What do you understand of the thousands of income tax laws? The FAIR TAX makes this very simple. Pay taxes at point of purchase and forget it. This system which you defend is very complex and includes jailing people Go to the IRS site and they brag about people they jail.
This duplicates a reply I made moments ago. Maybe not to you. You speak of flawed. I call flawed a system of taxation resulting in thousands of laws, hundreds of books to be studied to comprehend tax law, yet offer a system that is simple, easy to understand, cheaper to administrate, and collects revenue from those who do not pay income taxes. Trying to conflate benefits taxes, such as social security is not the problem. We do not need to fill out forms to declare what we paid for social security. This is done by firms we work for unless as I happen to be, am self employed. The present system has prebates, such as what I collect in Social Security, but I have not yet ranted that SS must go.
I pay zero FICA tax. I am a collector. I have my medical expenses, drugs all paid for by people such as you. I receive monthly deposits to my account that vastly exceed what I have paid to the Feds. So please, let's not pretend 47 percent are paying such taxes. Do I pay taxes? Darned tooting. I pay sales taxes. I do not need to go to a tax preparer since it is handled at the store. I am diminished in annual income by said taxes yet do not find a single person arguing for me quitting paying sales taxes. But the best thing is I do pay taxes to government and see what they pay for. Fire protection, police and courts. Doing just fine and they don't get paid by federal income taxes. I can tell by the vast debt of the Feds they do not pay all their bills unless they rush out to borrow money.
Obama wants to crank up wages a lot. But he gave me a monthly raise of $3. Yep three dollars per month and now I call him my messiah. I wonder what Democrat would go for minimum social security payments per month of $4,500 per month? I could live on that amount.
Was your father Hans? Did his father own the ford dealership in Cologne? Were you born in America? I am hard pressed to come to grips with this country and it's tax laws. First there is the Federal government. We file on the 15th of April normally. Then we file with the state. In my case I also file with the city. I also pay to the county. And on purchase, say of alcohol, one pays many dollars in taxes. There is always someone holding out their hands seeking our earnings. Even when we shop, we have the taxman waiting. So it is not merely the income tax, we are besieged with taxes.
Im at exactly the same point living off SS and medicaid/medicare. Even at only 740 a month Ive already gotten back more than I put in plus for some reason the send me 104 a month for medicare which they also pay for. I dont know why they send me the 104 but Im not complaining. At first they were charging me 104 when I turned 65 for medicare.
Absolutely wrong. If you hit someone's car and damage it, they can sue you for damages and take your property whether you consent to it or not. And it is not theft.
There are lots of things the government does that I don't agree with. That doesn't mean I don't do my duty. - - - Updated - - - The internet video method of learning about the world. There are internet videos that "prove" the world is flat. Do you believe those too? - - - Updated - - - Let me guess, you learned that from the Creature Feature? Trying to uphold a gold standard in a depression was a big mistake.
Mobs don't take money lawfully. - - - Updated - - - I thought your internet guy said there were no tax laws?
You base your argument on several major flaws. You think the people actually have a say in their government, and that the government is honest, and it works for the benefit and will of the people. Try to change a policy in a large city or a state much less a federal policy. "You can't fight city hall". The perfect example is obamacare, an act that was opposed by most of the people in the nation but those people had no voice. Look at New London v Kelo, the supreme court ruling that declared an increase in tax revenue was considered a valid reason to use eminent domain. The City of New London used its eminent domain power to take peoples homes, gave the land to a developer who would build a shopping mall and generate more tax revenue than the home owners were paying. (And the developer failed, that land sits empty, a big field of nothing). Kelo could pay her taxes, she was financially stable, but her voice was drowned out by a deeper pocket who had political connections. And that brings up your other false assumptions - that the government is predictable to the point that a person can engage in a 30 year contract (mortgage) with reasonable expectation that the government will not target his house for confiscation. Wrong. People lose their home due to loss of a job, poor investment decisions, divorce, and many other causes. But when people lose their home solely due to exorbitant increases in taxation by the very people who are supposed to protect those home owners, people who are supposed to be working for the homeowners, then its not just a tragedy but theft.
Paying unconstitutional taxes to pay for unconstitutional things is not doing your duty. Just the opposite
Yes, unfortunately representative democracies render all of us criminals; another reason to oppose them and any other system of governance relying on taxation. Hobbes, Locke, Rawls, pretty much every political philosopher ever to have lived would disagree with your "assessment".
You would think so, since that's how they all start off, but then they invariably end up adding all their wants, and their vision into which they want society molded, to the mix after you show that the initial set of supposed non-rivalrous, non-excludable services can be and have been provided without taxation.
That's true. If you infringe on another individual's right to life, liberty, or property, you can have your life, liberty, or property taken from you without your consent. But absent those very specific conditions, taking someone's property without their consent is indeed a form of theft and it doesn't matter if the person or persons doing the taking conjure up high-sounding names for themselves like "government". It is still theft.
Sorry, I got this past year, $1,151 per month but yay, Obama gave me a raise to $1,154 for next year. We still pay sales taxes and yet no Democrat lobby's to stop that.
I think he's alluding to the criminal acts underlying its ratification(if I remember right, two governors were kidnapped so as to formalize the event). I'm curious, though, as to what you think makes the constitution itself legal.
I don't see believing something pounded into his head his whole life, especially during his most impressionable years, as a reason to think of someone as "smart". Now, if someone could offer reasonable explanation of the difference between taxation and extortion, I would consider that person very smart and change my worldview.
Yes, it's called federalism. Shift non-Constitutional spending to the States. That leaves the federal government spending money on defense and embassies.
T.Coleman Andrews, former commissioner of the IRS http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/1A40BDA52660223E8525803700431AFC?OpenDocument
I believe most of the problem could be fixed by removing the Federal Government from so many of the present things it does. It really amounts to a roadblock to the states as opposed to a helper.
This has to do with authority [video=youtube;-5sZjSiU364]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5sZjSiU364[/video]
