I.R.S. loses court battle.

Discussion in 'Random Topic Center' started by Robert ex, Jul 26, 2007.

8 league13 468 60
  1. Robert ex

    Robert ex New Member



    I wouldn't quit paying your income taxes just yet -- but there is some hope. :cool:

    Over the years, I've read a lot about the I.R.S. being illegal -- with no constitutional validity. But this is the first time I've actually heard of them losing a court case. YIKES.​

    Additional Links:​

     
  2. moza

    moza New Member

    Good. About time someone is doing stuff to fix the problem.
     
  3. Spotter

    Spotter New Member

    Moza, you've got the right sentiment, but it is important to keep in mind that the IRS isn't the problem, they're merely a symptom of the problem.

    The problem is a bloated, unconstitutional federal government that has vastly overstepped the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution. Once you get the federal government fingers out of the millions of places they don't belong (Department of Education? Department of Agriculture? Department of Health and Human Services?), they'd have no "need" for all of the money they waste.

    S.

    P.S. - Holy cow! I posted my response before reading the full article, and sure enough, as examples Cryer used to illustrate unconstitutional areas of federal government involvement, I hit two of 'em (agriculture and education)! I must be psycho. . . .er, psychic.
     
  4. moza

    moza New Member

    Ya, that is the main problem, but the webs of power are too deep to hit the core =(
     
  5. Marril

    Marril New Member

    I stopped reading here.
     
  6. Articjedi

    Articjedi Active Member

    Actually, I just read the rest to see if I could get a laugh. It wasn't that funny.
     
  7. Spotter

    Spotter New Member

    Wow. Your cutting wit and biting social commentary almost worked its magic and convinced me that your stance on this position is above reproach.

    I managed to fight through it, however, and realize that you posted neither a stance nor an explanation as to why you have discounted the credibility of the argument.

    Any explanation as to why you found it necessary to stop reading the article? I'm suspecting it had something to do with the use of the word 'patriot', which, based on what I've read of your other postings, I'm sure you find offensive.

    S.
     
  8. Marril

    Marril New Member

    No, it had more to do with the fact that the article was a bunch of ignorant hogwash. They seem to be under the impression that cutting down the government is a good thing. If the government has no money and no programs, who's going to be the one to shoulder everything you take for granted? Roads? Schools? Unemployment assistance? They'd have to be taken over by someone with nothing but profit in mind, e.g. some corporation or another. Easily-bearable taxes give you enough in return that losing what's taken for granted is something I don't think many people truly want. There's an old debate between me and Moss Factor that goes over this in more detail, if you care to search it up.

    In the end, people will end up paying more money overall, not less, if they remove income tax.
     
  9. Spotter

    Spotter New Member

    It is. And the article (and my discussion thus far) has been limited to the federal government, of which roughly 85% should be done away with on the grounds that (1) they have no Constitutional basis to do 85% of the things they do and (2) leaving control of that 85% to the actual entities who should be responsible for them would end up with either (a) those things getting done more efficiently, putting more money back in every taxpayer's pocket or (b) those things being determined as unnecessary and discontinued, putting more money back in every taxpayer's pocket.

    Again, keep the context to the federal government. If the federal government got out or roads, schools and unemployment assistance, then the state and local governments would have to "shoulder everything I take for granted." What we would end up with then is a number of experiments (in the case of state responsibilities less than 50, but certainly greater than 1) to supply these services, some of which would fail miserably, some of which would be far more successful than anything the federal government could supply. Some of those solutions might even be supplied by evil corporations who, in their insatiable, lustful pursuit of the vile profit, actually provide similar, or even superior, services more efficiently at lower prices.

    If these are similar to the arguments you're presenting against Moss, I'll warrant you're losing horribly. There's no such thing as easily-bearable taxes in this country, unless you live below the poverty line and are actually one of those people who are receiving cash from the government instead of sending it to the government. The average middle-class tax burden is rapidly approaching 50% (state, local, sales, fuel, property, income, etc.). If the federal government would stick to what it is Constitutionally mandated to do, we wouldn't need personal income taxes, period.

    S.
     
  10. moza

    moza New Member

    On the subject, if we had companies building roads, teaching, etc, I think it would be much better.


    The company would keep the roads nice so people would drive on them, and if you live near detroit, you know the roads are shabby.

    And with teachers, notice how most teachers in the USA today don't give a care about how the students do? They will get paid wether or not the kids pass theg rade. Private schools, however, the teacher knows that if s/he/it wants to get paid, s/he/it needs to do a good job, or no cash.

    JMO
     
  11. Marril

    Marril New Member

    Considering I live in a country with not only income tax, but GST and PST, I think I have some leeway to say that taxes are bearable. If anything, more sensibly stratified tax would reduce the burden all around. I personally like the free health care whenever I need it, but I acknowledge that someone's got to pay for it and that everyone paying for it beats spending thousands of dollars when I actually need it.

    Terasen Gas is a fine example. They decided they'd give Terasen some competition, and so now you've got all these many companies all offering natural gas, despite that it comes from pretty much the same source anyway, and in the end people will wind up paying more for their natural gas than they did when it was regulated.

    Actually, on no occasion has Moss beaten me. He's occasionally self-destructed, though more often than not he just flat loses.

    This Marill guy's plagiarizing me. I should report that to the mods.

    EDIT:

    Oh, that's just brilliant. Remove public schools in favour of private schools, and further widen the social gaps since then not everyone could afford to go to school.
     
  12. Spotter

    Spotter New Member

    Living in Canada or the U.K. (a guess, based on the taxes and "free" health-care references) does not give you leeway to say that U.S. taxes are bearable. It DOES give you leeway to say that they are MORE bearable, but only in reference to what you are obviously paying now. Taxes in the U.S. are ludicrously high, which means only that higher taxes in other countries are preposterously high.

    I will freely admit to knowing nothing about Terasen Gas, but will look into it. And yet your statement still doesn't indicate that people actually ARE paying more for their natural gas, but ". . .people WILL wind up paying more for their natural gas than they did when it was regulated." (Emphasis added). I will have more to say on this when I have educated myself on the subject.

    It is hardly true that not everyone could afford to go to a school. If you remove the expense from the government (running a school system), then they would no longer require that allocated money, which could remain with the taxpayer, allowing them to use those funds to send their child to the school of their choice (within obvious fiscal restrictions). Does this guarantee that every child would go to schools of equal quality? Well, obviously not, but that's not the case as it is now, anyway. Compare the Highland Park, TX Independent School system with the Dallas Independent School System. They're both in the same state, but the differences between them are striking. And as moza pointed out, at least then the employees of a privately run school would have proper incentive to improve performance, instead of just riding mediocrity to guaranteed paychecks. This is a bad topic to take me on over, my wife was a public school teacher who has moved on to the private school sector specifically over the lack of accountability and performance in the public schools.

    Talk to you later about Terasen.
    S.
     
  13. Marril

    Marril New Member

    And yet entire countries of people live with them. In fact, the benefits we get from them are well worth the price we pay. I had to go to the hospital once, and what would've cost me thousands of dollars in America cost me nothing but the time I spent there up here in Canada. I'd imagine most Americans would like to be able to do that sort of thing.

    Good for you. You live in a place with bad public schools. I live in a place with good public schools, and had teachers who were better at teaching than some of the college professors I've had. I can't imagine that every public school in America is as you describe. It's simply an unrealistic generalization that every private school is good, and every public school is bad.
     
  14. ninetales1234

    ninetales1234 <a href="http://pokegym.net/gallery/browseimages.p

    I like what people like Ed Brown, Aaron Russo, Irwin Schiff, and others like them are doing. However, I think it is important to fight big government on multiple fronts.
    Is the income tax illegal? I would say so. However, many protestors are reading about specific statutes and going through books of federal code, and I think it is a waste of time. What if the law is changed? What if, after looking through tons and tons of tax code, it was discovevered that the tax is legal? What if the income tax was authorized by a new amendment to the Constitution? Then what?
    The important thing to realize, the important issue, is that the tax is wrong. Legal? Not legal? whatever. Doesn't matter to me. The fact that it's wrong is what's important. We all know from a very young age that it's wrong to take things from other people.
    The tax is immoral. People in government are getting money for their programs at the point of a gun.

    1. The money is being wasted.
    2. The fact that a non-self-regulating tax exists, allows the government to get bigger.
    3. The tax is immoral, because it is theft.

    These are the things that we need to think about. It may be helpful that the tax code is not being applied properly, the tax is not authorized by the Constitution, and that there are other legal tools we can use, but debating whether it is legal or not is not the most important thing. Plantation slavery was once legal, (in fact, the Constitution protected it for some time!) but that doesn't make it okay.

    Tax cuts without spending cuts aren't really tax cuts, as they say.

    Yes, three times the immorality, three times the theft! Let's be like Canada, and "share" even more of our wealth at the point of a gun.

    Well, that's just you. If you think it's so good, go do it on a voluntary basis. Join some organization/commune that shares wealth. If you think it's such a good idea, that's fine. Let the people who want to collectivize, collectivize. But don't act as though it's okay to make other people be part of this silly taxation system without their permission. That is what the state is doing; it is forcing the people to be part of this system.

    How much stealing is bearable? Zero percent.

    Just from a mathematical standpoint, you do realize that "stratified tax" doesn't actually make anything cheaper? It's going to cost the same (if not more).
     
  15. Marril

    Marril New Member

    How about you stop using any and all government programs and property before you start saying these things? You make use of them, so clearly you must approve of them on at least some level.
     
  16. Spotter

    Spotter New Member

    You say it cost you nothing, but that's far from true, and you know it. It cost you and your fellow citizens money paid in taxes. You just don't see it coming out of pocket, so that makes it 'less painful' for you. We have collectivist health-care, too. It's called insurance, and it is participated in on a voluntary basis. Wait, let me head off your next argument - "How can it be voluntary if you can't afford any health care without it?" Guess what's making insurance so expensive. . . . . .it ain't the doctors and hospitals.

    I spent the last 13 years working for a Canadian company, surrounded by Canadians who were transplanted down here to Texas. So I've heard firsthand how great the system up there is. One of my employees raved about how excited he was to be able to get an MRI on his broken leg after only three days. All he had to do was show up for his scheduled 3 a.m. appointment . . . .

    My post explicitly pointed out how all school districts aren't equal, even when the government is throwing all this money at them. All teachers are not equal. All people are not equal. That is a simple fact of reality. I had elementary school teachers who were better than some of my college professors. I had honors-level high school teachers who shouldn't have been teaching stable-mucking. On an individual-by-individual basis, you're going to be able to find examples to refute any point anybody makes. On an across-the-board basis, the private sector can do upwards of 85% of all things the government does more effectively and cheaper.

    Strangely, the government itself, in order to maintain its throttle hold on the country, makes this extremely difficult. It's not so much that it is wrong to use government services that are paid for through taxes, but which level of government that funding comes from. The FEDERAL government's activities should be restricted to (a) the Defense of the Several States and (b) Regulation of INTERSTATE Commerce. That's about it. All else should be handled at the state and local level.

    By the way, picking and choosing which points you're going to respond to ain't gonna score you points. I have, and will continue to, respond to every point you bring up. Anything less decreases credibility.

    S.
     
  17. ixidor89

    ixidor89 New Member

    I go to a public school, and a vast majority of the teachers I've had are intelligent, talented people. They teach because they care, not because they are getting paid. If that was the case, they would easily be able to find a much higher paying job somewhere else.
     
  18. Marril

    Marril New Member

    Exactly. It cost me basically nothing. So I pay taxes when I receive enough income to not get it refunded, and when I buy things, but that's what taxes are for: They allow the government to function. It's not costing me huge hospital bills. I had to pay nothing special to get treatment.

    I'm wondering where this "85%" number comes from. I'm also questioning how it's cheaper for a student to go to private school than public school. Or are you referring to the public/private sectors in general? If so, I'm doubly curious as to where your number comes from, and also curious as to how much more effectively, and how much cheaper.

    The "government" isn't a single, inscrutible being. It's not a shadowy secret council that exists seperate of the country. It's comprised of and chosen by the citizens. They're sort of like union leaders, if you would. And just like unions charging union dues, the government taxes its people to remain effective. Like a powerless union, the government has no right to exist when it can't provide anything for the citizens who make it up. The constitution that's being touted so heavily here would have no meaning if the government was so powerless.

    You're labouring under the impression that I care to snowball huge arguments where everyone responds to every minute little point said by the other. I'm simply arguing against that which argues against my main points, and not branching out into useless "refute everything your opponent says" quibbling. You're also labouring under the impression that you're doing a very good job of arguing your point with broad generalizations and numbers from out of nowhere. But take heart, you're doing better than ninetales1234, who starts with the object of his proof as one of his first assumptions, written in a nice, friendly boldface, and only gets worse from there.
     
  19. Prime

    Prime Content Developer<br>Blog Admin<br>Contest Host

    Marill, I'm just wondering here. Have you ever lived in the United States for any good amount of time?
     
  20. Marril

    Marril New Member

    What I'm arguing is independent of nationality. I've chosen my points carefully enough to make this kind of question immaterial.

    Stuff like the IRS not being in the constitution is one thing. Stuff like taxation in general being wrong is quite another.
     

Share This Page