Ron Paul praises the criminal element...

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Duh!

If the so called Libertarians were genuinely concerned for what they honestly believe is right, we would seem them band together, collectively fund the costs of litigation to bring the issue to the courts for a resolution...

However, expecting a group of misfit self centered anti-social Libertarians to band together for a common good is a fantasy...at best.

Quote from Haroki:

I'd say they changed the code to reflect the times, whatever that may have been. I'd say that someone was taking advantage of a tax loophole and the change was made to close it. If it's an illegal change, it would have been challenged in court and defeated.



Has it?

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from Haroki:

I'd say they changed the code to reflect the times, whatever that may have been. I'd say that someone was taking advantage of a tax loophole and the change was made to close it. If it's an illegal change, it would have been challenged in court and defeated.

Has it?

if confronted they would point out where it still is(maybe)... but why all the deception and hiding? why the trickery. there was no new legislation... the law had not changed.

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from achilles28:

Can you explain why Congress must specify who and what is taxable?

This seems to be the crux of the issue.

well.. to keep them from trying to legislate using taxes. lets say they wanted to outlaw guns but were prevented from doing so by the 2nd amendment. then they could just impose excessively high taxes on gun ownership and reduce ownership by this means. what would keep them from laying a $50,000 tax on the ownership of hand guns?

therefore, there are protections from them doing exactly this very thing.

 

[Haroki]

Quote from achilles28:

Can you explain why Congress must specify who and what is taxable?

This seems to be the crux of the issue.

Congress or the "laws" don't specifically say who or what is taxable. It was written purposefully vague, but with the words "from whatever source" to cover all the bases. That's how laws are written.

As 'loopholes' develop, they are closed, by passing more tax code. That's why we now have such a convoluted tax code - to close those loopholes.

Ratboy doesn't get that...

 

[Haroki]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Duh!

If the so called Libertarians were genuinely concerned for what they honestly believe is right, we would seem them band together, collectively fund the costs of litigation to bring the issue to the courts for a resolution...

However, expecting a group of misfit self centered anti-social Libertarians to band together for a common good is a fantasy...at best.

ZZZzzzzzzzactly....

 

[Haroki]

Quote from ratboy88:

well.. to keep them from trying to legislate using taxes. lets say they wanted to outlaw guns but were prevented from doing so by the 2nd amendment. then they could just impose excessively high taxes on gun ownership and reduce ownership by this means. what would keep them from laying a $50,000 tax on the ownership of hand guns?

therefore, there are protections from them doing exactly this very thing.

Correct -there are indeed safeguards against this kind of abuse - it's called voting

 

[Haroki]

Quote from ratboy88:

if confronted they would point out where it still is(maybe)... but why all the deception and hiding? why the trickery. there was no new legislation... the law had not changed.

Correct again. But the CODE has changed.

And since the code has prolly been challenged by tax avoiders and defeated, the code becomes a legal entity.

Really, Rat, your simplistic view of how 'laws' work is pretty naive...

 

[ratboy88]

Quote from Haroki:

Correct again. But the CODE has changed.

And since the code has prolly been challenged by tax avoiders and defeated, the code becomes a legal entity.

Really, Rat, your simplistic view of how 'laws' work is pretty naive...

i know how the courts work... i know how certain judges work. but the law is the law... and it can't be re-written on a whim. we do not have legislation by fiat in this country regardless of what you wish.

tax liability laws in question have not changed since 1925.... please source if you can dispute this. therefore... re writing the code can not change the meaning. they have only misplaced the "sources" and made it more difficult to find. as i pointed out it is still there. you really are an idiot aren't you?

 

[achilles28]

I won't pretend to be fluent in US tax law or the arguments against it.

But I think the conversation here lacks context.

The entire push for an Income Tax was to ensure the solvency of the Federal Reserve - not to finance Government.

The Federal Reserve, in turn, gave unchecked money making/spending power to the Government, which is why the Government pushed for the Tax in the first place!!!

People that talk up Supreme Court rulings as sacrosanct are the same ones who later deride that Court for abrogating our basic Rights!!

Its from that perspective the debate needs to be framed.

The Governments entire motive to pass Income Tax was to vote themselves unlimited spending power courtesy of the "Federal Reserve" and the unwitting taxpayer.

Its from that position of spiritual degeneracy the Government ASSUMES moral authority OVER YOU and demands you pay! Or go to jail...

There needs to be a little skepticism here. I see a lot of cheerleading from the usual suspects but not a lot of wisdom or insightful circumspection.

The human condition is corrupt. Always has been. If you think that Universal Truth doesn't apply to Americans - or our Leadership - you've got no creditability in this debate (or most, for that matter).

 

[ratboy88]

Hiroshi and cowardly zzzZZZ would want these guys flogged in public for their dastardly deeds!!!