NationStates Jolt Archive

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1616088001333580937&q=sprintboat

Take a look at this and let us know what you think.

Yup, pretty sure the 16th covers it.

Yup, pretty sure the 16th covers it.
But is there a law other than the taxation power delineated in the Constitution? AND, did you watch the video? :p

Already posted.....still laughable.

But is there a law other than the taxation power delineated in the Constitution? AND, did you watch the video? :p

NERVUN is right and the video is a waste.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1616088001333580937&q=sprintboat

Take a look at this and let us know what you think.
Does it matter? Even if you didn't have to pay it, you would still have to pay it. They aren't going to let your contribution just disappear.

I think TINSTAAFL law covers it.

But is there a law other than the taxation power delineated in the Constitution?
USC Title 16?

AND, did you watch the video? :p
Yup, but It's a rainy afternoon and I's bored. ;)

The sixteenth amendment does not allow the government to collect taxes. That's a major misconception.

The government already could and did collect taxes. However, there was a major confusion in the past about HOW the taxes were to be assessed and collected. The sixteenth amendment clarified the nature of tax collection. It did not give permission because no permission was needed.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1616088001333580937&q=sprintboat

Take a look at this and let us know what you think.
Tell you what. Try those arguments before any judge and then let us know how you're getting along with your new boyfriend in jail, assuming you have internet access.

Tell you what. Try those arguments before any judge and then let us know how you're getting along with your new boyfriend in jail, assuming you have internet access.
Jeeze, dude. All I did was ask what you think. :p

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1616088001333580937&q=sprintboat

Take a look at this and let us know what you think.

it is a violation of the constitution...plain and simple.

but the ass wipes from both parties make money...so fuck us..lol...

just like gun laws imposed by the batf,and dont get me going...fucking feds suck....why do i support states rights...lol

I wanna pull the "its against my religion" cop out..see if that works :p

Jeeze, dude. All I did was ask what you think. :p
Guess I ought to have put a smiley on that last one. :D

I wanna pull the "its against my religion" cop out..see if that works :p

Well, I suggest you try a religion other than Christianity then...

Well, I suggest you try a religion other than Christianity then...


ummm...poorassism? I think that is my religion..Thats right.. I am a poorassite

Entirely legal. The bizarre and outlandish convolutions of the twisted 'reasoning' required to claim otherwise in earnest make it an open and close case.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1616088001333580937&q=sprintboat

Take a look at this and let us know what you think.

income tax was illegal/is illegal....same as prohibition...some gentrified fuck wads stacking the deck is all it is.

I wanna pull the "its against my religion" cop out..see if that works :p
Didn't work for "Dr. Dino" Kent Hovind. (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/FL/470_kent_hovind_arrested_on_federa_7_14_2006.asp)

Didn't work for "Dr. Dino" Kent Hovind. (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/FL/470_kent_hovind_arrested_on_federa_7_14_2006.asp)


If the income tax results in his incarceration then it has done more good than harm.

Didn't work for "Dr. Dino" Kent Hovind. (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/FL/470_kent_hovind_arrested_on_federa_7_14_2006.asp)


Thats hilarious..He needed to be arrested anyways..for being so ignorant.

You can print your own money: problem solved. Seriously, you can write "Worth $500" on a napkin and use it. No one is obligated to accept it, but you can certainly do it.

These people will have a fit when their tax-funded programs don't exist because there aren't any Taxes collected.

Take a look at this and let us know what you think.

Not on a bet. You guys are probably the IRS or something. I trust neither groups nor royalty when they ask my opinion.

yes

have you not been paying?

tsk tsk....

*wags finger at you*

how would you like to drive on a dirt road? because without taxes, thats what your doing

how would you like your children to go to a school? Without taxes, they can't.

why don't people just stfu and pay their stupid fucking taxes w/out bitching.

too many liberals. Move to Canada already you damn lefties!

how would you like to drive on a dirt road? because without taxes, thats what your doing

how would you like your children to go to a school? Without taxes, they can't.

why don't people just stfu and pay their stupid fucking taxes w/out bitching.

too many liberals. Move to Canada already you damn lefties!


Is this supposed to be opposed to pro-tax liberals or to anti-tax conservatives?


Dont post on the forum drunk.

I actually want to post drunk at some point, just to see the result.

The government expressly has the power to levy taxes. That power is granted in the constitution. In fact, it's one of the reasons they discarded the Articles of Confederation in favor of creating a stronger national government.

Also, having nice things takes money. Without taxes, there's a lot of stuff that doesn't get paid for. Pay for soldiers, for instance, or their retirement money. In fact, pretty much anything having to do with the military.

The roads we drive around the country on. Have you ever used the interstate highway system? If the answer is yes, "sit down and shut up," because that was built with taxes and is maintained with taxes.

What pays the salaries of police officers and firefighters? Taxes.

Is this supposed to be opposed to pro-tax liberals or to anti-tax conservatives?


Dont post on the forum drunk.

i shall post in whatever state of mind I see fit

[QUOTE=New Granada]Is this supposed to be opposed to pro-tax liberals or to anti-tax conservatives?[QUOTE]

What about us anti-tax liberals? Don't we count? :( Guess not.

<sigh> its a post for anyone who thinks that we should lower taxes without thinking of the long run. . .

as many people have already posted, taxes pay for things we take for granted, such as military, police, ambulance, roads, education, etc

<sigh> its a post for anyone who thinks that we should lower taxes without thinking of the long run. . .

as many people have already posted, taxes pay for things we take for granted, such as military, police, ambulance, roads, education, etc

So, how was it all paid for before 1917?

So, how was it all paid for before 1917?


you mean before interstate highways and their subsequent patrols? Or do you mean before the need for the current level of emergeny service in general? Or perhaps you mean before nearly every child went to school?

you mean before interstate highways and their subsequent patrols? Or do you mean before the need for the current level of emergeny service in general? Or perhaps you mean before nearly every child went to school?

All those are true. I specifically meant before the Federal Income Tax.

All those are true. I specifically meant before the Federal Income Tax.

why is it that you only think federal income tax applied only after 1917

and if it is true, then it was probably put into place to pay for the war the we bailed europe out of (the first time)

Take a look at this and let us know what you think.


Ok. I think that video was made by traitors for traitors. I think people who try to avoid paying their fair share should get the hell out of this country.

why is it that you only think federal income tax applied only after 1917

and if it is true, then it was probably put into place to pay for the war the we bailed europe out of (the first time)

There were attempts at a Federal Income Tax before the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. They were all unconstitutional. 1917 was the year the War Revenue Act passed. The government wasn't run for free, it had to have a money source someplace, and it wasn't a tax base.

My point is this: There are other ways to fund a government besides taxes. It's true that tax cuts need to be balanced by spending cuts. The problem there is that no one wants to give up their government program. You give people a service and they expect that service in perpetuity. It's the entitlement mentality. But if you keep expanding government, you tax people to the point where they can't work enough to pay enough taxes and still feed their families.

There were attempts at a Federal Income Tax before the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. They were all unconstitutional. 1917 was the year the War Revenue Act passed. The government wasn't run for free, it had to have a money source someplace, and it wasn't a tax base.

My point is this: There are other ways to fund a government besides taxes. It's true that tax cuts need to be balanced by spending cuts. The problem there is that no one wants to give up their government program. You give people a service and they expect that service in perpetuity. It's the entitlement mentality. But if you keep expanding government, you tax people to the point where they can't work enough to pay enough taxes and still feed their families.

so cut off the lazies, I know a ton of people who collectwelfare or social security and do nothing

so cut off the lazies, I know a ton of people who collectwelfare or social security and do nothing

But that's the point you made earlier -- you can't cut them off.

as many people have already posted, taxes pay for things we take for granted, such as military, police, ambulance, roads, education, etc

Welfare and social security are entitlements, taken for granted. You can't just cut people off without facing a HUGE backlash.

Not on a bet. You guys are probably the IRS or something. I trust neither groups nor royalty when they ask my opinion.
By "us" I meant those of us on NS General. :p

yes

have you not been paying?

tsk tsk....

*wags finger at you*
I don't hafta! :p

Disabled military benefits aren't taxable. :D

Ok. I think that video was made by traitors for traitors. I think people who try to avoid paying their fair share should get the hell out of this country.
So what do you think of the "Fair Tax" proposal? ( Assuming you're familiar with it. If not, Goggle it. ) :p

so cut off the lazies, I know a ton of people who collectwelfare or social security and do nothing
So what about me? I draw SS and military disability. And other than posting on here, I essentially "do nothing." :p

There's no law requiring an income tax, however there are laws which allow it.

I think that some people are forgetting that this video is talking about Federal income tax, not state or local taxes. Thus, without a federal tax things like police and ambulances would still get paid for since they're generally state and locally funded.

In my own little fantasy world the Federal government wouldn't need much in the way of tax income because all they would do is operate the military and enforce interstate commerce regulations. The states would raise taxes to provide whatever services their citizens want. Of course, this has just about as much a chance of happening as the Lions winning the Superbowl next year. Washington really doesn't like giving up any authority over anything.

So what about me? I draw SS and military disability. And other than posting on here, I essentially "do nothing." :p

I tend to scan read these forums to catch up with the debate and was quite shocked to read that Eut collected an SS military pension :p

What is this guy, the Michael Moore of Libertarians?

Assuming we're talking about the same thing Fair Tax (a 23% sales tax, for the unitiated) is a typical libertarian pie-in-the-sky idea. It would curtail consumer spending and destroy our economy.

I think that some people are forgetting that this video is talking about Federal income tax, not state or local taxes. Thus, without a federal tax things like police and ambulances would still get paid for since they're generally state and locally funded.

In my own little fantasy world the Federal government wouldn't need much in the way of tax income because all they would do is operate the military and enforce interstate commerce regulations. The states would raise taxes to provide whatever services their citizens want. Of course, this has just about as much a chance of happening as the Lions winning the Superbowl next year. Washington really doesn't like giving up any authority over anything.

Exactly. Problem is, some people really want as much centralized control as they can get. Gotta be able to force your ways of doing things on the most people possible, you know...even if they don't want it that way in their own corner. And these are the people that call others authoritarian.

What is this guy, the Michael Moore of Libertarians?

Yeah, maybe. I think they guy raised some interesting points, but some of the strained analysis and over dramatization were quite Moore-esque.

This video is more fodder for conspiracy nuts than anything. There are some legitimate issues addressed, but the treatment is mostly propagana. It's a Shame that Ron Paul was quoted in this - I can only hope that some of the context in which he was presented is not what he planned.

Assuming we're talking about the same thing Fair Tax (a 23% sales tax, for the unitiated) is a typical libertarian pie-in-the-sky idea. It would curtail consumer spending and destroy our economy.

And this is pie-in-the-shy how? If this would curtail consumer spending and destroy the economy, then are you admitting what supply-siders say about income taxes stifling investment and earnings? You can't have it both ways - either tax policy influences behavior and financial decisions or it doesn't. I'm not a big fan of the Fair Tax myself, unless the 16th ammendment is repealed; otherwise, we'll just eventually wind up with both taxes.

Also, there is some contention about the 16th amendment. Some claim that the ammendment was not ratified properly and that it was railroaded into law by courts. I'm not expert enough to know if this is true, I'm just pointing out the fact that the argument has been made.

The Constitution, barring amendment, states that taxes must be apportioned to the states by population (the states were responsible for collecting the tax and paying the feds, not the people directly), and the taxes must be for an express purpose and be temporary. Without the 16th and acitivist courts, the vast majority of the tax code today would be illegal. Some of it is anyway (e.x., excise taxes on phone service and long-distance - the war with Spain has been paid off I think...).

The Constitution supercedes the courts so saying "activist" courts "railroaded" in an Ammendment is the epitome of bullshit.

The Constitution supercedes the courts so saying "activist" courts "railroaded" in an Ammendment is the epitome of bullshit.

Gee, who's going to say one way or the other? Courts, D'oh!

The point is that there is/was some contention over whether the amendment to the constitution was ratified properly. If you aren't aware, amendments passed by the legislative branch must be ratified by a certain number of states to take effect. The contention is this process and some court rulings to this effect as relating to the 16th. As I said previously, I don't have an opinion on that right now - need to research it a bit.

Still, without the 16th amendment and/or the possibility of (does that make it better?) activist courts, the current tax code would be illegal.

My post was not the epitome of bullshit, but yours represents ignorance and a lack of reading comprehension.

Also, there is some contention about the 16th amendment. Some claim that the ammendment was not ratified properly and that it was railroaded into law by courts. I'm not expert enough to know if this is true, I'm just pointing out the fact that the argument has been made.
.

The argument stands on the same intellectual grounds as holocaust denial.

The point is that there is/was some contention over whether the amendment to the constitution was ratified properly. If you aren't aware, amendments passed by the legislative branch must be ratified by a certain number of states to take effect.
Exactly, the courts have no say.

The argument stands on the same intellectual grounds as holocaust denial.

What have you based this opinion on? As I said, I haven't researched this yet, so I do not have an opinion. If you have a source or sources that helped you reach yours, please share for the edification of the rest of us.

What have you based this opinion on? As I said, I haven't researched this yet, so I do not have an opinion. If you have a source or sources that helped you reach yours, please share for the edification of the rest of us.


Here's where some lunatic tried to have his tax fraud dismissed on the 16th-amendment-denying conspiracy argument.


http://www.apfn.org/apfn/16th.htm


And more from the same website:

"The 16th Amendment
was not ratified! The Income Tax is therefore illegal.
Note: As goes our nation in the push by the Socialist Council on Foreign
Relations, so goes the rest of the "free" world. The CFR through its
enforcement arm, the Communist United Nations, will eventually eliminate all
freedom in this world. Only you and I can stop it. Removing the funding
provided directly by the US Taxpayer (all of our income taxes go out of the
country) will be a huge blow to the Elitists who seek to be the world
dictator thru the UN."

Damned International Jew! Out to get our MONEY!

Exactly, the courts have no say.

You still do not understand. The argument is that 3/4 of the states did not ratify the amendment, but the feds said that it was. Courts ruled on this, and the argument contends that they were activist in nature and their rulings and the actions of the feds were not in keeping with the Constitution.

The courts ruled on points of law regarding the ratification process that enabled the government to use power granted it by the 16th amendment, while many contended that the appropriate ratification had not taken place, therefore, such use of powers not really granted would be illegal.

I'm not commenting on the veracity of the argument, as I have no basis with which to support it or negate it.

And this is pie-in-the-shy how? If this would curtail consumer spending and destroy the economy, then are you admitting what supply-siders say about income taxes stifling investment and earnings? You can't have it both ways - either tax policy influences behavior and financial decisions or it doesn't. I'm not a big fan of the Fair Tax myself, unless the 16th ammendment is repealed; otherwise, we'll just eventually wind up with both taxes.



Fair point, but the thing is, income taxes are "use-neutral", in that whether or not you are using the money to build yourself a new extension to your store or if you're putting it away you're still going to get a certain percentage taken away from you.

Sales taxes on the other hand, by definition will not touch money put away for savings, so unlike income taxes it's a massive disincentive to take a particular action - namely buying stuff. We'd see more people squirreling their money away (which in and of itself is not a bad thing) and less people making leisure purchases. Which, unless I'm mistaken, would hurt the economy quite badly.

Heres my theory, Aaron Russo is not looking at the big picture

Convieniet googled site:
http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst.html

Amendment XVI: Income tax.

http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/amend.html#art-16

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

Now talking to the regular American people in the streets is an admirable thing to do to collect data for a documentary blah blah blah.
But I'm sure not everyone he talked to was as half witted and the ones he showed on his documentary.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentx

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

This includes tax.

As far as RFIDs go, I don't think it'll be passed by any law, you can always just slam it with the right to privacy or some such in court, and the law will be cease to exist. Putting them in money however might make buying/selling better because you can't counterfit real RFIDs I imagine.

Here's where some lunatic tried to have his tax fraud dismissed on the 16th-amendment-denying conspiracy argument.


http://www.apfn.org/apfn/16th.htm


And more from the same website:

"The 16th Amendment
was not ratified! The Income Tax is therefore illegal.
Note: As goes our nation in the push by the Socialist Council on Foreign
Relations, so goes the rest of the "free" world. The CFR through its
enforcement arm, the Communist United Nations, will eventually eliminate all
freedom in this world. Only you and I can stop it. Removing the funding
provided directly by the US Taxpayer (all of our income taxes go out of the
country) will be a huge blow to the Elitists who seek to be the world
dictator thru the UN."

Damned International Jew! Out to get our MONEY!

Interesting (/sarcasm) website - funny that this was your source! ;)

Seriously though, the document you directly linked to was quite informative. The part that stuck out to me was :"because defendants have not alleged that the minor variations in capitalization, punctuation and wording of the various state resolutions are materially different in purpose or effect from the
language of the congressional joint resolution proposing adoption of the
sixteenth amendment".

I'm not sure if this covers evey angle of the controversy, but you've definitely put me on the skeptical side of the claims that it was not ratified properly.

Fair point, but the thing is, income taxes are "use-neutral", in that whether or not you are using the money to build yourself a new extension to your store or if you're putting it away you're still going to get a certain percentage taken away from you.

Sales taxes on the other hand, by definition will not touch money put away for savings, so unlike income taxes it's a massive disincentive to take a particular action - namely buying stuff. We'd see more people squirreling their money away (which in and of itself is not a bad thing) and less people making leisure purchases. Which, unless I'm mistaken, would hurt the economy quite badly.

At the risk of hijacking the thread too much: while I think your concern is correct in theory, I don't see it being as large a concern as you do. People will still spend, and most basic purchases would not be affected anyway. My argument against the Fair Tax here is that we'll need to create another large and expensive bureaucracy to administer rebates. Besides, when people squirrel their money away, most are not stuffing into mattresses. Money is put to work through lending (put your money in a bank?) or investment which helps the economy change, adapt, and grow. I don't think we can easily predict what revenue streams would look like through this (it might not bring in enough, or it could bring in too much), but I don't think it would curtail consumer spending too much. Problem is, no one can really predict this - it's all just supposition.

Besides, the Fair Tax would be unconstitutional without an amendment authorizing it!