US Taxation v Other Countries! - WE ARE THE HIGHEST

[GHook93]

Quote by: commonsense Great. Well, you've convinced me of what the left has been saying for almost 100 years:

You said we they can't delegate to other agencies, I was just trying to point out that they can! Nevertheless the Federal government MUST delegate to other agencies, since it couldn't possibly do it on its own, regardless if they could it would be less efficient and ineffective

We have no Constitution. Its all "fluid" just like the constitutions of whichever Banana Republic. The constitution is whatever the dictator says it is.

Where did I say that? Rather, we have a strong, well-thought out and most comprehensive constitution in the history of the world!

Where do we go now, Comrade?

Use the constitution to make us more competitive in this global market! First use article V to amend 16th amendment to disallow income taxes and then implement the 28th amendment to call for the fair tax! Then amend the 14th amendment section 1 - the birth right clause to said that only children born to US citizens is a citizen of the US!

Getting rid of the income and payroll tax would make our small business much much much more competitive! Getting rid of the income, payroll and especially the 2nd highest corporate tax in the world would make our large corporations much more competitive, in fact it would make the US a breeding ground for large corporations, we would go through a large corporation renaissance!

[Yarn]

GHook93:

Rather, we have a strong, well-thought out and most comprehensive constitution in the history of the world!

That counted slaves as being 3/5ths of persons and gave them as much rights as tea kettles. Like all instruments of civilization on Earth, our constitution is thoroughly human and hence flawed.

commonsense:

Washington also warned against the formation of parties.

Its that "constituional essence" I want people educated to return to.

Parties are inevitable, and whatever "constitutional essence" is, no republic in all of history has ever lacked political parties. Where they have been legally banned, they have existed de facto.

I think when Lord Acton said "all power corrupts" he meant institutionalized power. Sure there's frequent examples of magnanimity, beneficence, altruism, philanthropy---so why is it necessary these things be attempted to be effected through policy ?

And none of these thing ever come from the government and its actions?

Why, (increasingly since the dying-off of Washington and the rest of the Founders) does the argument always center around excuses for governmental expansion, rather than promotion of the above humanistic
sentiments through education?

The arguement doesn't always center around government expansion. Frequently, in fact all the time, shrinking it is discussed, but it is too unpopular a thing to do in our democracy for enough politicians to actually follow through on doing it. Many loudly advocate a smaller government, but in the end, while tax cuts are popular, we cannot reach concensus on what spending to cut. The right fillibusters cuts to defense, and the left fillibusters cuts to social services.

Because "education" is controlled by the state, and it seeks (quite successfully) to perpetuate its institutional power.

The libertarian hopes to accentuate the humanitarian benefits of freeing social efforts from the corrupting nature of force.

It is absurd to argue that somehow only government force has corrupting power. Most of the very wealthy advocate lower taxes for themselves despite the fact that we already have a regressive tax code, and that our middle classe's incomes, per hour, have fallen for thirty years. Our own government, despite far outmatching any of those very wealthy individuals in wealth and power, is in my judgement less corrupt than them.

Just like your individual examples, no one is taught in schools that the historical beginnings of "social progressivism" are with independent, volunteer, grass-roots organizations.

And what percentage of the GDP has private charity ever managed to encompass?

Very little. It is far too insufficient to face the moral challenges of humanity.

One only has to analyze the causal effect of every piece of "social" legislation and see its perverse consequences.

Never does the libertarian reject the intention of social change... he is merely vigilant of whether it is being directed by those other than the ostensible recipients, and whether it is being done surreptitiously or by force.

Did your examples of Ghandi or Mother Theresa or George Washington seek to personally benefit monetarily?

isnt anything ostensibly done in the name of altruism tarnished, if not outright negated when it monetarily benefits the self-purported benefactor?

One of the main assumptions of the science of economics is that every person is out maximize his or her own utility-that is her or her satisfaction. Economics proports that altruistic actions are really selfish because they satisfy the performer. In a sense, everything we do can be labeled as selfish. The soldier who jumps on the grenade is simply doing so for the sake of his image-to self image and/or external image. In this way every action can be labeled corrupt. But obviously, if every action is corrupt then the word corrupt would hold no recognisable distinction.

I would submit that money and power are not the only motivators of leaders, of those with power. They are more complex than that, they are not so black and white. It is often the case that those two things, along with a concern for reputation, illicitly influence leaders at societies expense, but I do not think they alone control leader's actions. I think that most leaders in our society actually care about doing their jobs well, and their definitions of well are often compassionate.

[commonsense]

Just like your individual examples, no one is taught in schools that the historical beginnings of "social progressivism" are with independent, volunteer, grass-roots organizations.

And what percentage of the GDP has private charity ever managed to encompass?

Very little. It is far too insufficient to face the moral challenges of humanity.

One only has to analyze the causal effect of every piece of "social" legislation and see its perverse consequences.

I am arguing that the vacuum left were the govt to no longer occupy its (upwards of 50%) percentage of GDP would indeed be rapidly filled by far more efficient and effective charitable efforts.

"Very little. It is far too insufficient to face the moral challenges of humanity."

Again, the libertarian argues that increase in every "societal ill" one can point to in this country is traceable to a direct causal relationship with federal govt's address of it.

[viper]

Earlier I noticed some of you were discussing the Federal reserve. While of course one must consider taxes and interest rates in addition to their general 'shadyness' one must also consider how severely this organization has devalued the dollar since it's creation in 1913. While this is not a tax it has certainly cost the American people quite a lot of their savings.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: viper Earlier I noticed some of you were discussing the Federal reserve. While of course one must consider taxes and interest rates in addition to their general 'shadyness' one must also consider how severely this organization has devalued the dollar since it's creation in 1913. While this is not a tax it has certainly cost the American people quite a lot of their savings.

They have attempted to balance and minimize inflation while at the same time preventing deflation, which would destroy our economy quickly.

And I see nothing "shady" about them, save from the looniness I read on conspiracy theorist websites.

What, exactly, are you suggesting? What should be done instead? And what does the Fed have to do with taxes? It's a legal government department just like the IRS is.

[viper]

Quote by: tivodan1116 They have attempted to balance and minimize inflation while at the same time preventing deflation, which would destroy our economy quickly. And I see nothing "shady" about them, save from the looniness I read on conspiracy theorist websites. What, exactly, are you suggesting? What should be done instead? And what does the Fed have to do with taxes? It's a legal government department just like the IRS is.

Well if they think printing money when the government needs some extra it can't raise via taxes is a good way to prevent inflation then they're sadly mistaken.

You see nothing shady about a group of bankers who meet in secret closed-door meetings and decide the value of our money? Well call me crazy, but I do.

The federal reserve should be abolished and the US dollar returned to the gold standard, that's what should be done instead. Ah yes it is indeed a legal government department, but their are quite a lot of those that need to be done away with. But, I am getting off-topic now lol.

[commonsense]

Where's Osborn F Enready when you need him?

[Rortykiller]

Quote by: tivodan1116 They have attempted to balance and minimize inflation while at the same time preventing deflation, which would destroy our economy quickly.

You do realize the Feds were the ones who made money so available to create the boom, and then squeezed that money supply to create this drop right? Think about it, you're a bank and you make money available at interest (set by the FED). Then, you when you call in those debts the money becomes scarce and horded. This is caused by fractional reserve banking, as fully detailed in the FED's Modern Money Mechanics. Essentially, it allows banks to only hold 10% of the money they've loaned in circulation. Not at any one given time, 10%, but entirely 10%. With, say, $10 a bank could loan out $100. Then, when it asks for the 100$ plus interest back, they make massive profits. But when a lot of people get nervous (caused by increased interest rates) they pull more than 10% of the money out of the banks. And some banks go belly up, especially the smaller ones like WaMu and Wells Fargo, etc. Then bigger banks, who actually work in tandem with the FED buy the smaller banks and further consolidate both wealth and interest.

Quote by: tivodan1116 What, exactly, are you suggesting? What should be done instead? And what does the Fed have to do with taxes? It's a legal government department just like the IRS is.

The Federal Income Tax, the largest tax in America, goes entirely to the Federal Reserve to pay off our interest on money printed. See, every dollar in circulation is printed with interest on the dollar, so in fact at all moments there is always more debt than there is money available. The IRS are the FED's personal hit squad, making sure everyone (especially poor) pay their interest. But, oddly, there isn't a law requiring people to pay the Income Tax.

Quote by: viper The federal reserve should be abolished and the US dollar returned to the gold standard, that's what should be done instead. Ah yes it is indeed a legal government department, but their are quite a lot of those that need to be done away with. But, I am getting off-topic now lol.

Firstly, viper, I appreciate and share your perspective. I have to inform you however a gold standard is not necessary nor preferable. Not to derail the debate, but two quick points. Firstly, the world banks have 70% of the gold. Secondly, a fiat non-fractional banking program managed by the government but subject to democratic control can be used to pay off debt and reinvigorate the economy. Check out Lincoln's greenbacks, which were in circulation until 1994. Also, if interested, the film Money Masters is the best movie on the subject. Its all history, no conspiracy or dramatic music and evil plots.

[Rortykiller]

Quote by: GHook93 Sorry my friend, but you are in correct! Art I Section 9 is what Congress is forbidden from doing, no where in there does it say it can't delegate to 3rd parties! Furthermore, check the necessary and proper clause, I believe its Art 1 Section 8 clause 18 (don't ask me how I memorized the clause, I just did), "To make all law which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into the execution of the foregoing powers and all powers vested in the US constitution in the Federal Government or any Department or state thereof."

U.S. Constitution article I, section 2, clause 3:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers

Well, since this direct tax isn't being apportioned (given out) equally, it is unconstitutional.


Also, The Fifth Amendment makes the IRS tax forms all illegal.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..."

This means they can't force you to fill out something that could, even if filled out honestly, land you in jail. If you write to the IRS and fill out your tax form saying, this is how much I make/owe, and assuming you don't lie, then tell them you won't be paying it you can still go to jail. If you don't fill out the form you risk going to jail.

[Rortykiller]

In addition, though there is poorly protected legislation allowed Congress to impose an income tax, there is still now law requiring you to pay it specifically.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: viper Well if they think printing money when the government needs some extra it can't raise via taxes is a good way to prevent inflation then they're sadly mistaken.

Very true. But the blame for that lies squarely on the elected officials writing the absurdly overspent budgets, not on a bunch of economists trying to do damage control.

You see nothing shady about a group of bankers who meet in secret closed-door meetings and decide the value of our money? Well call me crazy, but I do.

They don't "decide" anything. If they did, don't you think we'd be in better shape? They attempt to react to market conditions. Sometimes better than others.

And where did you get the impression their meetings are "secret closed door" ones??? Doubtless, some nutjob conspiracy theorist site. Many of the meetings are open. They're required to follow the Sunshine Act rules just like any other government agency.

The federal reserve should be abolished and the US dollar returned to the gold standard, that's what should be done instead.

LOL... you've been listening to too many Ron Paul speeches. There is little chance the gold standard would make any difference in the "value" of our money, since there is no such thing as intrinsic value. The only difference removing the fed would make would be to make deflation possible, which would be far, far worse than inflation. One quarter of deflation could collapse our economy.

People who suggest the gold standard know very little about the economic concept of "value".

Quote by: Rortykiller You do realize the Feds were the ones who made money so available to create the boom, and then squeezed that money supply to create this drop right?

As I said - the blame lies with our overspending Congress. The Fed's job is to do damage control and take the blame, which, looking at posts here and stories in the media, they have done quite successfully.

Skipping the nonsense about fractional reserve since, while somewhat correct, your implication of it is totally wrong...

The Federal Income Tax, the largest tax in America, goes entirely to the Federal Reserve to pay off our interest on money printed. See, every dollar in circulation is printed with interest on the dollar, so in fact at all moments there is always more debt than there is money available. The IRS are the FED's personal hit squad, making sure everyone (especially poor) pay their interest.

False, false, false, and ... oh yeah... FALSE.

The Fed returns all interest it "makes" to the Treasury after its minimal operating expenses are taken out. BY LAW. You have spouted one of the most frequent, and most easily debunked, myths about the Fed. Shameful that people still think something so utterly false.

The entire "interest/payback" thing is an accounting scheme. Since Congress doesn't have to use GAAP, they play these little accounting games to make their budgets seem not as ridiculously unbalanced.

But, oddly, there isn't a law requiring people to pay the Income Tax.

LOL... just when I thought there weren't anymore of these types around here.

26 U.S.C. s.1 imposes a tax on income. Period. Not even open for debate. Go read it.

Quote by: Rortykiller U.S. Constitution article I, section 2, clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers Well, since this direct tax isn't being apportioned (given out) equally, it is unconstitutional.

What direct tax? Income tax is an indirect tax, and even if it wasn't, the 16th Amendment makes it allowed.

Also, The Fifth Amendment makes the IRS tax forms all illegal. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..." This means they can't force you to fill out something that could, even if filled out honestly, land you in jail. If you write to the IRS and fill out your tax form saying, this is how much I make/owe, and assuming you don't lie, then tell them you won't be paying it you can still go to jail. If you don't fill out the form you risk going to jail.

Wrong. IRS forms do not violate the 5th Amendment. You didn't quote the correct portion of the Amendment.

"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,"

There's the relevant text.

1) Most tax cases are not criminal cases, so that eliminates all of those.
2) If the government wishes to use your 1040 in criminal court, they need "someone" to verify it - that someone being you. If you don't acknowledge on the stand that it is yours, they can't use it - you can "plead the 5th" and refuse to acknowledge it.

Quote by: Rortykiller In addition, though there is poorly protected legislation allowed Congress to impose an income tax, there is still now law requiring you to pay it specifically.

Once again : 26 U.S.C. section 1. Go read it.


Really, it's been a while since I've seen so much complete nonsense in such a short span.

[commonsense]

Look guys,
i dont claim be very informed on this topic, it looks like both of you could really research the laws stp by step and the firsthand contemporary reports and arguments of the time..
What Rorty and I, and I think most people opposed to our current size and power of govt are trying to pinpoint throughout the evolution of these laws is the successive abandonment of core principles that the constitution originally embodied---had they not been sacrificed for political expediency at their best and opportunism and outright theft at their worst--- society would have been free to evolve humanitarian channels entirely different from what passes for it today" a bueaucratic, destructive, self-serving morally and economically inpoverishing boondoggle that is ultimately unsustainable.

If there's not a concise constitutional legal argument to be found through the mists of time, even if the libertarian principles can be shown to have been compromised even by the founders since the beginning, the libertarian hopes that through careful examination and education, the federal govt's overextension and its abuses and perverting and negative societal effects can be turned back.

Its very telling to me when someone seizes upon some historical tidbit in a convoluted context and says "Ah HAH! Your hallowed founders intended for this or that in the way of taxation"
They never could have foreseen the disgraceful parastic drain and imbalance of power our current govt reperesents

[brien]

[QUOTE=Plus Ultra;564002]Source please.

QUOTE]


Corporations who pay taxes pass this down through their cost of doing business and ultimately down to the consumer. This includes all taxes.

Anyone who thinks that corporate taxes paid to the government are absorbed by the corporation without being a "pass through" charge "incorporated" into the price of either the good or service the corporation is involved in, probably doesn't understand basic economics.

[Yarn]

The free market doesn't function as well at the top as it does below it.

Middle class workers are treated like a commodity in perfect competition is. They can only sell their labor for around as little as they would typically need to get paid on in order for them to not quit their jobs and look for employment elsewhere.

Upper class workers are treated differently. Top directors and investors are frequently paid much greater sums than they need to be in order to keep them at their posts.

Motivation is an issue that I have as of yet neglected. In regards to it, top directors' pay does seem tightly tied to their performance. In regards to investors, their case is simplified because they either invest their money or do not.

[commonsense]

Could someone please investigate the sweeping powers granted the Treasury Secretary within the "Bailout" legislation?
I understand they are so vague as to say "insure property values" and othr phraseology that can be construed to mean anything.

An earlier poster claimed that Paulson and Bernancke hold no individual stocks other than their govt retirement plans, but wasnt Goldman Sachs the first to receive $10billion ahead of AIG and werent bth Bernancke and Paulson, not to mention NJ Governor Jon Corzine all CEOs of Goldman?

At the very least, they must be receiving retirement benefits tied to the future of Goldman.

And whats this of Paulson's position of Treasury Secretary automatically including "immunity from prosecution" ?

[Dan_77]

Quote by: commonsense An earlier poster claimed that Paulson and Bernancke hold no individual stocks other than their govt retirement plans, but wasnt Goldman Sachs the first to receive $10billion ahead of AIG and werent bth Bernancke and Paulson, not to mention NJ Governor Jon Corzine all CEOs of Goldman?

And?

former =/= current interest.

By the time someone reaches that level of office they have worked for more than a few companies in their career.

It would be better if they were completely never ever involved with anything, but that is also unrealistic. And merely because they used to be involved with various companies is not indicative of bigger conspiracy or plot.

At the very least, they must be receiving retirement benefits tied to the future of Goldman.

You're assuming, without fact or evidence. Any proof?

And whats this of Paulson's position of Treasury Secretary automatically including "immunity from prosecution" ?

Umm... every government official at every level has immunity from prosecution as to their official acts.

[commonsense]

“By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and
unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.

There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction,
and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

John Maynard Keynes

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless
on the continent their fathers conquered.”

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Albert Gallatin, Secretary of the Treasury, 1802

[Rortykiller]

what happened to my reply? was it deleted?

[commonsense]

..happened to me once. I was pissed b/c I wrote a long one. you have to discipline yourself to at least copy and save then click in case it doesnt go through. I think it smore becauseof porn viruses than anything else.

[Rortykiller]

fuck yeah i wrote such a good one too, now i feel so discouraged about re-typing it you know?
Few points:
26 U.S.C. section 1 is new. So are you saying prior to 2007 taxes were unconstitutional? Secondly, this defines the way taxes work, they also have clauses in the constitution saying congress can create a tax, yet no law saying the income tax was actually made into a law.
I know how hard all the legal jumbo is to sort through, but understand you have yet to show me a LAW which requires US to PAY the INCOME tax.
Further, in 26 U.S.C. section 1 it defines income in that case only as gross income, which has been defined by the supreme court as applying to profits or gains not wages or salary.
There are IRS agents who talk about this, great movie on it is that one by Aaron Russo, I think its called Freedom to Fascism.
Also, tax evasion is a criminal case and therefor the 5th amendment does apply. As does the part I quoted regarding them not being allowed to force you to defend or justify yourself to the government unless you're under a court order. In the cases of all other taxes participation is voluntary, you can not own property and avoid the property tax for example. However, this is saying that everyone who works, who lives as an independent, has to fill this form out which can be then used to incriminate you. They have no legal authority to sequester this information, which is why the tax code describes the income tax as voluntary as well. It says it in the tax code... voluntary compliance.