You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ron Paul praises the criminal element...
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
i GUESS i SHOULD PiTY THE PiKERS WHO HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT PAYiNG TAXES...WHO GET SO BENT OUT OF SHAPE ABOUT PAYiNG TAXES...
hELL, THEY DON'T MAKE ENOUGH TO GET BY AND AT THE SAME TiME PAY TAXES...OBViOUSLY, THEY CAN'T AFFORD A DECENT TAX MAN...
sAD, vERY sAD iNDEED...
It is reasonable to talk about tax reform, a flat tax, closing loopholes, etc.
It is simply beyond stupid to even have a discussion about whether or not there should be federal taxes to pay for our national security, education, interstate roads, disaster relief, etc.
These poor slobs are so bloody broke that paying what little tax they probably do pay, gets them in a perpetual state of anger and resentment...
Sad, very sad, indeed...
These people who focus on issues like this, swallowing the Ron Paul doctrine like a fat man eating ice cream...are most pathetic.
hELL, THEY DON'T MAKE ENOUGH TO GET BY AND AT THE SAME TiME PAY TAXES...OBViOUSLY, THEY CAN'T AFFORD A DECENT TAX MAN...
sAD, vERY sAD iNDEED...
It is reasonable to talk about tax reform, a flat tax, closing loopholes, etc.
It is simply beyond stupid to even have a discussion about whether or not there should be federal taxes to pay for our national security, education, interstate roads, disaster relief, etc.
These poor slobs are so bloody broke that paying what little tax they probably do pay, gets them in a perpetual state of anger and resentment...
Sad, very sad, indeed...
These people who focus on issues like this, swallowing the Ron Paul doctrine like a fat man eating ice cream...are most pathetic.
All the tax protesters [that I know of] have gone down in flames in the past. The absolute harassment by the IRS drove some of them to bankruptcy. I heard one guy's story, he had IRS people laugh at him when he asked for a warrant, they took cars from his property that were not his, etc. He was in his 70's and broke when all this happened, the IRS broke him. That all was more an example of govt. gone really bad and despising the constitution during the 70's and 80's.
There were funny loopholes you could exploit over the years however. Ross Perot had his own at one point, and it was written so anybody could use it. I'm pretty sure that if you did that, at the time, with the out of control bureaucracies, that they would be looking to get their money back via future audits, so there might have been a downside to the deal, maybe worth it nonetheless. More recently there was a provision that the IRS had to show documented procedures for what they did, many were requesting the documentation and the IRS could not produce it so they paid nothing for a year or three, legally.
There were funny loopholes you could exploit over the years however. Ross Perot had his own at one point, and it was written so anybody could use it. I'm pretty sure that if you did that, at the time, with the out of control bureaucracies, that they would be looking to get their money back via future audits, so there might have been a downside to the deal, maybe worth it nonetheless. More recently there was a provision that the IRS had to show documented procedures for what they did, many were requesting the documentation and the IRS could not produce it so they paid nothing for a year or three, legally.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
It is reasonable to talk about tax reform, a flat tax, closing loopholes, etc.
It is simply beyond stupid to even have a discussion about whether or not there should be federal taxes to pay for our national security, education, interstate roads, disaster relief, etc.
unfortunately, none of the tax revenues generated from the current illegal income tax pays for these services. all revenue paid out by the people goes to service the interest on the debt. this goes to the private banks.
the private banks... create money out of thin air... backed by nothing and then they charge us interest on this fiat currency.
one big scam and you zzzZZZZ are a coward scumbag to support it.
Yawn...
Here is how it will eventually end for ratboy88...
<img src=http://www.coolbeans.com/catalog/images/deadsm.jpg>
No surprise that this guys looks similar to Ron Paul...
<img src=http://www.ufos-unbound.com/ufos/heavens-gate.jpg>
Here is how it will eventually end for ratboy88...
<img src=http://www.coolbeans.com/catalog/images/deadsm.jpg>
No surprise that this guys looks similar to Ron Paul...
<img src=http://www.ufos-unbound.com/ufos/heavens-gate.jpg>
Quote from ratboy88:
unfortunately, none of the tax revenues generated from the current illegal income tax pays for these services. all revenue paid out by the people goes to service the interest on the debt. this goes to the private banks.
the private banks... create money out of thin air... backed by nothing and then they charge us interest on this fiat currency.
one big scam and you zzzZZZZ are a coward scumbag to support it.
Quote from ratboy88:
you are on the right track teriakii... now find the sources within the us that are taxable.
So in other words, you knowingly LIED when you argued (with Daal) that the series of laws, articles, bills, codes, or whatever one cares to call them doesn't exist....
Nice.....
But to answer your oblique question :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments
Some tax protesters challenge the levying of tax upon individual income, based on language in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,[15] to the effect that the Sixteenth Amendment "conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged [. . . .]" The protesters argue that in light of this language, the income tax is unconstitutional in that it is a direct tax and constitutionally should be apportioned (divided equally amongst the population of the various states).[16]
The Sixteenth Amendment overruled the effect of Pollock, making the source of the income irrelevant with respect to the apportionment rule, and thereby placing taxes on income from property back into the category of indirect taxes such as income from labor (the Sixteenth Amendment expressly stating that Congress has power to impose income taxes regardless of the source of the income, without apportionment among the states, and without regard to any census or enumeration).
Stanton argued that the tax law was unconstitutional and void under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that the law denied "to mining companies and their stockholders equal protection of the laws and deprive[d] them of their property without due process of law." The Court rejected that argument.
Stanton also argued that the Sixteenth Amendment "authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, to which the tax in question does not conform" and that therefore the income tax was "not within the authority of that Amendment." The Court also rejected this argument.
Does this answer your question?
If not, there's plenty of counter arguements to yours right there in Wiki, so before you start with your LOLOLOLOL's, go there first and see if you can counter any of those effectively.
Preferrably without lying this time....