
Tiberius said:
I think perhaps you mean "I would hate to see you if you owned a European company". I've gone to various in places in Europe plenty of times. Doesn't bother me at all.


Btw, why would you even say that since from your previous posts, you hate European politics even more than I do?
Click to expand...


Because if you complain about the tax burden and pork here, I couldn't imagine you living in Europe with the EU.
 
spunkles182 said:
well for example, in minnesota if you are a teacher and are hired in the st paul school distirict and are native american you can get 10% of your student loans paid off by the government for every year you teach. doesnt matter if youre a good teacher or bad teacher. you get it just becuase. why should that person get paid more just becuase of the color of their skin. i dunt get it
Click to expand...

That is based upon the fact that the native Americans had their property rights usurped by the European invaders. The US government has to do things like loans and casino rights to establish that, the laws of our land are actually for everyone.

If the Government doesn't initiate compensation programs then it looks like we said "ok, we took your land because we could so what?..., oh and everyone is equal and your property rights are protected by the constitution....from now on"

It makes the US look like we tried to do something to justify our existence to the Native Americans!
 
anabolicrhino said:
That is based upon the fact that the native Americans had their property rights usurped by the European invaders.
Click to expand...

Native Americans didn't believe in property rights or property ownership. Little tidbit of the day :D
 
anabolicrhino said:
That is based upon the fact that the native Americans had their property rights usurped by the European invaders. The US government has to do things like loans and casino rights to establish that, the laws of our land are actually for everyone.

If the Government doesn't initiate compensation programs then it looks like we said "ok, we took your land because we could so what?..., oh and everyone is equal and your property rights are protected by the constitution....from now on"

It makes the US look like we tried to do something to justify our existence to the Native Americans!
Click to expand...


I think most of us know why but my question is, do you agree with it?
 
I love owning stuff!

...but I am not gonna bust my balls or anything!

The fact that the Native Americans had no concept of ownership must have made the whole "white man taking that which cannot be taken" thing mind blowing.
 
anabolicrhino said:
The fact that the Native Americans had no concept of ownership must have made the whole "white man taking that which cannot be taken" thing mind blowing.
Click to expand...

Actually it was Europeans enforcing property lines that caused the most conflcit initially. Land was not to be owned and belonged to nobody according to Native Americans. Everyone was to benefit from its resources and they couldn't understand why they would be attacked when they "trespassed" on land Europeans "owned". They thought everyone viewed it the same....obvisouly not.

Then manifest destiny took over and it was all downhill for them.
 
anabolicrhino said:
That is based upon the fact that the native Americans had their property rights usurped by the European invaders. The US government has to do things like loans and casino rights to establish that, the laws of our land are actually for everyone.

If the Government doesn't initiate compensation programs then it looks like we said "ok, we took your land because we could so what?..., oh and everyone is equal and your property rights are protected by the constitution....from now on"

It makes the US look like we tried to do something to justify our existence to the Native Americans!
Click to expand...

that wasnt my point at all. there are things that is benefitial to all of us for the government to partake in: an army, police force, a court system, infrastructure, etc... in otherwords, the things that the private sector would not undertake. we should all want to pay these taxes becuase the benefits to us outweigh what we would pay for them.

I quote adam smith, ""The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which, though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, and which it therefore cannot be expected that any individual or small number of individuals should erect or maintain."

It is when the government starts getting into things that the private sector would supply that there is a problem. since increased government spending must be ofset with an equal decrease in public saving ( which leads to decrease in public investment) there is less econmic growth. governments are never as efficent at allocating capital as the private markets are. Another example would be great britian during the late 70s and early 80s. during this time they had little to no economic growth because the government was invovled with everything. It wasnt untill they deregulated industries (such as the oil industry (BP), the telephone (BT), and cut back on the welfare state) did they begin to expericnce economic growth.

We should only be paying taxes for those things that we all benefit on and the government shouldnt be messin' in with the private sector. socialism is a nice theory, but it dont work.
 
spunkles182 said:
that wasnt my point at all. there are things that is benefitial to all of us for the government to partake in: an army, police force, a court system, infrastructure, etc... in otherwords, the things that the private sector would not undertake. we should all want to pay these taxes becuase the benefits to us outweigh what we would pay for them.

I quote adam smith, ""The third and last duty of the sovereign or commonwealth is that of erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which, though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, and which it therefore cannot be expected that any individual or small number of individuals should erect or maintain."

It is when the government starts getting into things that the private sector would supply that there is a problem. since increased government spending must be ofset with an equal decrease in public saving ( which leads to decrease in public investment) there is less econmic growth. governments are never as efficent at allocating capital as the private markets are. Another example would be great britian during the late 70s and early 80s. during this time they had little to no economic growth because the government was invovled with everything. It wasnt untill they deregulated industries (such as the oil industry (BP), the telephone (BT), and cut back on the welfare state) did they begin to expericnce economic growth.

We should only be paying taxes for those things that we all benefit on and the government shouldnt be messin' in with the private sector. socialism is a nice theory, but it dont work.
Click to expand...


Halleluyah! AMEN BROTHER!

Except we could go a step further. The WAY we pay our taxes needs changing. We shouldn't be paying based on our incomes. Taxes should be on the end product not the labor. I'd much prefer a federal sales tax than a federal income tax. And heck if they want to stimulate growth in an industry they can just decrease the sales tax on those products. If they want to discourage an industry increase the tax. It's a much better way than taxing people's incomes.

Income tax results in stuff like, there was a guy who one a programming contest. His dream, like many people, was to one day go into space. Well he THOUGHT his dream came true when he won that contest because the prize was a trip with that space tourism company. Oh but wait, the INCOME TAX on the prize was more than his ANNUAL SALARY!! Sorry, no dream for you.

The way income tax works, winning a free <insert prize here> is really just getting a coupon for 70% off the MSRP because you have to pay income tax on it. Whenever I help people out with their homes, I have to pull all kinds of wrangling so I don't inadvertantly screw them over. Even then I have to wind up paying them extra cash to cover the "income" of what I did for their home. In a lot of states I can't do the whole selling their house back to them for $1 so I wind up also having to give them money to cover the income tax hit they would receive as a result of me paying their mortgage.
 
Tiberius said:
Halleluyah! AMEN BROTHER!

Except we could go a step further. The WAY we pay our taxes needs changing. We shouldn't be paying based on our incomes. Taxes should be on the end product not the labor. I'd much prefer a federal sales tax than a federal income tax. And heck if they want to stimulate growth in an industry they can just decrease the sales tax on those products. If they want to discourage an industry increase the tax. It's a much better way than taxing people's incomes.
Click to expand...

I agree but the sales tax would be hard to inforce; alot of people would deal in an underground economy then. our current system encourages unproductivity and discourages the profit motive of increased productivity. like for example if you earn between 40,000 and 45,000 (i forget the exact number) and you have 2 kids you dont pay income tax. and if you make too much money and fall under the AMT then those child credits dont even count towards you. I also had a friend that went to a state college. the state paid part of the college cost, he got scholorships to pay for the rest. then he lived off the interest free/low interest governement loans and hardly worked (i think he grossed like (6k).. now not only did he not have to pay any taxes, he got all of his witholdings back and the government paid him $500 thanks to the earned income tax credit... should the system really reward you for not working?
 
Invalid Link Removed
Grass Roots site based on Neil Boortz plan fair tax act.
He also has a book out with alot of good info.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top