IRS gives wrong information about taxes

[shanek]

No, this isn't some wacko tax protestor stuff. It's the result of a study done by the US Department of the Treasury. After posing as taxpayers calling the IRS for advice, they found that the IRS gave correct and complete answers only 45% of the time. 12% of the time the answers were correct but incomplete, which could lead the person to making errors on their tax returns. And 43% of the time the answers were flat out wrong.

How are we supposed to comply with the laws when the government can't even adequately explain to us what they are?

Sources:

http://www.accountingweb.com/item/98063
http://news-register.net/edit/story/095202003_edt001.asp
http://www.thewbalchannel.com/money/2456270/detail.html
http://www.detnews.com/2003/politics/0309/05/a01-262390.htm

[WildCat]

I can't imagine why the tax code isn't declared unconstitutionally vague. This is why there should be a flat tax, no deductions, exemptions, etc.

The whole tax code is a shell game used to appease special interests and micro-manage behavior. This is why politicians like it complicated.

[mjv]

Oh, please.

There is a reason the tax code is 9000+ pages! Wealthy people and corporations spend millions of dollars every year finding inventive ways to evade paying taxes.

Anyone recall Enron? in four of their last five years in business, the average single mom working as a waitress or at walmart paid more in taxes than they did (four years they paid zero, in case you were in a coma)!

There is one, and only one, reason that wealthy fat cat PACs are pushing the flat tax, to wipe the slate clean and restore all the loopholes that have been removed by the complexities of the tax code.

Besides, If IRS wants to have more competent people answering the questions, they will have to hire them. I imagine its $10 bucks an hour for seasonal work...you get what you pay for.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by mjv
Oh, please.

There is a reason the tax code is 9000+ pages! Wealthy people and corporations spend millions of dollars every year finding inventive ways to evade paying taxes.

Anyone recall Enron? in four of their last five years in business, the average single mom working as a waitress or at walmart paid more in taxes than they did (four years they paid zero, in case you were in a coma)!

There is one, and only one, reason that wealthy fat cat PACs are pushing the flat tax, to wipe the slate clean and restore all the loopholes that have been removed by the complexities of the tax code.



Wow, shocking revelations. And the evidence is?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by mjv
Oh, please.

There is a reason the tax code is 9000+ pages! Wealthy people and corporations spend millions of dollars every year finding inventive ways to evade paying taxes.

Anyone recall Enron? in four of their last five years in business, the average single mom working as a waitress or at walmart paid more in taxes than they did (four years they paid zero, in case you were in a coma)!

There is one, and only one, reason that wealthy fat cat PACs are pushing the flat tax, to wipe the slate clean and restore all the loopholes that have been removed by the complexities of the tax code.

Besides, If IRS wants to have more competent people answering the questions, they will have to hire them. I imagine its $10 bucks an hour for seasonal work...you get what you pay for.
No, the 9000 pages are there to create the loopholes in the first place! This is exactly how and Enron got away from paying taxes - by exploiting the myriad loopholes carefully hidden away in those 9000 pages. Congress puts them there at the behest of interest groups who lobby furiously for the privelege.

A simple flat tax has no loopholes, everyone can understand it and the only people who wouldn't like it are the tax accountants who would have to find employment elsewhere.

[mjv]

Originally posted by corplinx


And the evidence is?


Right under your nose. It helps to read newspapers and magazines once in a while.

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek
No, this isn't some wacko tax protestor stuff. It's the result of a study done by the US Department of the Treasury. After posing as taxpayers calling the IRS for advice, they found that the IRS gave correct and complete answers only 45% of the time. 12% of the time the answers were correct but incomplete, which could lead the person to making errors on their tax returns. And 43% of the time the answers were flat out wrong.

How are we supposed to comply with the laws when the government can't even adequately explain to us what they are?



Good question. But is this really only a governmental problem? I'd wonder what the statistics are for large companies. Just the other day, while shipping my computer back to Dell, I had to call Airborne Express three times, and each time got a different response to the same question. :)

Mike

[mjv]

Originally posted by WildCat

No, the 9000 pages are there to create the loopholes in the first place! This is exactly how and Enron got away from paying taxes - by exploiting the myriad loopholes carefully hidden away in those 9000 pages. Congress puts them there at the behest of interest groups who lobby furiously for the privelege.

A simple flat tax has no loopholes, everyone can understand it and the only people who wouldn't like it are the tax accountants who would have to find employment elsewhere.


No, that's not the way it works. Your are correct that the loopholes are inserted by lobbyists who are bought and paid for by the wealthy, but the loopholes are inserted into language that is attempting to strengthen or clarify the tax code.

My dad always said when someone supports something strongly, you have to always check where the money is going. The wealthy want a flat tax so that they no longer have to spend millions on lobbyists and accountants to avoid paying taxes. If a flat tax were imposed it would be very simple for them to just hide their income (as was done in the past and stopped by changes to the tax code) by having their income sent oversees, transferred to their children, or hidden in various schemes and enterprises. The end result is the multimillionaire in a multimillion dollar home, numerous luxury cars, a jet, and other perks who mysteriously has no "income" that is subject to the flat tax.

So what happens when the wealthy have free reign to avoid paying taxes? Well, the flat tax will either have to be increased, which will increase the burden on the middle class (so we gain nothing and possibly lose in the bargain) or they will have to amend the flat tax code to strengthen it and ensure collection (and the wealthy will have loopholes inserted, so the code must be strengthened, which will include loopholes, etc.).


I don't like the current tax code more than anyone else, but a flat tax is a bad, bad, idea.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by mjv



No, that's not the way it works. Your are correct that the loopholes are inserted by lobbyists who are bought and paid for by the wealthy, but the loopholes are inserted into language that is attempting to strengthen or clarify the tax code.

My dad always said when someone supports something strongly, you have to always check where the money is going. The wealthy want a flat tax so that they no longer have to spend millions on lobbyists and accountants to avoid paying taxes. If a flat tax were imposed it would be very simple for them to just hide their income (as was done in the past and stopped by changes to the tax code) by having their income sent oversees, transferred to their children, or hidden in various schemes and enterprises. The end result is the multimillionaire in a multimillion dollar home, numerous luxury cars, a jet, and other perks who mysteriously has no "income" that is subject to the flat tax.

So what happens when the wealthy have free reign to avoid paying taxes? Well, the flat tax will either have to be increased, which will increase the burden on the middle class (so we gain nothing and possibly lose in the bargain) or they will have to amend the flat tax code to strengthen it and ensure collection (and the wealthy will have loopholes inserted, so the code must be strengthened, which will include loopholes, etc.).


I don't like the current tax code more than anyone else, but a flat tax is a bad, bad, idea.
All those schemes and transfers are the result of a complicated tax code. Where's the loophole in a flat tax? If the tax code reads simply:"All income over $20,000 is subject to a 20% tax" there is no loophole! It doesn't change GAAP after all.

Please give examples of how income could be hidden in this example.

[Reager]

Originally posted by WildCat

All those schemes and transfers are the result of a complicated tax code. Where's the loophole in a flat tax? If the tax code reads simply:"All income over $20,000 is subject to a 20% tax" there is no loophole! It doesn't change GAAP after all.

Please give examples of how income could be hidden in this example.

Here's a simple one: What is included as 'income'?

Mike


Edited to change "in income" to "as income."

[mjv]

Originally posted by WildCat

All those schemes and transfers are the result of a complicated tax code. Where's the loophole in a flat tax? If the tax code reads simply:"All income over $20,000 is subject to a 20% tax" there is no loophole! It doesn't change GAAP after all.

Please give examples of how income could be hidden in this example.

Off the top of my head, I recall seeing a news program in the '80s about CEO types who would simply do the following (and I am obviously paraphrasing):

Live in a fully furnished house owned by their company (who also pay the bils), drive a car owned by the company, throw parties paid for by the company, eat food purchased and prepared by the company chef, etc.

Then, have the company pay you a salary of only $19,999.

Heck, If I didn't have to pay for my car, home, entertainment, travel, or food, I could get by on that.

There were many other schemes mentioned, but I can't remember them in detail.

[shanek]

Originally posted by mfeldman
Good question. But is this really only a governmental problem? I'd wonder what the statistics are for large companies. Just the other day, while shipping my computer back to Dell, I had to call Airborne Express three times, and each time got a different response to the same question. :)

At least in that case, you have the option of switching to Compaq or Gateway. Or not buying a computer at all. No such option exists with the Income Tax. You MUST pay it, and if you get it wrong you could go to jail. At the very least, you'll have to pay penalties.

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek


At least in that case, you have the option of switching to Compaq or Gateway. Or not buying a computer at all. No such option exists with the Income Tax. You MUST pay it, and if you get it wrong you could go to jail. At the very least, you'll have to pay penalties.

Well, frankly, duh. Only the government has the power to tax. :) But if the 'right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing' phenomena is characteristic of all large entities, then that's not really a valid reason why we shouldn't have an income tax.

Mike

Edited to add the bit about only government can tax.

[Tony]

Originally posted by mfeldman

Well, frankly, duh. :) But if the 'right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing' phenomena is characteristic of all large entities, then that's not really a valid reason why we shouldn't have an income tax.



Actually it is, its also the best argument against the death penalty. Innocent people could go to jail (or be put to death) because of a government error. I don’t accept that.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by mjv


Off the top of my head, I recall seeing a news program in the '80s about CEO types who would simply do the following (and I am obviously paraphrasing):

Live in a fully furnished house owned by their company (who also pay the bils), drive a car owned by the company, throw parties paid for by the company, eat food purchased and prepared by the company chef, etc.

Then, have the company pay you a salary of only $19,999.

Heck, If I didn't have to pay for my car, home, entertainment, travel, or food, I could get by on that.

There were many other schemes mentioned, but I can't remember them in detail.
Simple, benefits count as income. In this case, what would he have to pay to rent the house, car, etc.

I doubt any CEO would accept such a deal even now, because once he leaves the company he loses all of this!

[WildCat]

Originally posted by mfeldman


Here's a simple one: What is included as 'income'?

Mike


Edited to change "in income" to "as income."
Anything of value transferred to or used for your benefit as compensation for you employment.

It's really quite simple, only when you make 9000 pages redefining such simple terms does it become complex.

[Reager]

Originally posted by Tony

Actually it is, its also the best argument against the death penalty. Innocent people could go to jail (or be put to death) because of a government error. I don’t accept that.


Huh? Where do you get that leap in logic? The IRS can make mistakes (just like any other human institution) therefore the government should not have the power to collect an income tax? Please explain. There is ALWAYS the possibility of mistake, in any human endeavor. Using your rationale, the government should not exist, because no matter what it does it could always make a mistake.

Now, the mistake argument is more persuasive when talking about the death penalty because the dp is final. But in my opinion, principled arguments against taking human life are "better" reasons for opposing the death penalty than merely "we could make a mistake." Like I said above, if that's your rationale, why draw the line at the death penalty?

Mike

[Reager]

Originally posted by WildCat

Anything of value transferred to or used for your benefit as compensation for you employment.

It's really quite simple, only when you make 9000 pages redefining such simple terms does it become complex.

Perhaps, but all it took was one question from me and you're "quite simple" tax code just doubled in size. :)

Mike

[tedly]

How about capital gains, and investment income? Lottery winnings?

In Canada there has been one thorough government study of the tax system, done by a fat-cat tax lawyer. Interestingly enough Mr. Ted Carter was also an honest man.
The Carter commission came to the stunning conclusion that ' a buck is a buck' and that it all should be taxed at the same rate. As it is now the worst way to make money is to work for it.
The report was done in about 1964, and has been so thoroughly buried that you might find a copy in the Harvard library,

[shanek]

Originally posted by mfeldman
Well, frankly, duh. Only the government has the power to tax. :)

But the government doesn't have to collect taxes in such a tyrannical fashion.

[shanek]

How about just making the government the size the Constitution says it's supposed to be eliminating the need for an Income Tax in the first place?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek
How about just making the government the size the Constitution says it's supposed to be eliminating the need for an Income Tax in the first place?

Shanek, you don't even understand how banks work.

Don't presume you understand how the government works.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Shanek, you don't even understand how banks work.

Don't presume you understand how the government works.

Are you going to troll your filth in every single thread?

[jj]

Shanek, how does it feel to be without a single supporter, with everyone jeering at you? Not nice?

Well, if you start listening as much as you talk, start showing manners, stop accusing people who shred your points of being a "liar" and of "spreading filth", and start showing some genuine respect for those who have more experience and knowledge, you might find that you develop an ally or two.

Or isn't that what you want? Do you want to be a martyr to your religion? Do you think that money cares about you?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek


Are you going to troll your filth in every single thread?

Definately.

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek


But the government doesn't have to collect taxes in such a tyrannical fashion.

Shanek, you're always going on about how the government collects taxes "at the barrel of a gun." That seems a rather silly comment, as the threat of force is behind ANY governmental law or regulation. If someone breaks the law, they can be punished. If someone doesn't pay taxes, they can be punished. You may not agree that the government should have the power to levy an income tax, but it does, and threatening punishment for nonpayment is hardly "tyrannical."

Mike

[EvilYeti]

The funny thing about Libertarians is, they really have a problem with Gummint collecting taxes, but they don't have a problem with taking advantage of the things they pay for.

Shanek himself is a big fan of the Internet, yet I never hear rant about the Gummint funding the development of it.

Or roads, never hear them complaining about the roads...

[Earthborn]

Income: "Anything of value transferred to or used for your benefit as compensation for you employment."

The problem with this definition lies in the definition of 'used for your benefit'. Transferring money can simple be avoided by a company by keeping the money officially to itself, buying things for itself.

Suppose we live in this future and a large corporation decides to pay its CEO no more than minimum wage. After all, it reasons, he doesn't actually work any harder than a minimum wage worker does. The corporation also buys a mansion, as houses are a good investment. It fills the walls with expensive art, decorates it with expensive antiques. All these are good investments, and thus good business policy. A few race horses in the stables, a sports car in the garage, it all makes perfect sense businesswise.

The CEO is allowed to sleep over in it as long as he can't find a place for himself. Surely that's just a nice gesture to help someone out, and keeping it uninhabited isn't a good plan either. And while he's there you can't force him not to enjoy the wonderfull art. And you can ask him to take the sports car for a spin once in a while, not for his own pleasure of course, but to make sure the engine doesn't deteriorate. He usually eats on business dinners, which is just part of his job.

It would mean that he can live on minimum wage much more luxurious than any factory worker getting the same salary. They both pay the same amount of taxes, while the factory worker needs to pay it from the money he needs to feed his family.

So should we consider the CEO to be 'using all these things of value for his own benefit' ? If so, then I bet you don't mind also paying taxes for the pens, paperclips and computer you use to do your job. In fact you would need to make an extensive list of all the things you use on your job, and all the food you eat in the kantine in order to know how much 'income' you got and how much tax you need to pay. I don't think that makes filling out your tax forms any simpler.

The simpler you make a taxsystem, the easiest it will be to avoid it: just make sure you don't use anything that is being taxed. Jeff Goldblum voice: "The rich will find a way..."

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Earthborn

The simpler you make a taxsystem, the easiest it will be to avoid it: just make sure you don't use anything that is being taxed. Jeff Goldblum voice: "The rich will find a way..."

How about a 50% sales tax, no exceptions?

Oh wait, the rich people just won't buy anything, my bad. :D

I think the idea that the wealthy will just avoid any simple taxes is a bit silly. The CEO example, well I actually feel sorry for him. I would rather have my salary and the freedom to live my life the way I want it then be a slave like that.

In my sales tax example, I don't see how it could be avoided. Just take care to tax all imports as well, and seize the assets of the cheaters.

Maybe we should just put a million dollar tax on monacles, tophats and coattails. That would teach those fatcats!

[Earthborn]

The CEO example, well I actually feel sorry for him. I would rather have my salary and the freedom to live my life the way I want it then be a slave like that.Except he isn't a slave. He's practically the boss of the company. He has a big say in what the company buys as an investment and who is allowed to take care of it. He's only a slave of a company he controls himself!

I would trade with him any day. :)In my sales tax example, I don't see how it could be avoided.Well, you gave the answer yourself on how it could be avoided:Oh wait, the rich people just won't buy anything, my bad. :DSee, it really isn't that hard.

Rich people will just start giving eachother gifts. They will probably have administrations to make sure the gifts they give to eachother are of the same value on the free market. A steel manufacturer gives 400 thousand dollars worth of steel to a sports car manufacturer and the sports car manufacturer just gives him a 400 thousand dollar sports car in return. No sales tax is paid, since no selling took place, just 'mutual acts of friendship'. From the perspective of the government, there is no trade, just people helping eachother out.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Earthborn

I would trade with him any day. :)


I could arrange that! :p


Rich people will just start giving eachother gifts. They will probably have administrations to make sure the gifts they give to eachother are of the same value on the free market. A steel manufacturer gives 400 thousand dollars worth of steel to a sports car manufacturer and the sports car manufacturer just gives him a 400 thousand dollar sports car in return. No sales tax is paid, since no selling took place, just 'mutual acts of friendship'. From the perspective of the government, there is no trade, just people helping eachother out.

Ok, here you go coming down on my brilliant ideas, again.

I've already figured this out, any "funny business" and you get hit with a stick. Hard. You hit enough people with enough sticks somebodys gonna learn something. Or at least its fun hitting people with sticks.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Ok, here you go coming down on my brilliant ideas, again.

I've already figured this out, any "funny business" and you get hit with a stick. Hard. You hit enough people with enough sticks somebodys gonna learn something. Or at least its fun hitting people with sticks.

So who decides who gets the stick?

If you're proposing the pornography standard for tax evasion ("I can't define it but I know what it is"), who is going to judge these cases?

It's a heck of a lot of power to give a person, or a group of people.

Your system is a bad one for a fairly simple reason. The tax system should be concrete enough that an honest person can calculate exactly how much tax they owe and know they have paid what is due.

A system where you don't know how much the government is going to demand until they eyeball your house and pull a figure out of thin air is a bad, bad system.

That's not to say that the current system isn't corrupt, abuseable and thoroughly abused. Just that a simplistic "solution" is no solution at all.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

So who decides who gets the stick?

I do

If you're proposing the pornography standard for tax evasion ("I can't define it but I know what it is"), who is going to judge these cases?

I will.

It's a heck of a lot of power to give a person, or a group of people.

I know.

Your system is a bad one for a fairly simple reason. The tax system should be concrete enough that an honest person can calculate exactly how much tax they owe and know they have paid what is due.

Are you suggesting people should be allowed to hit themselves with sticks?

A system where you don't know how much the government is going to demand until they eyeball your house and pull a figure out of thin air is a bad, bad system.

Oh my no. The stick would be designed by a panel of expert scientists.

That's not to say that the current system isn't corrupt, abuseable and thoroughly abused. Just that a simplistic "solution" is no solution at all.

You get the oar.

[Earthborn]

I could arrange that! :pYou could? Cool!

In that case I will relegate all the business decisions that need to be made to you, and my job will purely consist of the very important task of deciding in what assets the company invests in and who is going to take care of them. That's a very important job after all, and I will probably have no time for anything else.Ok, here you go coming down on my brilliant ideas, again.Well, it wasn't that brilliant because 'wealth' is not something that can be easily measured in one way or another. If you tax only one way to define wealth, all the rest will be just one gaping hole in the taxsystem. If you define wealth as the number of dollars someone has, they will trade in their dollars for something else. If you define it by the number of cows, people will instead buy donkeys. People already put their homes on the name of their firms or on the name of members of the family to avoid taxes.

That's the real reason taxes are complicated. Some people try to avoid them and others try to get as much of it as they can. They end up in an evolutionary arms race, with one making things more complicated for the other. It's a bit like a snake needing to become more venomous to be able to kill a rodent, that becomes increasingly more resistent to the venom of the snake. You can decide for yourself who is snake and who rodent.

Of course in such an arms race, only individual battles are won. On both sides more and more energy is needed to just maintain the status quo. None of the sides can just decide it doesn't want to play anymore. In the government versus tax-evader battle, it means that the complexity of the system is only going to grow. It's 9000 pages now. Don't bet on that it will be fewer in the future.

Another reason I suspect why taxsystems are so incredibly complex is because of the politicians constantly promising to make it simpler. Trying to simplify something that is inherently complex, is not easy. Whatever plans they have, those will have to be changed. There will have to be exceptions to the rules, and rules ruling the exceptions. Everytime anyone wants to simplify things, they will be adding another layer of complexity. It is easy to shout some simple idea you think it should be based on, getting it implimented in a way that is actually going to work and doesn't hurt so many people that they will protest, or make it too easy to avoid it is a very different matter.

The people who are constantly demanding that taxes should be simplified, should also ask themselves whether they want things to be simplified for the taxpayers or making it run on a smaller bureaucracy. The two things don't always go hand in hand: the assembler programming language is very simple and runs on simple computers, but on the user side it is not easy getting anything done. Windows is very bloated and complex, but for the user it is much easier. Similarly, making it easier for the average taxpayer to calculate their taxes does not necessarily mean the bureaucracy to make it simpler for him will be smaller. I suspect quite the opposite.

[Ed]

Originally posted by mjv


Off the top of my head, I recall seeing a news program in the '80s about CEO types who would simply do the following (and I am obviously paraphrasing):

Live in a fully furnished house owned by their company (who also pay the bils), drive a car owned by the company, throw parties paid for by the company, eat food purchased and prepared by the company chef, etc.

Then, have the company pay you a salary of only $19,999.

Heck, If I didn't have to pay for my car, home, entertainment, travel, or food, I could get by on that.

There were many other schemes mentioned, but I can't remember them in detail.

For a CEO perks like that are nickles. Don't forget that the corporation is paying tax on the income that it uses for those expenditures. If the CEO is doing his job, so what?

Incidentially, those things that you mention might add up to an equivilant salary of $400k or so. It is not that much.

[shanek]

Originally posted by mfeldman
That seems a rather silly comment, as the threat of force is behind ANY governmental law or regulation.

But that is exactly the point! Any time you call upon the government to do something, they're going to do so with the threat of force. So goverment should only act in areas where the use of force is justified.

and threatening punishment for nonpayment is hardly "tyrannical."

When they can fine you or put you in jail just for doing exactly what they told you to do? THAT is tyrannical! Being able to jump into your bank account at any time is tyrannical. Insisting you turn over all the details of your income year after year is tyrannical.

The government does not have to resort to such measures to collect taxes. They only do so because it gives them a virtually unlimited revenue stream so they can finance their favorite boondoggles.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
The funny thing about Libertarians is, they really have a problem with Gummint collecting taxes, but they don't have a problem with taking advantage of the things they pay for.

This is more of your trolling. It just isn't true. For example, when Harry Browne ran for President, he turned down Federal matching funds for his campaign even though he was the first third-party candidate in America's history to qualify for them.

Shanek himself is a big fan of the Internet, yet I never hear rant about the Gummint funding the development of it.

Because they DIDN'T. They did fund and develop ARPAnet, but that isn't the internet. The internet is a collection of independent networks which was looking for a good way to connect themselves together. The TCP/IP standard developed with ARPAnet is what they ended up using, but it could just as easily have been any other protocol. They only used TCP/IP because the government got themselves out of it! That's right, the government opened up the protocol and then completely left it to the private sector! And most of the things you actually use the internet for were not in place at that time. TCP/IP itself was very different, and it was only through the collective cooperation that the numerous problems with TCP/IP began to be fixed. Many of them are still there. So we're still having to work to fix all of the problems with ARPAnet, problems which weren't there in any of the other protocols they could have used.

Or roads, never hear them complaining about the roads...

Another lie. We've discussed roads many times on this forum.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
Don't forget that the corporation is paying tax on the income that it uses for those expenditures.

Good point, Ed. It's amazing how many people ignore that.

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek


But that is exactly the point! Any time you call upon the government to do something, they're going to do so with the threat of force. So goverment should only act in areas where the use of force is justified.


They use of force isn't justified when people don't pay their taxes?


When they can fine you or put you in jail just for doing exactly what they told you to do? THAT is tyrannical!

I'm not sure what you're referring to, could you please elaborate?


Being able to jump into your bank account at any time is tyrannical.

The government can come into my bank account an ANY time? Really?! They can just come and take my money for no reason at all?! You're RIGHT, that IS tyrannical. Good thing they can't. Sheesh...


Insisting you turn over all the details of your income year after year is tyrannical.

The government does not have to resort to such measures to collect taxes.


It does if they want to collect an income tax. You may not agree with the income tax, but calling it "tyrannical" is certainly hyperbole (hint, I've looked up the definition of tyranny..have you?).


They only do so because it gives them a virtually unlimited revenue stream so they can finance their favorite boondoggles.

I'll let this one go, so much to discuss already...


Mike

[shanek]

Originally posted by mfeldman
They use of force isn't justified when people don't pay their taxes?

No.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, could you please elaborate?

I'm referring to the very subject of this thread! The IRS is giving out bad information, and that could easily result in people being fined or imprisoned if it causes them to make major mistakes on their tax returns! NO ONE should be subjected to that kind of tyranny.

The government can come into my bank account an ANY time? Really?!

Yes.

They can just come and take my money for no reason at all?!

No, but they can see what you have.

It does if they want to collect an income tax.

And that's why we shouldn't have one.

(hint, I've looked up the definition of tyranny..have you?).

Mine says it's "Extreme harshness or severity." I'd say this definitely qualifies!

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek


No.


So people should be allowed to violate the law and not be punished? That's a very interesting position. And you live on what planet?


I'm referring to the very subject of this thread! The IRS is giving out bad information, and that could easily result in people being fined or imprisoned if it causes them to make major mistakes on their tax returns! NO ONE should be subjected to that kind of tyranny.


No one is imprisoned for simply making a mistake on their tax return. You correct the mistake, and possibly pay a fine plus interest. The only time someone would go to prison is for the crime of tax evasion, which is a deliberate and dishonest failure to pay taxes.

The argument can be made that it is unfair to punish people who rely on an erroneous statement by the IRS, but lots of laws work that way. Suppose a policeman erroneously states that the age of consent in your state is 13. Actually, the age of consent is 16. You then proceed to knowingly engage in sexual intercourse with a 14 year old and are arrested for statutory rape. Should it be a valid defense to statuory rape that you relied on the policeman's mistaken statement of the law?


Yes.

No, but they can see what you have.


The point, which you fail to acknowledge, is that the government cannot *arbitrarilly* take money from my bank account without my knowledge or consent. You may not agree with all of the laws and regulations that exist, but don't pretend they dont exist.


And that's why we shouldn't have one.


We shouldn't have an income tax because then the government will know how much you earn. Well that's an airtight argument if I've ever heard one... :rolleyes:



Mine says it's "Extreme harshness or severity." I'd say this definitely qualifies!

I know, it's absolute torture filling out those tax returns. Ask John McCain, the Viet Cong had nothing on the IRS.

Mike

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

This is more of your trolling. It just isn't true. For example, when Harry Browne ran for President, he turned down Federal matching funds for his campaign even though he was the first third-party candidate in America's history to qualify for them.


So Harry Browne didn't drive on federal roads, or eat meat approved by federal inspectors either?

You live in America you take advantage of benefits the Federal Government provides. If the Libertarians had any integrity, whatsoever, they would live offshore and campaign from there.


Because they DIDN'T. They did fund and develop ARPAnet, but that isn't the internet. The internet is a collection of independent networks which was looking for a good way to connect themselves together.


Har, har, har! Looks like shanek doesn't know the history of the internet, or how it even works. Not surprising. Those independant networks have to be connected together and THATS the internet. In this case that network was NSFNET, I know cause I've worked with the guy who built it out. From his bio:

"... the NSFNET backbone became the core interconnection network for the Internet, which enabled the Internet commercialization several years later. The NSFNET was key for driving the Internet technology from a DARPA research project which, in the wake of GOSIP and X.25, seemed on its way into oblivion in the mid-80s, towards an operationally accepted and commercialized globally available environment."

NSFNET is the true precursor to our modern internet, not ARPANET and was funded entirely by the National Science Foundation (hence the name NSFnet).
There would be no internet without NSFNET, the commercial world was not interested in taking the risk in building something of that scale out without a prior proof that such a thing could work. Even then many telecommunications companies had to be drug, kicking and screaming, into the Internet age. I know that as well, as I worked at one of the biggies!


The TCP/IP standard developed with ARPAnet is what they ended up using, but it could just as easily have been any other protocol. They only used TCP/IP because the government got themselves out of it! That's right, the government opened up the protocol and then completely left it to the private sector! And most of the things you actually use the internet for were not in place at that time. TCP/IP itself was very different, and it was only through the collective cooperation that the numerous problems with TCP/IP began to be fixed. Many of them are still there. So we're still having to work to fix all of the problems with ARPAnet, problems which weren't there in any of the other protocols they could have used.


Oh Gawd, you are so completely and totally wrong, about everything, as usual, again.

TCP was INVENTED by Vint Cerf at Stanford, a PRIVATE school! So any problem you have with that protocol is the fault of the private sector! I'm sure if you knew that you would have said TCP was perfect until the Gummint broke it.

Don't take my word on it, read the the history here (http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/chris/think/Early_Days_Of_TCP/index.shtml)

What other protocols could have been used? How are they better? Are you claiming the Internet would work better if it used IPX? How would you know anyway, you have an art degree for chrissake! Do you really think you know more about developing WAN protocols than the folks who invented the Internet?

IPv3 has its share of problems and limitations to be sure, hence the development of IPv6. And guess what, lots of Gummint funds helped develop that as well! Federal and private industry worked together on that, which shows how valuable both FEDERAL and PRIVATE research is.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
The funny thing about Libertarians is, they really have a problem with Gummint collecting taxes, but they don't have a problem with taking advantage of the things they pay for.

Shanek himself is a big fan of the Internet, yet I never hear rant about the Gummint funding the development of it.

Or roads, never hear them complaining about the roads...
Oh, no!
He has done so in the past and on many occasions. :D

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Rich people will just start giving eachother gifts. They will probably have administrations to make sure the gifts they give to eachother are of the same value on the free market. A steel manufacturer gives 400 thousand dollars worth of steel to a sports car manufacturer and the sports car manufacturer just gives him a 400 thousand dollar sports car in return. No sales tax is paid, since no selling took place, just 'mutual acts of friendship'. From the perspective of the government, there is no trade, just people helping eachother out.
Any barter in the united states is converted into hard cash equivalents
by the inland revinue service and taxed appropirately.

[shanek]

Originally posted by mfeldman
So people should be allowed to violate the law and not be punished?

I'm saying that things like that shouldn't even be a law in the first place.

That's a very interesting position. And you live on what planet?

I'm glad you think that it's unthinkable to not enforce the rule of law. Let me ask you this: Why do you not extend this same logic to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land?

No one is imprisoned for simply making a mistake on their tax return.

I said fined or imprisoned. And you can be fined for the tiniest of mistakes.

I have to send in estimated taxes. If I don't send in the right amount—even if I've followed their math to the letter and made no mistakes—I still have to pay an extra fine PLUS the surplus amount I still owe!

Tell me THAT makes sense!

The argument can be made that it is unfair to punish people who rely on an erroneous statement by the IRS, but lots of laws work that way. Suppose a policeman erroneously states that the age of consent in your state is 13. Actually, the age of consent is 16. You then proceed to knowingly engage in sexual intercourse with a 14 year old and are arrested for statutory rape. Should it be a valid defense to statuory rape that you relied on the policeman's mistaken statement of the law?[/qoute]

This case isn't comparable because the cop in question is not specifically designated as someone who can answer legal questions. The IRS agents surveyed were.

[quote]The point, which you fail to acknowledge, is that the government cannot *arbitrarilly* take money from my bank account without my knowledge or consent.

Arbitrarily, meaning that it must follow certain rules. And guess who makes the rules?

There are rules that state the government can rummage through your bank account if you make a cash transfer of more than $10,000.00. Under the Patriot Act, if you belong to a group the government designates a "terrorist organization"—and the law is vague enough that organizations that “appear to be intended...to influence the policy of a government” qualify. It's vague enough to apply to almost anyone.

You may not agree with all of the laws and regulations that exist, but don't pretend they dont exist.

I'm not. I'm just not pretending that they're Constitutional or in any way justified.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
So Harry Browne didn't drive on federal roads, or eat meat approved by federal inspectors either?

When was he given a choice in the matter?

You live in America you take advantage of benefits the Federal Government provides. If the Libertarians had any integrity, whatsoever, they would live offshore and campaign from there.

Shut up, troll.

Har, har, har! Looks like shanek doesn't know the history of the internet, or how it even works.

I was INVOLVED in much of it, troll.

Those independant networks have to be connected together and THATS the internet.

But that's NOT the ARPAnet.

In this case that network was NSFNET,

No, it wasn't. It was mostly the large telecommunication providers. The TECHNOLOGIES used in NSFnet became used in the Internet backbone, but a) that's not the same thing, and b)not until the NSF cast it off entirely to the private sector and had nothing further to do with it.

"... the NSFNET backbone became the core interconnection network for the Internet, which enabled the Internet commercialization several years later. The NSFNET was key for driving the Internet technology from a DARPA research project which, in the wake of GOSIP and X.25, seemed on its way into oblivion in the mid-80s, towards an operationally accepted and commercialized globally available environment."

Oh, this is ironic, since in another thread you accused me of doing what you just did—quoting a source that supports my argument instead of yours!

Yes, it WAS going to go into oblivion (and another protocol selected for the Internet) UNTIL the NSF spun it off into the private sector. And you see the words "several years later" up there?

NSFNET is the true precursor to our modern internet, not ARPANET

NSFnet was spun off from ARPAnet. It's what ARPAnet became when it went from the DoD to the NSF.

There would be no internet without NSFNET,

Bull$#!7. That's like saying there would have been no light bulb without Thomas Edison. Westinghouse had another one that could have been used; Edison just got his used because he got to the patent office first. There were other protocols and other technologies that these companies could have used to connect themselves together.

Are you claiming the Internet would work better if it used IPX?

Why not? IPX actually had a much larger address space, and although it had routing and service advertising problems, so did TCP/IP until it was fixed BY PEOPLE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR!

IPv3 has its share of problems and limitations to be sure, hence the development of IPv6.

What we're using is IPv4. And YOU say I'M ignorant! :rolleyes:

Go away, troll.

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek

I'm saying that things like that shouldn't even be a law in the first place.


You also said that people shouldn't be punished for nonpayment of taxes. If you mis-spoke, just acknowledge it and move on.


I'm glad you think that it's unthinkable to not enforce the rule of law. Let me ask you this: Why do you not extend this same logic to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land?


I do, but what you don't understand, or can't accept, is that the Constitution, like most every law ever written, is open to interpretation. Even the most simple laws, "commandments" you might say, are open for interpretation. You don't agree with the way our Constitution has been interpreted, fine. That doesn't make the government "tyrannical."



I said fined or imprisoned. And you can be fined for the tiniest of mistakes.

I have to send in estimated taxes. If I don't send in the right amount—even if I've followed their math to the letter and made no mistakes—I still have to pay an extra fine PLUS the surplus amount I still owe!

Tell me THAT makes sense!


I won't say it makes sense. But those regulations and the laws authorizing them can be changed if they don't make sense. That doesn't make them tyrannical, they are not the dictates of some totalitarian potentate.


This case isn't comparable because the cop in question is not specifically designated as someone who can answer legal questions. The IRS agents surveyed were.


Which brings me back to my original reply, is the IRS any more likely to give wrong information than any other large beurocracy? Somebody has to take the fall for that mistake, and yeah maybe it would be better if reliance upon on an IRS agent was a legitimate defense to making a mistake on your tax return. But again, the laws can be changed to that effect. We're not talking about tyranny here.


Arbitrarily, meaning that it must follow certain rules. And guess who makes the rules?


The appointed and elected members of government. Any more easy questions?


There are rules that state the government can rummage through your bank account if you make a cash transfer of more than $10,000.00. Under the Patriot Act, if you belong to a group the government designates a "terrorist organization"—and the law is vague enough that organizations that “appear to be intended...to influence the policy of a government” qualify. It's vague enough to apply to almost anyone.


I agree with you. I'll never defend the Patriot Act.


I'm not. I'm just not pretending that they're Constitutional or in any way justified.

You dont think they are constitutional or justified. Others disagree. Some think they are constitutional but unjustified. Others thing they are justified but unconstitutional. Not everyone believes what you do. Sucks, doesn't it?

Mike

[shanek]

Originally posted by mfeldman
You also said that people shouldn't be punished for nonpayment of taxes.

I said that as an argument against the existance of the law, not as an argument in favor of civil disobedience.

I do, but what you don't understand, or can't accept, is that the Constitution, like most every law ever written, is open to interpretation.

Here we go again... :rolleyes:

I won't say it makes sense. But those regulations and the laws authorizing them can be changed if they don't make sense.

But that process has been abrogated. That makes the Constitution essentially meaningless.

Which brings me back to my original reply, is the IRS any more likely to give wrong information than any other large beurocracy?

No, but no other bureaucracy can fine you or put you in jail.

But again, the laws can be changed to that effect.

How could the law be changed here? We're talking about the internal procedures of a government agency. I don't know of any way of writing the law so that they're responsible and not you. Besides, you'd run into that Sovereign Immunity thing again.

The appointed and elected members of government.

Exactly—the very people we're supposed to be protected from!

Any more easy questions?

Yes: Who watches the watchmen?

BTW, I think you missed this point, probably because I screwed up the quote formatting:

This case isn't comparable because the cop in question is not specifically designated as someone who can answer legal questions. The IRS agents surveyed were.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

Shut up, troll.


Touched a nerve, eh Zippy? Why don't you stop suckling on the government teat?


I was INVOLVED in much of it, troll.


You sir, are a liar and a fraud.

From your resume:

Instructor--New Horizons Computer Learning Center May 1996 to Present
Instruct individuals and corporate employees in the use of various software packages. Learn new software thoroughly and quickly to be able to instruct, answer questions, and help with specific problems. Help design coursewear for new classes.

Graphic Artist--Gaston Graphics July 1995 to February 1996
Design and produce printed graphics to customers' specifications. Produce a variety of different jobs on tight deadlines.

Intern--CAE-Link January 1995
Work with a team of artists and programmers to produce computer-based training programs. Design graphic illustrations and title screens to exacting specifications.

Student Consultant--St. Andrews College Computer Center Fall 1993 to Spring 1995
Help students with questions or problems. Analyze/diagnose equipment problems. Repair equipment, replace parts, build computers from parts. Set up and run campus network and BBS.

Typesetter--Harmon Publishing April 1991 to July 1993
Lay out format and set type for master pages. Work with a limited equipment setup, tight deadlines, and exacting specifications.

Wheres the part about you being involved in the creation of the internet? Did you accidently leave that part out? You were a college freshman when NSFNET was being built! In college you were a friggen art major! A search of the RFC archives at http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/ turns up no mention of a "Shane Killian". Stop lying you pathetic wannabe poser.


No, it wasn't. It was mostly the large telecommunication providers. The TECHNOLOGIES used in NSFnet became used in the Internet backbone, but a) that's not the same thing, and b)not until the NSF cast it off entirely to the private sector and had nothing further to do with it.


The lines were leased from the big phone companies as that was cheaper then laying new cable across the country. The telecommunications companies had no interest in carrying data traffic, they just lent the wires to the NSF.
In no way was the NSFNET "cast off", it was a research project not a business venture. It worked, so the principals moved on to other projects and left it to the private sector to commercialize their discoveries. Thats how all research works, public and private. Would you rather the government ran the Internet?


Oh, this is ironic, since in another thread you accused me of doing what you just did—quoting a source that supports my argument instead of yours!


You can't understand written English. NSFNET "enabled the Internet commercialization several years later". Do you know what "enabled" means? How can you not understand that the modern internet is an offshoot of an NSF funded research project?


Yes, it WAS going to go into oblivion (and another protocol selected for the Internet) UNTIL the NSF spun it off into the private sector. And you see the words "several years later" up there?


Its a free market and the private sector could use any protocol they wanted. They chose TCP/IP, it wasn't forced on them.


NSFnet was spun off from ARPAnet. It's what ARPAnet became when it went from the DoD to the NSF.


I know that. The modern internet has more in common with NSFnet than ARPAnet. They were both Gummint projects.


Bull$#!7. That's like saying there would have been no light bulb without Thomas Edison. Westinghouse had another one that could have been used; Edison just got his used because he got to the patent office first.


You are playing what-if games and claiming special knowledge again. You could just as well argue that the transistor would have eventually been invented at a public University instead of Bell Labs. You could argue the same about every invention in the private sector.

That not my point regardless. My point is good research is done is BOTH the public and private sectors. Public sector research is VERY important these days as most of the major private research orgs. are being downsized. There are also new research groups, like CalIT2 that are funded by private AND federal funds. Who gets the credit for their discoveries? Does it really matter?


There were other protocols and other technologies that these companies could have used to connect themselves together.


But they didn't, so it doesn't matter. That was the decision of the private sector. My father was working at AT&T at the time and tried to convince them to build out an IP backbone similar to NSFnet, the management refused. They couldn't see a use for it.


Why not? IPX actually had a much larger address space, and although it had routing and service advertising problems, so did TCP/IP until it was fixed BY PEOPLE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR!

TCP WAS INVENTED BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR YOU YUTZ! Why can't you understand that? It was invented by Vint Cerf at Stanford! Any problems fixed by the private sector were caused by the private sector! And many public sector employees worked on it as well. In fact, the Internet is as textbook example of how greats things can come from the public and private sector working together.


What we're using is IPv4. And YOU say I'M ignorant! :rolleyes:


Oh you got me, my entire argument is invalid because I hit the 3 instead of 4. You are pathetic. :hit:

Go away, troll.

As soon as you stop lying and making ignorant statements I'll leave.

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek


I said that as an argument against the existance of the law, not as an argument in favor of civil disobedience.



Sorry, it sounded like you were saying that there should be no consequences for nonpayment of taxes. I guess I misunderstood.


Here we go again... :rolleyes:


Rolling your eyes in the face of reality is a futile gesture.


But that process has been abrogated. That makes the Constitution essentially meaningless.


I think our Constitution, and our nation, is doing quite well after 200 years. Things aren't perfect, but then, they never were.


No, but no other bureaucracy can fine you or put you in jail.


The IRS does not put people in jail.


How could the law be changed here? We're talking about the internal procedures of a government agency. I don't know of any way of writing the law so that they're responsible and not you. Besides, you'd run into that Sovereign Immunity thing again.


Huh? Adminstrative regulations are changed all the time. All agencies of government have authorizing statutes that can be changed by Congress. I don't know what you're talking about.


Exactly—the very people we're supposed to be protected from!

Yes: Who watches the watchmen?


Tell me, what does it feel like being born 200 years too late?


BTW, I think you missed this point, probably because I screwed up the quote formatting:


I didn't miss it. Here's my reply again:

"Somebody has to take the fall for that mistake, and yeah maybe it would be better if reliance upon on an IRS agent was a legitimate defense to making a mistake on your tax return. But again, the laws can be changed to that effect. We're not talking about tyranny here."

Mike

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
As soon as you stop lying and making ignorant statements I'll leave.

Oh, goody. You found ONE resume—COMPLETELY OUT OF DATE—that I had put up when I was looking for a job as a graphic artist. Why would someone put up computer activity done on an independent basis on such a resume?

No, I didn't put up my work on steganography, or contributions to IPv6, or my contributions to integrating BitNet to what was to become the internet, because a) they were irrelevant to the job I was seeking at the time, and b) it wasn't actual employment I got paid for and so didn't count as experience.

Good for you. You found something completely irrelevant to tear me personally down with. I hope it feels good and a boost to your pathetic little ego. But it still doesn't change the FACTS. I was there for much of it; I saw most of it, and was even a minor contributor to some of it. The fact that I did it independently of the career I decided to seek YEARS later means nothing.

You're a troll. Go away.

[Tormac]

JJ taunted

"Shanek, how does it feel to be without a single supporter, with everyone jeering at you? Not nice?

Well, if you start listening as much as you talk, start showing manners, stop accusing people who shred your points of being a "liar" and of "spreading filth", and start showing some genuine respect for those who have more experience and knowledge, you might find that you develop an ally or two.

Or isn't that what you want? Do you want to be a martyr to your religion? Do you think that money cares about you?"


While I am sure that shanek can stand up for himself, I have to ask what in this thread warrented this personal attack?

shanek brought up a problem in the complexity of the tax code. The fact that the government can not be relied on to accuratly answer honest questions about the convoluted tax code in this country in indicative of a problem (at least IMHO).

I had always been impressed with the level of general maturity in this forum (at least compaired to the car forums that I also frequent).

[Tormac]

The notion that Harry Browne specifically, or Libertarians in general are hypocritical if they call for a limited government, and yet use public roads really strikes me as ludicrous.

It is an attempt to get a straw man accepted as reality. The Libertarian party has never suggested that the government has no place in providing services for the public. That the Libertarian party calls for smaller government in general is true. That the Libertarian party would like to seem a simplified tax code that is easier to enforce, and understand is also true. That the Libertarian party has called for an end of government support for public roads is something that I must have missed. Either that or it is wrong.

[Tormac]

From the article at http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=98063

AccountingWEB US - Sep-5-2003 - The good news is that taxpayers are using the 500 taxpayer assistance centers the Internal Revenue Service has set up around the country. The bad news is there's about a 50-50 chance they will get incorrect answers to their tax law questions.

As I have noted in other threads, I used to train new hires in a call center that did phone support help for AT&T's @home cable modem service. I will be the first to admit that neither I, nor any of my trainees were perfect. I do not expect any mortal to be so.

However, all the CSR's that I trained had to face the possibility of any call that they handled was being monitored by both their immediate supervisor, a quality control team, and on rare occasions, unknown corporate quality control specialists.

Every month CSR's would face review by their immediate supervisor, with the minutiae of how they handled the calls that were monitored scrutinized. I am very confident that if a CSR at the call center that I worked at consistently (not just 10%, or 25%, but almost 50% of the time) gave out incorrect answers, they would loose their jobs.

I am in no way faulting the IRS call center CSR's. I am sure that they are under trained and over whelmed by an exceedingly complex code of ever changing rules that makes tcp/ip routing simple in comparison. The notion that the tax code is necessarily this complex seems silly to me. That the government could not define "income" in such a way that it could not keep people from cheating on a flat tax system also seems silly.

AT&T did not charge fines or late fees if their customers did not pay their bills on time. If a customer lost service due to an AT&T error, they would be credited on their next bill based on the length of the time that they were down. I am confident that the federal government would not be as lenient with me if I made an honest mistake, based on the information that is wrong 43% of the time.

[shanek]

Originally posted by mfeldman
Sorry, it sounded like you were saying that there should be no consequences for nonpayment of taxes. I guess I misunderstood.

That's fine.

Rolling your eyes in the face of reality is a futile gesture.


Except that it's NOT reality! NO ONE has EVER been able to produce ANYTHING from the framers showing they intended the Constitution to be interpreted at all! They were very equivocal in the way they phrased things, and they did add in a process of amendment so that the Constitution COULD be modified if it no longer fit what needed to be done.

I think our Constitution, and our nation, is doing quite well after 200 years. Things aren't perfect, but then, they never were.

I think so, too. But I think it would be even better if the government followed it.

The IRS does not put people in jail.

Tiny nitpick. They can still make the accusation and the government can put them in jail. And it's very hard to defend yourself; you basically have to prove your innocence, an almost impossible task.

Huh? Adminstrative regulations are changed all the time.

Not by a vote of the people.

I didn't miss it. Here's my reply again:

That doesn't seem to respond to my point. Are you conceding that your cop example is invalid?

And are we kidding anyone here, that if this were a private corporation they wouldn't be held liable?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tormac
That the Libertarian party has called for an end of government support for public roads is something that I must have missed. Either that or it is wrong.

It's something some Libertarians support, but it's not a major issue. Anyway, it's irrelevant because the government has given us no choice in the matter. They've given themselves a monopoly on the roads. Why so many people rail against free market "monopolies" (that aren't really monopolies) but have no problem at all with government monopolies I'll never understand.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

Anyway, it's irrelevant because the government has given us no choice in the matter. They've given themselves a monopoly on the roads.

Yeah, those bastards. You won't believe some of the other garbage they have in the Constitution. You should read it sometime!

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Yeah, those bastards. You won't believe some of the other garbage they have in the Constitution. You should read it sometime!

Why is something good just because it's in the Constitution? Aren't you aware that slavery was once codified and enforced in the Constitution?

And what about the fact that the Constitution only gives the government the power to post roads; it does NOT give government the power to prevent others from doing the same?

Oh, right, I forgot—you're a sick troll who has no real interest in rational debate at all. Silly me.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Tormac

While I am sure that shanek can stand up for himself, I have to ask what in this thread warrented this personal attack?

I had always been impressed with the level of general maturity in this forum (at least compaired to the car forums that I also frequent).

as jj defended I shall defend jj.

jj was responding to Shaneks unwarranted accusation that I was spreading filth and trolling this thread. I was merely pointing out that if Shanek was not able to understand something simple like how banks lend money (see the economic recovery thread), that perhaps he was not qualified to be making absolutist statements about complex subjects like government and Constitutional law.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
jj was responding to Shaneks unwarranted accusation that I was spreading filth and trolling this thread.

It's not unwarranted. As I demonstrated quite clearly in the other thread, your assertion that I don't understand how banks lend money is a LIE. After I posted several sources agreeing with me, AND EXPLAINING WHY THEY AGREE WITH ME, you merely asserted that they said something different, WITH NO EXPLANATION WHY.

You are not interested in rational debate. You're only interested in launching personal attacks to tear your opponent down. It's base and despicable, and reveals you for the troll you are.

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek



Except that it's NOT reality! NO ONE has EVER been able to produce ANYTHING from the framers showing they intended the Constitution to be interpreted at all! They were very equivocal in the way they phrased things, and they did add in a process of amendment so that the Constitution COULD be modified if it no longer fit what needed to be done.



I'd just as soon save the original intent debate for another time. Frankly, I never was never much persuaded by it.


Tiny nitpick. They can still make the accusation and the government can put them in jail. And it's very hard to defend yourself; you basically have to prove your innocence, an almost impossible task.


It's not a "tiny nitpick." Youre whole argument is based on this ludicrous notion that we live under a tyrannical regime. Tyrannical governments do not guarantee citizens due process. Tyrannical governments do not provide trial by jury. Whereas a tyrannical state might just allow civil servants working for the tax agency to put anyone in jail for nonpayment of taxes, our government does not. I wouldn't know specifically about how difficult it is to defend yourself from a criminal prosecution for tax evasion, but I would think that most prosecutions for tax evasion are based on more evidence than someone merely "making a mistake" on their tax return.


Not by a vote of the people.


Are you serious? Administrative agencies should have their day-to-day operating procedures and regulations voted upon by the people? In heavan's name, why?


That doesn't seem to respond to my point. Are you conceding that your cop example is invalid?

And are we kidding anyone here, that if this were a private corporation they wouldn't be held liable?

For the sake of moving on, I will grant that the cop example isn't precisely analagous. However, in my prior post I *was* responding to your point. If it's unfair to punish people for getting incorrect advice received from the government, then the laws can be changed to rectify that inequity. It doesn't mean the entire government is bogus.

Mike

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by WildCat
I can't imagine why the tax code isn't declared unconstitutionally vague. This is why there should be a flat tax, no deductions, exemptions, etc.

The whole tax code is a shell game used to appease special interests and micro-manage behavior. This is why politicians like it complicated.

A flat rate has always been bantered about, and never takes hold. The reason? The argument gets flipped around to "Oh my God, you are asking the poor people to pay the same rate as the rich people, that's just not fair".

[DavidJames]

"Oh my God, you are asking the poor people to pay the same rate as the rich people, that's just not fair".

Actually I've never heard that argument, maybe you have an example somewhere you could post.

What I have heard are complaints by lots of people related to the home buying business, charities and other areas who believe that if "their" deductions were eliminated it would spell doom for them.

I would favor a flat tax. I haven't thought a lot about the details however. But I would like to hear from those that are knowledgeable in the area.

[shanek]

Originally posted by mfeldman
Youre whole argument is based on this ludicrous notion that we live under a tyrannical regime. Tyrannical governments do not guarantee citizens due process. Tyrannical governments do not provide trial by jury.

Have you ever followed an Income Tax case? There isn't much in the way of due process, the person is presumed guilty unless they prove their innocence, and no, they usually don't get a jury trial!

Are you serious? Administrative agencies should have their day-to-day operating procedures and regulations voted upon by the people? In heavan's name, why?

When did I say that? I'm just saying that, if a government agent whose purpose is to dispense truthful information about the law gives someone incorrect information, and that person violates the law as a result of that incorrect information, then that should be a proper defense.

If it's unfair to punish people for getting incorrect advice received from the government, then the laws can be changed to rectify that inequity.

Hmmm...Sounds to me like you're the one saying administrative procedures should be regulated here...

[shanek]

Originally posted by DavidJames
What I have heard are complaints by lots of people related to the home buying business, charities and other areas who believe that if "their" deductions were eliminated it would spell doom for them.

Actually, according to Giving USA, the ability to deduct donations from taxes doesn't really affect the amount donated. The vast majority of donations aren't even reported.

I would favor a flat tax.

So would I...as long as the flat rate is 0%. :p

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek


Have you ever followed an Income Tax case? There isn't much in the way of due process, the person is presumed guilty unless they prove their innocence,

Evidence? What makes prosecution for tax evasion different than any other criminal prosecution, where due process and the presumption of innocence exist?

and no, they usually don't get a jury trial!


Probably because they never get to trial. According to the IRS, over 85% of cases are settled during the appeals process.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/irs/article/0,,id=96750,00.html

I couldn't find anything on the stats, but here are examples of some jury trials:

http://www.sptimes.com/News/030201/Hillsborough/Evans_co_defendant_s_.shtml

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1997/November97/452tax.htm.html

http://www.justice.gov/usao/fls/McAnlis2.html



When did I say that?

Right here:

Me: Huh? Adminstrative regulations are changed all the time.

You: Not by a vote of the people.


I'm just saying that, if a government agent whose purpose is to dispense truthful information about the law gives someone incorrect information, and that person violates the law as a result of that incorrect information, then that should be a proper defense.


I suggest writing your Congressperson or getting involved in an organization dedicated to that cause. Political activism can work wonders!


Hmmm...Sounds to me like you're the one saying administrative procedures should be regulated here...

Huh? They are regulated, and I never said they shouldn't be.

Mike

[shanek]

Originally posted by mfeldman
Evidence? What makes prosecution for tax evasion different than any other criminal prosecution, where due process and the presumption of innocence exist?

Due process requires that the government provide the accused with a clear notice of the claim against them and a hearing before government action can be executed. The IRS engages in summary judgements and enforces them before the judicial determination is made. Due process also requires probable cause to be shown before a search and siezure can be made. But section 7602 of the tax code allows the IRS to obtain any financial records it wants without having to show probable cause or obtain a court order.

Also, the IRS does not have to prove that its accusations are correct. The accused is left with the extensive burden of proving that the IRS is wrong.

You also do not have a right to trial by jury when accused by the IRS. In order to contest a ruling by the IRS, one must file a petition with the US Tax Court. This is not an Article III court, so no trial by jury is available. The only way you could get a trial by jury is to file for a suit in US District Court, but before you can do that, you must pay the disputed amount in full and even if you win it's up to you to retrieve the money. Also, since you would be the plaintiff in the case, the burden of proof is on you again.

Read Daniel J. Pilla, "A Monument of Deficient Wisdom," Report no. 165, Institute for Policy Innovation (http://www.ipi.org/ipi%5CIPIPublications.nsf/0/ADC1AEDD012AC81B86256B49000B0391/$File/QS-RMTR-Pilla-IRS_vs_the_Law.pdf?OpenElement) (PDF)

I suggest writing your Congressperson or getting involved in an organization dedicated to that cause.

I have an I am.

Political activism can work wonders!

But this is a mammoth to fight. Not even Congressman Ron Paul has had any luck making any dents.

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek


Due process requires ... [snip]



I don't know enough about tax disputes to evaluate the validity of that study right now. I'm not here to defend how the government collects taxes. I took issue with very specific points you made, namely that we live in a national with a tyrannical government where the IRS can put you in jail for nonpayment of taxes without due process or proper trial (I don't believe the Patriot Act has yet been used to go after tax evaders). I saw nothing in that summary which referred to criminal prosecutions for tax evasion - and you studiously ignored the links I posted which involved both indictment by a grand jury AND subsequent trial by jury.

Also, I noticed you didn't respond to this point:

Me: Adminstrative regulations are changed all the time.

You: Not by a vote of the people.

Do you still believe that administrative regulations should be voted upon by the people? Or did you misspeak?

Mike

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

Why is something good just because it's in the Constitution? Aren't you aware that slavery was once codified and enforced in the Constitution?

Aren't you aware that Libertarianism is based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution? You yourself said the document wasn't open to interpretation. So is it or isn't it?
Do you think Libertarianism is wrong?

And what about the fact that the Constitution only gives the government the power to post roads; it does NOT give government the power to prevent others from doing the same?

There are private roads all over the country! Your driveway is a private road! The STREET in front is a PUBLIC road because the government uses it to deliver POST, just like it was authorized in the constitution. The constitution PROHIBITS private interests to own POST roads!

Oh, right, I forgot—you're a sick troll who has no real interest in rational debate at all. Silly me.


How is it trolling to point out your are in contradiction of Libertarianism, the Constitutions, external sources and yourself? You're trolling yourself as far as I can tell, I'm just demonstrating it to the audience.

[shanek]

Originally posted by mfeldman
Do you still believe that administrative regulations should be voted upon by the people?

No, I'm saying that those responsible for making the administrative regulations are not elected officials, and therefore not answerable to the voters.

Oh, and make no mistake: The US tax court can send you to jail. I also showed how a person can maneuver to get a trial by jury, and this is consistent with the cases you posted.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Aren't you aware that Libertarianism is based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution?

Uh, no, it isn't, and I challenge you again to find an official LP source stating such. Most Libertarians I'm aware of do say that there are problems with the Constitution. The reason why we're so steadfast about defending it is that, warts and all, it is the Supreme Law of the Land, and if any reforms are to be at all meaningful then we have to restore the rule of law to Washington. THEN we can worry about fixing the problems with the Constitution, which is quite doable through the amendment process.

In fact, many Libertarians are in favor of the Liberty Amendment:

Article of Amendment

SECTION 1. The Government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial, or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution.

SECTION 2. The constitution or laws of any State, or the laws of the United States, shall not be subject to the terms of any foreign or domestic agreement which would abrogate this amendment.

SECTION 3. The activities of the United States Government which violate the intent and purposes of this amendment shall, within a period of three years from the date of the ratification of this amendment, be liquidated and the properties and facilities affected shall be sold.

SECTION 4. Three years after the ratification of this amendment the sixteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts.

It was even introduced into Congress by Ron Paul, and has already been ratified by nine states (29 more needed to become an amendment).

So, yet again, this is more of your ignorant trolling.

There are private roads all over the country!

Through streets aren't. In most places, the only private roads that are allowed to exist are through private housing developments.

The constitution PROHIBITS private interests to own POST roads!

Where?

[Reager]

Originally posted by shanek


Oh, and make no mistake: The US tax court can send you to jail. I also showed how a person can maneuver to get a trial by jury, and this is consistent with the cases you posted.

It's consistent, but meaningless...unless you can show that those criminal prosecutions were actually brought by the defendants against the government (which makes no sense whatever). It appears the "maneuvering" you speak of refers to how a taxpayer facing a civil suit for nonpayment may obtain a jury trial. You have provided nothing that shows defendants who are prosecuted for criminal tax evasion are denied a fair trial. I bet that just sticks in your craw, doesn't it...that this "tyrannical" government actually plays by the rules sometimes..Damn them!

Mike

Edited to add: BTW, nice shifting there, Shanek...before you were claiming that the IRS sends people to jail, which is not true. Now it's "the US tax court." What is it with some people and simply admitting they were wrong about something?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

The reason why we're so steadfast about defending it is that, warts and all, it is the Supreme Law of the Land, and if any reforms are to be at all meaningful then we have to restore the rule of law to Washington. THEN we can worry about fixing the problems with the Constitution, which is quite doable through the amendment process.

Ok, so the Consitution is the supreme rule of law, until the Libs. take over and gut it. You guys are REAL patriots, lemme tell ya.

In fact, many Libertarians are in favor of the Liberty Amendment:

It'll never happen.

Through streets aren't. In most places, the only private roads that are allowed to exist are through private housing developments.

Streets are postal roads. The government is provided authority over them to deliver mail. My parents live at the end of a mile long private road. The mail box is on the public street.

Where?
In the Consitution. If a road is needed to deliver mail then the Constitution grants the government control over it. Many of the roads in our country date back to pre-revolutionary war days and were used to this end. I used to live off of one, Washington Valley Road in NJ.

Its not hard to see how you need to have public streets pretty much everywhere to guarantee mail delivery.

[Tony]

Ok, so the Consitution is the supreme rule of law, until the Libs. take over and gut it. You guys are REAL patriots, lemme tell ya.

Thats not true and you know it. This is a deliberate and obvious misrepresentation.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
In the Consitution.

Quote it, troll. Quote the Constitution forbidding the private sector from running post roads.

BTW, mail delivery people go on private property all the time, in the aforementioned private housing developments I mentioned. That does NOT mean that the government can take over the road.

By the way, most of the post offices prior to the late 19th Century were PRIVATE. The government only became the sole provider of postal mail delivery because they made all of the others illegal and granted themselves a monopoly.

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about; but that doesn't matter...you're only here to troll.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

Quote it, troll. Quote the Constitution forbidding the private sector from running post roads.

Sure thing retard, but given your reading disability I doubt you will understand it.

Section 8 clause 7

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(5 clauses snipped)

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads

That right is granted to the federal government and federal government only, no private industry. No room for interpretation dingus.

Considering that right to coin money and punish counterfeiters is also granted, I would say that the founding fathers made it pretty clear the clauses did not apply to the private sector.

BTW, mail delivery people go on private property all the time, in the aforementioned private housing developments I mentioned. That does NOT mean that the government can take over the road.

Wrong, people who live on private roads have their mailboxes on the public street. My parents live at the end of mile+ private road and have to drive to pick up their mail. Their neighbors on the private road have to do the same, all the mailboxes are in the same place. The road is maintained by the community, its very Libertarian! The government won't drive on private roads without permission, thats trespassing.
Every other private road I've encountered is the same.

By the way, most of the post offices prior to the late 19th Century were PRIVATE. The government only became the sole provider of postal mail delivery because they made all of the others illegal and granted themselves a monopoly.

Someone should tell that to FedEx and UPS. And all the other private carriers.

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about; but that doesn't matter...you're only here to troll.
Have you ever made a cohesive, correct and compelling argument about anything, ever?

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Sure thing retard, but given your reading disability I doubt you will understand it.

Section 8 clause 7

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(5 clauses snipped)

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads

That right is granted to the federal government and federal government only, no private industry.

It doesn't say that! It gives the power to the Federal government, but does NOT give them the power to stop private industry from doing the same!

No room for interpretation dingus.

So why are you?

Considering that right to coin money and punish counterfeiters is also granted, I would say that the founding fathers made it pretty clear the clauses did not apply to the private sector.

Counterfieting is directly enumerated as a Federal crime in the Constitution. Running a Post Office isn't.

Wrong, people who live on private roads have their mailboxes on the public street.

I know many places where that isn't the case.

My parents live at the end of mile+ private road and have to drive to pick up their mail. Their neighbors on the private road have to do the same, all the mailboxes are in the same place.

Probably because it's cheaper for them to do that than to go a mile out of the way to deliver mail for just one person.

The government won't drive on private roads without permission, thats trespassing.

Putting up a mailbox for mail delivery doesn't constitute permission to deliver mail there? :rolleyes:

Someone should tell that to FedEx and UPS. And all the other private carriers.

They can't carry mail; only parcel delivery. They can't actually deliver first class mail. And they couldn't even do parcel delivery until the 1970's, when the government gave up their monopoly on it.

How about actually learning what you're talking about for once?