Wesley Snipes tax protest case heads to court

[GHook93]

Quote by: Rainbow Since IRS seems to work against the People, then let us assume : - there is no IRS any longer What are the means a state to grow, prosper, make progress, etc. ???

The fair tax! Until the fair tax is implemented, then the IRS is a necessary evil!

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: suijurisfreeman There is a saying (or is it a legal maxim?), No one is above the law! Is that true? If so, why?

Well, at least from a legal standpoint, no one is above the law. In reality, it seems some people can get special treatment, but I have a feeling that is not what you're arguing here.

What is the underlying presumption that few seem to understand? What is it that makes one liable under the law in this country?

Being under the jurisdiction of this country makes one liable under the law. I know that sounds circular, but it is the truth. There are many things that can place someone under the jurisdiction of this country, but the two primary means are citizenship and physical presence here.

Quote by: GHook93 I agree that he violated that statute and he should be punished.However, so did Willie Nelson. I find it ironic that they coming down harder on a Black man over a White man.

Willie Nelson was not involved in a criminal tax case.

Nelson tried to use tax shelters that were later disallowed by the IRS. Incidentally, he sued his accountants as a result and settled the case out of court.

[lsbskins1]

I would like anyone who thinks that the tax system in our country is unfair to the wealthy to look at these 2 sites and do some math: Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What and Wealth Distribution

Now, consider -

The top 10% on the income scale control 71.2 % of the wealth and pay 70.3 % of the taxes. Seems like they are ahead by almost 1% in the game and they ought to quit complaining based on that fact alone. But also consider that even though they pay right on track for what they control, they could wipe their butts with hundred dollars bills and still live better than the bottom 1/3 of the country. I think it is only fair that they should pay even more based on that fact.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: GHook93 The fair tax ! Until the fair tax is implemented, then the IRS is a necessary evil !

What criteria and by whom ? :-)

[GHook93]

Quote by: Rainbow What criteria and by whom ? :-)

This thread might answer that.
The Fair Tax!

The fair tax is on output, not on income, property or corporations (this I see is the biggest advantage)!

With the fair tax then guys like Snipes couldn't cheat their taxes and Corporation wouldn't have to find loop holes in order to stay competitive in America.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: lsbskins1 I would like anyone who thinks that the tax system in our country is unfair to the wealthy to look at these 2 sites and do some math: Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What and Wealth Distribution Now, consider - The top 10% on the income scale control 71.2 % of the wealth and pay 70.3 % of the taxes. Seems like they are ahead by almost 1% in the game and they ought to quit complaining based on that fact alone. But also consider that even though they pay right on track for what they control, they could wipe their butts with hundred dollars bills and still live better than the bottom 1/3 of the country. I think it is only fair that they should pay even more based on that fact.

You only think it is fair because you have the misguided belief that government would do a better job spending and investing that money than they themselves do.

That belief is unfounded. Most economists agree that private investment creates far more wealth than government spending on a per dollar basis.

John Stossel has a standing (and unmet) challenge to anyone who can demonstrate, in simple economic terms, any domestic function that is performed better by government than by private industry. He is offering to give $50,000 to anyone who can do so.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: GHook93 This thread might answer that. The Fair Tax! The fair tax is on output, not on income, property or corporations (this I see is the biggest advantage) ! With the fair tax then guys like Snipes couldn't cheat their taxes and Corporation wouldn't have to find loop holes in order to stay competitive in America.

I followed that link.

The major point :
- there is No estimate done by almost any business it bases its pricing on.
This is the factor for pricing, production cost, service , tax, etc.
If we have that major point systematized, then tax would be much lower.
Since some guys prefer Democracy and Free-Market idea over logic, then we have what it is right now : a total economic mess.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 I would like anyone who thinks that the tax system in our country is unfair to the wealthy to look at these 2 sites and do some math: Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What and Wealth Distribution Now, consider - The top 10% on the income scale control 71.2 % of the wealth and pay 70.3 % of the taxes. Seems like they are ahead by almost 1% in the game and they ought to quit complaining based on that fact alone. But also consider that even though they pay right on track for what they control, they could wipe their butts with hundred dollars bills and still live better than the bottom 1/3 of the country. I think it is only fair that they should pay even more based on that fact.

The Constitution says that taxes shall be apportioned "evenly".


Liberal politics is all about how ( I ) feel, as demonstrated in the quoted text.


When are you guys going to offer to take your hurt feelings, and go home?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley The Constitution says that taxes shall be apportioned "evenly". Liberal politics is all about how ( I ) feel, as demonstrated in the quoted text. When are you guys going to offer to take your hurt feelings, and go home?

How do you define "evenly"? Everybody pays 6 dollars? It is even and I proved it. And all politics is about how (I) feel. You feel it is unfair that you have to support programs with your tax money that you don't support in principle. You feel it would be better to allow people to do what they damn well please with what they own. You feel the government has gotten too big. When are you going to offer to take your hurt feelings and go home?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: tivodan1116 You only think it is fair because you have the misguided belief that government would do a better job spending and investing that money than they themselves do. That belief is unfounded. Most economists agree that private investment creates far more wealth than government spending on a per dollar basis. John Stossel has a standing (and unmet) challenge to anyone who can demonstrate, in simple economic terms, any domestic function that is performed better by government than by private industry. He is offering to give $50,000 to anyone who can do so.

This is silly on it's face. The government absolutely does a better job of maintaining an Army than private industry would. The government absolutely does a better job of running our court system than private industry would. And when it comes to comparing "private" to "public" schooling, before public education, there really was no public education. We aren't comparing whether or not Johnny Richboy gets a better education from his private school than Jimmy Poorkid gets from his public school. We're comparing whether or not Jimmy Poorkid gets a better education today than his great-great grandfather did before the advent of public education and whether this benefits all of society, even Johnny Richboy.

I could go on for days about John "I Know Who Pays My Salary" Stossel, but I'll spare you all but this - I could challenge anyone to demonstate, in simple economic terms, any domestic function that is preformed better by private indusrty than by government, and if I get to define "simple" and I get to define "better", I'll never have to give my money away. So John Stossel can eat a lump of slimey dirt.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Milton Bradley The Constitution says that taxes shall be apportioned "evenly". Liberal politics is all about how ( I ) feel, as demonstrated in the quoted text. When are you guys going to offer to take your hurt feelings, and go home?

Give the specific clause. As I stated above its states that Congress has the right to lay and collect taxes.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Milton Bradley The Constitution says that taxes shall be apportioned "evenly".

No, it doesn't. The word "evenly" does not appear in the Constitution anywhere.

Quote by: lsbskins1 This is silly on it's face. The government absolutely does a better job of maintaining an Army than private industry would.

My quote said domestic function. Government is useful for the purpose of maintaining foreign relations and a few other things.

The government absolutely does a better job of running our court system than private industry would.

You have zero basis for making this argument and it is essentially meaningless. However, I'll preemptively respond while I wait for whatever evidence you think points to this... Take a look at the rise of private mediation and arbitration as PUBLIC courts become crammed with cases and justice becomes slow and unwieldy. Plea bargaining and negotiated settlements are a private result of our public failure to have enough time to fully prosecute every case.

Careful, you're treading on my area of expertise here.

And when it comes to comparing "private" to "public" schooling, before public education, there really was no public education.

And? How does this mean that it is "better" than public schools?

We aren't comparing whether or not Johnny Richboy gets a better education from his private school than Jimmy Poorkid gets from his public school. We're comparing whether or not Jimmy Poorkid gets a better education today than his great-great grandfather did before the advent of public education and whether this benefits all of society, even Johnny Richboy.

Why should we do that? That's not a fair comparison because the situation in our country, not to mention the type of knowledge one needs to have to be successful in our economy, has changed drastically from Johnny's great-grandfather's time. You made this comparison simply to grasp at some hopeless comparison by which you can possibly make the ridiculous argument that our public schools are worth the money being spent on them.

While you're "comparing", why don't you compare apples to apples - public vs. private schools in the same geographic vicinity? Or how about schools in USA versus other industrialized nations?

I could go on for days about John "I Know Who Pays My Salary" Stossel,

LOL. I know, he is the enemy of big-government, nanny-state, mommy and daddy government please wipe my bottom for me liberals because he actually demonstrates, via the use of facts, that where corporate waste and bureaucracy is concerned, it is best to start with the biggest, most wasteful, most bureaucratic, worst performing corporation on Earth - the Federal government.

but I'll spare you all but this - I could challenge anyone to demonstate, in simple economic terms, any domestic function that is preformed better by private indusrty than by government, and if I get to define "simple" and I get to define "better", I'll never have to give my money away. So John Stossel can eat a lump of slimey dirt.

Then go ahead. Define simple and better and show me a function. Then we can judge for ourselves. If your metrics for "simple" and "better" are ridiculous, we'll see that obviously.

[Osborn F Enready]

Tivo said: A Constitutional Amendment cannot, by definition, be unconstitutional.

Yes, obviously it can.

Its called a process of JUDICIAL REVIEW....

that was a very lawyer like reply though, you are learning young Annaken the way of the force, though it may indeed be the dark side....

[GHook93]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Yes, obviously it can. Its called a process of JUDICIAL REVIEW.... that was a very lawyer like reply though, you are learning young Annaken the way of the force, though it may indeed be the dark side....

LOL, name were judicial review has ever made a constitutional amendment or clause unconstitutional? Judicial review is supposed to interpret the constitution and decide if state, Federal, common or local laws are constitutional.

Judicial review can't change the constitution or make any part invalid. Only a Congressional vote, ratification or separate amendment. Example the 13th and 14th amendment against the "fugitive slave law." And the 21st amendment repealing prohibition or the 18th amendment.

[Osborn F Enready]

Ghook said: LOL, name were judicial review has ever made a constitutional amendment or clause unconstitutional? Judicial review is supposed to interpret the constitution and decide if state, Federal, common or local laws are constitutional.

Please show me where judicial review is applied to new legislation anymore GHOOK?

Obviously if it isn't being used, it can't work as intended, can it?

Ghook said: Judicial review can't change the constitution or make any part invalid.

Thats obviously false on its face.

If the public demand an amendment be held up to scrutiny of judicial review, and the court takes the case, the court CAN rule that an amendment did not follow the prescribed process for ratification if it didn't, they can rule it is contradictory if it is, and they can rule that the amendment no longer applies if the facts support the case.

Also, in any jury case, the jury can willingly nullify the law, or precedent of the SC if they so choose and the facts of a case compel them to do so.

You assume because something has NOT been done, it CAN'T be done, which you should know is not the case.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Please show me where judicial review is applied to new legislation anymore GHOOK? Obviously if it isn't being used, it can't work as intended, can it?

The 13th and 14th amendments were not in the original constitution, but they were applied to Brown v. the Board of Education to shoot down the separate but equal clause.

Here is some recent cases I can remember off hand
Basically any case the comes in front of the supreme court. Take Kumho v. Carmichael ==> on the Daubert test. 1999
State v, Kinney ==> expert witness reliability
Democratic Party v. Indiana ==> challenging the voting ID law of IN
Moore v. VA ==> State law violated 4th amendment! Reversed and remanded
Just to name a few. Judicial review happens when the case is in front of the court.

Thats obviously false on its face.

Actual its not. The US courts (supreme court in general) are to apply the constitution to Federal, State, local and common law. So once its in the constitution that is what needs to be upheld. So the comment that once its in the constitution it can't be unconstitutional is not that off. Of course there can be new constitutional amendments that might be in conflict with the original constitutional amendment or clause (such as the 13th and 14th amendment and the Fugitive Slave Clause), but just because you see an "injustice" (at least in your eyes) doesn't mean something is unconstitutional.

I personally see the Democratic superdelegate system as a grave injustice, but it's not unconstitutional!

If the public demand an amendment be held up to scrutiny of judicial review, and the court takes the case,

DEAD WRONG. the supreme court will never hear a case on political opinion. There has to be a case in controversy and the courts won't and can't change the constitution!

the court CAN rule that an amendment did not follow the prescribed process for ratification if it didn't, they can rule it is contradictory if it is, and they can rule that the amendment no longer applies if the facts support the case.

Name a case that has done that? They have unconstitutionalized Federal, State, Common and local laws, but it has never been don't to a constitutional amendment. The only amendment that has been deemed invalid is the 18th amendment. And if was deemed in valid by an act of Congress, not the courts. Congress has the SOLE power to ratify, amend to create new amendments.

Also, in any jury case, the jury can willingly nullify the law, or precedent of the SC if they so choose and the facts of a case compel them to do so.

If it gets appealed to the Supreme Court, then you don't have a jury, you have a panel of professional judges!

[Osborn F Enready]

Professional judges appointed by professional partisans.......

And people wonder why so many argue of the obvious need to revolt.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Professional judges appointed by professional partisans....... And people wonder why so many argue of the obvious need to revolt.

What would you prefer? The US to elect its Supreme Court Judges? Then you would complain about this being biased to special interests. Appointed judges can do their jobs without worrying about the next election!

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Professional judges appointed by professional partisans....... And people wonder why so many argue of the obvious need to revolt.

Yes, we need to revolt because a federal judiciary is so obviously unconstitutional...

Wait, it's not.

We need to revolt because the Constitution is so obviously unconstitutional...

Wait, that is self-contradictory.

We need to revolt because Osborn is unsatisfied with the direction the country is taking.

Now, lets see how many Americans join up.

[GHook93]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Yes, we need to revolt because a federal judiciary is so obviously unconstitutional... Wait, it's not. We need to revolt because the Constitution is so obviously unconstitutional... Wait, that is self-contradictory. We need to revolt because Osborn is unsatisfied with the direction the country is taking. Now, lets see how many Americans join up.

Great way to illustrate the ultimate irony of the matter!