Best U.S. income tax system?

[Rouser2]

[quote]Originally posted by shanek


Re:

>>>>The Knowlton case "specifically defined Income Tax" as a Direct tax? How interesting. Can you cite the exact passage where such a thing is asserted? <<<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Oh, come on!!!! They specifically said that any taxes which "bear immediately upon persons" is a direct tax!!! Sheesh....<<

Taxes that "bear immediatlely upon persons" are indeed direct. But that is not a definition for "income tax" but a definition for "CAPITATION" or head tax. There are only two kinds of Direct taxes -- a tax on property and a tax on the person. But there has never been any Federal Capitation or Head Tax. Moreover the cited phrase is contained in the context of French and other European definitions of Direct as versus Indirect taxation:

"Continuing the rule of the ancient French law, at the present day in France inheritance and legacy taxes are enforced, being collectible as stamp duties. They are included officially under the general denomination of indirect taxes, for the reason that all inheritance and legacy taxes are considered as levied on the 'occasion of a particular isolated act.' This view of the inheritance and legacy tax conforms to the official definition of indirect taxes, among which inheritance and legacy taxes are classed, which prevails in France at the present day. The definition is as follows:
'Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon the possession and enjoyments of rights; indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.' "

Moreover the cited case doesn't even concern income taxes at all but rather a death or inheritance tax which is an EVENT and properly is construed as an Indirect Excise -- just like the so called Income Tax.

You're welcome.

[Rouser2]

[quote]Originally posted by shanek


>>>>>No. You are refuting the claim of the Supreme Court itself. <<<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



>>Then why did no Supreme Court find Income Tax Constitutional before 1913???<<

No Supreme Court has ever ruled Income Taxes, in the generic sense, to be unconstitutional. There is no expressed prohibition of any kind of tax in the Constitution, so long as they conform to the rules of uniformity as to Indirect taxes, or to the rule of apportionment as to Direct taxes.

[Roadtoad]

Sounds more and more like semantic BS to me...

[Tmy]

Quote:

Originally posted by Agammamon
Flat tax. Stop the governments experiments in social engineering.

Sombody mentioned that Steve Jobs salary is $1. What would he pay under a flat tax system? 20 cents??

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rouser2
Taxes that "bear immediatlely upon persons" are indeed direct. But that is not a definition for "income tax" but a definition for "CAPITATION" or head tax. There are only two kinds of Direct taxes -- a tax on property and a tax on the person.

How is an Income Tax not both? And keep in mind, the 1895 case ruled the Civil War-era Income Tax unconstitutional, and that was almost exactly the same as our current Income Tax!

You can be a good little politician and redefine things all you want, but reality does not bend to your whims.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rouser2
No Supreme Court has ever ruled Income Taxes, in the generic sense, to be unconstitutional.

I've already shown that claim to be hogwash. All you've shown is your willingness to rewrite the dictionary.

Quote:

There is no expressed prohibition of any kind of tax in the Constitution,

THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE!!!! WHY DON'T YOU GET THAT!!!!

If it's not in the Constitution, the government CAN'T DO IT!!! PERIOD!!!!

Quote:

so long as they conform to the rules of uniformity as to Indirect taxes, or to the rule of apportionment as to Direct taxes.

Except that Income Taxes are made without apportionment, hence that one clause in Amendment 16.

Why don't you try reading for once?

[Rouser2]

[quote]Originally posted by shanek

RE:


>>>>Taxes that "bear immediatlely upon persons" are indeed direct. But that is not a definition for "income tax" but a definition for "CAPITATION" or head tax. There are only two kinds of Direct taxes -- a tax on property and a tax on the person.<<<<

>>How is an Income Tax not both?<<

An income tax is not a tax on real or personal property for it must then be construed as a Direct Tax which the Brushaber Court went at great lengths to explain that it was not. And an income tax cannot be a tax on a person for that is a Capitation, plain and simple and according to the Constitution, all Capitations or other Direct taxes must be apportioned among the states.


>> And keep in mind, the 1895 case ruled the Civil War-era Income Tax unconstitutional, and that was almost exactly the same as our current Income Tax!<<


I believe part your difficulty is that you are reading from 3rd party sources and have not actually read the cases. There is a lot of information that emanates from government sources and the government schools themselves that is false. The Civl War income tax was never brought before the Supreme Court and never declared unconstitutional. But the Income Tax Act of 1894 as part of the Tarriff Act of 1894 was indeed declared unconstitutional for the reasons stated. But income taxes in a generic sense were never declared to be unconstitutional by any Supreme Court decision. The Pollack court ruled that...


"The tax imposed by sections twenty-seven to thirty-seven, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate and of personal property, being a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution, and, therefore, unconstitutional and void because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, consisting of one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, at 637 (1895).


And in 1916 the Brushaber Court emphasized that in no way did the Pollock Court rule that income taxes in the generic sense were Direct and therefore unconstituitonal...


". . . the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such . . ."

--Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 16 - 17 (1916

[Rouser2]

[quote]Originally posted by shanek

RE:

>>>>Originally posted by Rouser2
No Supreme Court has ever ruled Income Taxes, in the generic sense, to be unconstitutional.<<<<

>>I've already shown that claim to be hogwash. All you've shown is your willingness to rewrite the dictionary.<<

You've made a lot of erroneous assertions. Without evidence. But that is because there is no evidence. The Supreme Court never ruled income taxes in the generic sense, unconstitutional". But I will give you that there are plenty of official looking sources that says they did. But it's simply not there in the cases. Calm down and read them.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>There is no expressed prohibition of any kind of tax in the Constitution,<<<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE!!!! WHY DON'T YOU GET THAT!!!!

If it's not in the Constitution, the government CAN'T DO IT!!! PERIOD!!!!<<<<

It's a nice catchy phrase which I have used many times myself. But the fact is, the authorization is right there in Art. I., Sec. 8, "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises..."

And the Income tax is an excise tax.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>so long as they conform to the rules of uniformity as to Indirect taxes, or to the rule of apportionment as to Direct taxes. <<<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Except that Income Taxes are made without apportionment, hence that one clause in Amendment 16.<<

Yes, indeed. Because the Income Tax is an Indirect Excise tax, and must be enforced as such, which is why the Brushaber court held that it need not be apportioned, regardless of whatever source that income may be derived, which in the case of the Rev. Act of 1894, included personal and Real property. Bear in mind, that the tax is not and cannot be ON the source itself, but only from income "derived" from a source.

>>Why don't you try reading for once?<<

If only more people could read and heed the original cases, there wouldn't be any need for any crusades to get rid of the 16th Amendment, for as I previously pointed out, if the 16th Amendment were enforced as to the meaning of it given by the Surpeme Court in the early landmark cases, most working people would not be paying an income tax. Ditto the Soc. Security FICA tax. So, my call to you is to try reading the actual cases for once.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rouser2
An income tax is not a tax on real or personal property for it must then be construed as a Direct Tax

Uh-huh. So you're redefining it then.

How are the fruits of your labor not your own property?

Quote:

And an income tax cannot be a tax on a person for that is a Capitation, plain and simple and according to the Constitution, all Capitations or other Direct taxes must be apportioned among the states.

Again, you're redefining words to avoid the problem.

Quote:

I believe part your difficulty is that you are reading from 3rd party sources and have not actually read the cases.

No, I've read the cases, although I'm sure it comforts you to believe otherwise.

Quote:

The Civl War income tax was never brought before the Supreme Court and never declared unconstitutional.

I GAVE YOU THE REFERENCE FOR THIS!!!!

You're showing yourself to be a closed-minded woo-woo who doesn't even consider direct evidence given to him, and who is all too willing to redefine things to fit his own biases!

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rouser2
You've made a lot of erroneous assertions. Without evidence. But that is because there is no evidence.

That is a LIE!!! I have provided evidence for every single one of my points and you know it!!!

Quote:

And the Income tax is an excise tax.

I'd love to see you try and support that bit of insanity...

[Rouser2]

[quote]Originally posted by shanek


Re:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>Originally posted by Rouser2
An income tax is not a tax on real or personal property for it must then be construed as a Direct Tax<<<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



>>Uh-huh. So you're redefining it then.

How are the fruits of your labor not your own property?<<


Yes. But in the context of taxation, personal property consists of ownership of things and not income.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>And an income tax cannot be a tax on a person for that is a Capitation, plain and simple and according to the Constitution, all Capitations or other Direct taxes must be apportioned among the states.<<<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>Again, you're redefining words to avoid the problem.<<

Not at all. A capitation is a head tax, and is cited as such in the Constitution. "No capitation or other Direct Tax shall be laid unless..." -- Art. I, sec. 9.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>I believe part your difficulty is that you are reading from 3rd party sources and have not actually read the cases.<<<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>No, I've read the cases, although I'm sure it comforts you to believe otherwise.<<

You are in denial.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>The Civl War income tax was never brought before the Supreme Court and never declared unconstitutional.<<<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>I GAVE YOU THE REFERENCE FOR THIS!!!! <<


You did not. You referred to the Pollack case. That case had nothing to do with the Civil War income tax which by then had been abolished. Get your facts straight.

>>You're showing yourself to be a closed-minded woo-woo who doesn't even consider direct evidence given to him, and who is all too willing to redefine things to fit his own biases!<<

If the shoe fits, wear it.

[Rouser2]

[quote]Originally posted by shanek


>>>>And the Income tax is an excise tax.<<<<

>>I'd love to see you try and support that bit of insanity...<<

I have repeatedly supported it by citing the landmark Brushaber case. I could cite many more. How many do you required? Here is the quote from the Brushaber case again. Please try to read and comprehend the words in red? Or are you color blind too?



". . . the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such . . ."
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 16 - 17 (1916

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rouser2
Yes. But in the context of taxation, personal property consists of ownership of things and not income.

You mean, in the way you (and others) have redefined it.

Quote:

Not at all. A capitation is a head tax, and is cited as such in the Constitution. "No capitation or other Direct Tax shall be laid unless..." -- Art. I, sec. 9.

Far from suggesting that all Direct Taxes are a form of capitation, that phrasing actually says that there are other forms of Direct Taxes.

Besides, Income Tax is most certainly a capitation, unless you rewrite the dictionary again.

Quote:

You are in denial.

I'm not the one redoing the English language.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rouser2
How many do you required?

I "required" you to use logic and reason instead of argument from authority.

An excise is a fee levied in exchange for certain government services. Where's the exchange in the Income Tax?

With the excises on gas, we get roads. With the excises on surveying etc., we get legal recognition of our property. What do we get in exchange for our Income Taxes?

[Rouser2]

[quote]Originally posted by shanek

>>>>Far from suggesting that all Direct Taxes are a form of capitation, that phrasing actually says that there are other forms of Direct Taxes.<<<>

Of course.


>>Besides, Income Tax is most certainly a capitation, unless you rewrite the dictionary again.<<


A capitation is a tax on people -- it has nothing to do with income or whether a person even has any. Common Dictionaries are sometimes used by the courts. More often, legal dictionaries, and even more often definitions supplied by the writers of the laws themselves and/or by the courts. The definition of the words Direct, Indirect, Excise, Capitation, Income, "Derived" "Source" and even the word "on" are intrinsically inter-related to the subject and the reason for the mass mis-understanding of it. I have pointed out some of the relevent cases to you, but you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

[Rouser2]

[quote]Originally posted by shanek

Re:

>>>>How many (cases) do you required? <<<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>I "required" you to use logic and reason instead of argument from authority.<<

There is no such a thing as logic and reason unless rooted in the precise definitions of words, which, when it comes to the law, must come from Authority.


>>An excise is a fee levied in exchange for certain government services. Where's the exchange in the Income Tax?<<

Not so. An excise is a tax laid on revenue taxable activities, events or privileges.

"A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax."--
Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, at 502 (1930).

"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax." --
House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, page 2580.


>>With the excises on gas, we get roads. With the excises on surveying etc., we get legal recognition of our property. What do we get in exchange for our Income Taxes?<<


What we get or don't get is completely irrelvent to the question of the lawful laying and collecting of the tax.


__________________

[Roadtoad]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
An excise is a fee levied in exchange for certain government services. Where's the exchange in the Income Tax?

With the excises on gas, we get roads. With the excises on surveying etc., we get legal recognition of our property. What do we get in exchange for our Income Taxes?

In theory, we get social programs which are supposed to help the underprivaleged. In reality, (and I speak from hard, painful experience), we get the sort of social engineering that keeps people in poverty. But then, when I listen to Democrats like Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle, I don't expect anything else.

Ever wonder why certain wealthy Americans remain silent about the income tax? It's designed to keep certain people down. It's not hard to figure out when you look at what the end result has been. Frankly, on that basis alone, I'd say we've grounds to rid ourselves of this social and bureaucratic atrocity.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rouser2
A capitation is a tax on people -- it has nothing to do with income or whether a person even has any.

Not so. It could be levied regardless of income, but it could just as easily be based on a person's income, shoe size, or whatever. We have to specifically file our taxes every year; hence it's a capitation.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rouser2
There is no such a thing as logic and reason unless rooted in the precise definitions of words, which, when it comes to the law, must come from Authority.

Hoo boy. Hey all of you skeptics out there reading this&mdash;whaddya think of that idea?

Quote:

Not so. An excise is a tax laid on revenue taxable activities, events or privileges.

Er, no. Excises are specifically defined as an exchange of money for a service. Unless you're rewriting the dictionary again. But that's the common law definition that was in effect when the founders penned the Constitution.

Quote:

>>With the excises on gas, we get roads. With the excises on surveying etc., we get legal recognition of our property. What do we get in exchange for our Income Taxes?<<

What we get or don't get is completely irrelvent to the question of the lawful laying and collecting of the tax.

It is completely relevant to the question of whether or not it's an excise.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Roadtoad
In theory, we get social programs which are supposed to help the underprivaleged. In reality, (and I speak from hard, painful experience), we get the sort of social engineering that keeps people in poverty.

But that's not an exchange for the Income Taxes we pay. We don't get these services automatically; we have to file for them. And most of us won't get them at all.

[Roadtoad]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek


But that's not an exchange for the Income Taxes we pay. We don't get these services automatically; we have to file for them. And most of us won't get them at all.

Ahh, yes! And God help you if ever you do!

[Tmy]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek


But that's not an exchange for the Income Taxes we pay. We don't get these services automatically; we have to file for them. And most of us won't get them at all.

What, you've never used the police or fire department? Never had your streets repaired? Snow plowed? garbage picked up? send you kids to public school? Used mass tranist? Watched a city fireworks display? gone to the park? driven on the interstate?

Everyone acts like all our taxes go straight to coked out welfare mothers.

[Roadtoad]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy


What, you've never used the police or fire department? Never had your streets repaired? Snow plowed? garbage picked up? send you kids to public school? Used mass tranist? Watched a city fireworks display? gone to the park? driven on the interstate?

Everyone acts like all our taxes go straight to coked out welfare mothers.

The police and fire department are paid for out of our property taxes. Street repair comes from fuel taxes. Snow plowing is covered by property taxes, and from utility taxes occasionally. Garbage is billed by the county, while public schools are covered through property taxes and local bond measures. Mass transit is supposed to be paid for from fares. City fireworks displays are nice, but where we live, we pay an admission fee to sit in the stands and watch. Parks charge user fees out here, while the rest also comes from our property taxes. The interstate is supposed to be paid for from Federal and State excise taxes on fuel and tires and the like.

No, everyone doesn't act as though all the money goes straight to coked out welfare mothers. I sure as hell wish it were, though. It would be a lot more effective, and might actually do some good. Instead, it all goes through fat-a$$ed bureaucrats with bad comb-overs who haven't been outside their offices in the past ten years to see what the hell is going on with the money they spend, which explains why you have some parts of most American cities that are virtual war zones where even the cops are afraid to go. In the meantime, we have people who are growing up on welfare and know no other way of life. You tell me: why in God's name would you continue to support that? That's what your income taxes go to support!

[Tmy]

Quote:

Originally posted by Roadtoad


The police and fire department are paid for out of our property taxes. Street repair comes from fuel taxes. Snow plowing is covered by property taxes, and from utility taxes occasionally. Garbage is billed by the county, while public schools are covered through property taxes and local bond measures. Mass transit is supposed to be paid for from fares. City fireworks displays are nice, but where we live, we pay an admission fee to sit in the stands and watch. Parks charge user fees out here, while the rest also comes from our property taxes. The interstate is supposed to be paid for from Federal and State excise taxes on fuel and tires and the like.

In the meantime, we have people who are growing up on welfare and know no other way of life. You tell me: why in God's name would you continue to support that? That's what your income taxes go to support!

Rarely can you follow a tax dollar to its final destination. The Feds send big block/grant money to just about every town, city, state in the country. It then filters down to those very programs yoou listed above. So those fed dollars do in fact help to pay for those things. Call it TRICKLE DOWN TAX BENIFITS if you will.

Dont believe me. Then go down to your local PD and ask if all their funding comes from local property taxes? Ask the school board if they get any fed money?

As for the "growing up welfare", I haer ithat alot but I never really understand that statement. Maybe in the old days you could be a perpetual welfare recipiant, but not anymore. At least not in Mass.

My biggest beef. Disablity!!! Thats the biggest money eating scam out there.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
What, you've never used the police or fire department?

Paid for with property taxes.

Quote:

Never had your streets repaired? Snow plowed?

The aforementioned excises.

Quote:

garbage picked up?

I pay a private company for that.

Quote:

send you kids to public school?

Local taxes again.

Quote:

Used mass tranist?

No mass transit here.

Quote:

Watched a city fireworks display?

Local taxes again.

Quote:

gone to the park?

Ditto.

Quote:

driven on the interstate?

Those gas excises again.

None of the things you mentioned are paid for with Federal Income Tax. And it constantly amazes me that people are so ignorant as to where their money goes that they honestly think that they are. This is the biggest argument I get out of why we should pay Income Tax, but none of these services are paid for with it! We could eliminate the Federal Income Tax and still have more than enough money for every single one of these services.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
Rarely can you follow a tax dollar to its final destination. The Feds send big block/grant money to just about every town, city, state in the country.

You can look at your local city or county budget, though, and see how much money they're getting from the Feds and compare it to how much they're spending on these services.

[Tmy]

My town just built a new High School. If my memory serves me I'd say about 80% was paid through Fed money. Ill give it a quick look.

OK a quick look and I foudn an article saying the city will be reimbursed 69% of the cost from the state. (Not sure if that state money also includes Dept O Education money)

My point is that you might be underestimating the amount of Fed money that may indirectly be returning to local projects.

[Roadtoad]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
My point is that you might be underestimating the amount of Fed money that may indirectly be returning to local projects.

Why do you WANT the Feds involved in the first place?

[Tmy]

I didnt say I wanted them involved. But they are.

maybe fed involment is a good thing on some levels. Lets say we really scaled back the Fed government, would it be so efficient to have the 50 states individually pick up and administer the now defunct fed programs? Can states survive without fed backing?

[Rouser2]

[quote]Originally posted by shanek
[b]

Re: Capitation

Not so. It could be levied regardless of income, but it could just as easily be based on a person's income, shoe size, or whatever. We have to specifically file our taxes every year; hence it's a capitation.<<


You are way out in left field, inventing your own laws and definitions. Not even proponents of today's income tax system claim it to be a "capitation". A capitation is a Direct Tax, requiring apportionment, but has never been invoked. Nor is it by definition on shoe size, nor on income but on the simple existence of a person.

[Rouser2]

[quote]Originally posted by shanek


<<Er, no. Excises are specifically defined as an exchange of money for a service.<<

Better tell the Supreme Court.

>> Unless you're rewriting the dictionary again. But that's the common law definition that was in effect when the founders penned the Constitution.<<

And, of course you have a source for this exciting piece of information? I doubt it.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
My point is that you might be underestimating the amount of Fed money that may indirectly be returning to local projects.

Given the fact that 20% of the money is always lost on the round trip through Washington, I don't see this as a particularly effective argument.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
maybe fed involment is a good thing on some levels. Lets say we really scaled back the Fed government, would it be so efficient to have the 50 states individually pick up and administer the now defunct fed programs? Can states survive without fed backing?

They did for 150 years. If anything, they have less money now. The Feds only provide about 5-7% of a state's education budget, yet they comprise 50% of the bureaucracy. It's an excessively wasteful system.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rouser2
You are way out in left field, inventing your own laws and definitions.

My Iron-E-Meter just exploded....

I know how the terms have become twisted around today. I'm talking about their meaning at the time of the writing of the Constitution, which was based on English common law.

[shanek]

Quote:

Originally posted by Rouser2
And, of course you have a source for this exciting piece of information? I doubt it.

You might want to look around the site www.originalintent.org. It's a most enlightening site. Click on the link at the left for Federal Income Tax and scroll not quite halfway down the page. You'll see this:

Quote:

In other words, if you are to be "liable for", or "subject to", an excise tax, you must first avail yourself of some privileged status or activity. Although there are various definitions provided in law dictionaries and in court decisions concerning what a "privilege" is, we prefer this plain English approach for tax matters:

Quote:

Privilege - Any activity, or eligibility for an activity, which requires submitting an application to a government entity, or for which the providing of a SSN and/or TIN is mandatory (i.e. penalties and/or other consequences can legally be instituted for failing to provide the identifying/account number).

So, what privilege do we obtain in paying the Income Tax? Or, is simply being employed a privilege? Do we not have the right to work? Because according to Knowlton v. Moore (and referenced further up the page), "Direct taxes bear upon persons, upon possessions, and enjoyment of rights."

Also on that same page, click on the link "Constitutional Issues of Taxation."

Quote:

When the US Constitution was created...[d]irect taxes were to operate solely upon the state governments, while indirect taxes were to operate upon whomsoever would avail himself of a privileged activity (i.e. indirect taxation)....[T]he Founding Fathers clearly specified the forms of the taxation that could be laid, along with the rules that the government must follow in order to Constitutionally lay such taxes.

[Roadtoad]

How about if we cut the crap and cut to the chase: There isn't any good income tax system. It is coercive, it is divisive, it is ultimately cruel. Perpetuating this assault on our individual liberties is wasteful and wrong.

Since we understand this, would someone please suggest a better way of doing things?

[shanek]

Simple: Limit the Federal government to its Constitutional functions and pay for everything with the current levels of tariffs and excise taxes (which does not include Income Tax, no matter what political newspeak apologist may tell you differently).

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek


My Iron-E-Meter just exploded....

I know how the terms have become twisted around today. I'm talking about their meaning at the time of the writing of the Constitution, which was based on English common law.

I tried to warn you!!!

What's the old saying? Arguing with an idiot makes you look like a fool and the idiot (Rouser2) look like a genius?? Or something to that effect.

To get an idea of what a loony this loony is, ask him this:

"Rouser2, on July 20th, 1969, did United States astronauts walk on the moon"?

He will refuse to answer, and accuse you of trying to change the subject.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Quote:

Originally posted by shanek
You might want to look around the site www.originalintent.org. It's a most enlightening site. ...

You do realize this is a Patriot Movement/Tax Protester site, right? You know--the people who believe the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified, the Internal Revenue Code "only" applies to "taxpayers," and "wages" are not income.

My favorite part is the "Get To Know Your Patriot" Project

Quote:

Let's face it; the media (which includes "Hollywood") has done a great job of making us look like inbred toothless morons. Of course it wasn't too hard; after all, they control what the vast majority of Americans see and hear. At times it seems as if network executives would rather have their lungs removed with a spoon than to let the American people get an accurate picture of who Patriots really are. We have made it even easier for this misrepresentation to occur by generally staying in the shadows, not wanting to attract attention to ourselves. A lot has changed in the last few years. The Patriot Movement (especially the Tax Honesty side of the Movement) is getting a lot more exposure than ever before; some of its even positive. Technology is evolving and in time there will be no dominant media as we know it today. Today's Internet is just a harbinger of things to come. Despite these promising changes, today we still operate under the false image created by the media. Original Intent is dedicated to showing the American people the true image of the American Patriot.

On the other hand, this section seems kind of ominous:

Quote:

Original Intent is preparing a proper Petition for Redress of Grievance.

Despite the public rhetoric that has accompanied some other petitions, Original Intent feels a commitment to do the job properly.

A properly structured Petition for Redress of Grievance to an offending government is an essential foundation that gives future actions their moral and legal credibility. [my emphasis]

Overall, a B+ on the fruitcake scale.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
The Central Scrutinizer
But they are not taxed equally, not under sales tax, not under VAT, not under income tax. The only thing we have control over, is what the inequality would be.

Correct, income is not taxed equally, but it should be. Why should my dollar be any different than yours. If you want to set the tax rate at say 10%, then some one making 100,000 should pay 10,000, and some one making $30,000 should pay $3,000. There should be no "inequality".

Quote:

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko

Yeah. But as a portion of the income, the rich spend less money on taxable items

Really? Expensive cars are not taxable? Yachts? Planes?

Quote:

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko

-- and items can be non-taxable in a variety of ways. They can pay money in services,

So the non-rich don't hire people to fix the furnace, or pour a concrete sidewalk, or put on a new roof?? Only the rich pay for these services? Interesting....

Quote:

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko

buy out-of-state,

So the non-rich don't buy things from out of state? Ever heard of the internet??

Quote:

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko

or use various financial tricks to protect the purchase

Off the top of my head, I can think of NO "tax loop hole" that is income dependent. In other words, are there any tax advantages available to the "rich" that exclude the "non-rich"??? Think very carefully about your answer.

Quote:

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko

(as a wholesale business purchase for example

True, if you own your own company (as I do), you can fudge the system a bit, and expense some things that may not exactly always be pure business expenses. So your saying that a non-rich person couldn't start their own company and do the same? Could you show me the exact federal or state tax code that says only rich people can form their own businesses?

Quote:

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
There are countless ways in which money are spent in non-sales-taxable ways by the rich.

Give one example.