JasonC SBB

Gas tax, not income tax, is supposed to go to roads.
Infrastructure is a tiny % of total gov't expenditure.

The income tax (16th Amendment) was ratified the same year as the creation of the Federal Reserve, with the same corrupt politicking done by the same bunch of insiders. It's no coincidence. The income tax was needed as a new income stream to pay the interest on the debt that the new Federal Reserve was gonig to rack up. (later on the Fed was required by law to turn over interest income to the Treasury after an expose)

The 17th Amendment (direct election of senaturds), was also put in by the same group of conspirators, all Progressives, in order to weaken the States. Originally the State legislatures elected the Senaturds - this would help the States keep the Fed Gov under control. With direct election, candidates could be fielded that were Establishment insiders that would further the centralized power of the Fed Gov.

viperormiata

iTrader: (24)

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

only about a third of the federal governments revenue comes from the income tax

and the roads are paid for in large part from the gasoline tax

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

y8s

iTrader: (8)

mom and pop stores don't feel threatened by wal*mart I guess.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

apparently not. Occupy Big Government!!!!

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

What I meant by "roads etc" is how would you pay to keep our society going, roads, infrastructure, the military, everything. You can make cuts, but your dreaming if you think you can balance the budget by simply making cuts alone. We need $ to keep going, taxes need to be raised for the rich. The top 1% controls 40% of wealth in this country, and that's fucked up. I'm not saying I'm in favor of big gov, socialism, a handout or anything like that, I just want to quit giving the extreem rich a break. I'm just trying to be realistic and reasonable, something that many people don't seem to want to bother with. I know y'all are going to disagree with me, but It's what I believe.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

not trolling. stating facts. you state only "common sense"
i disagree with you because i have researched it and seen the numbers
and since you say it can't work simply because it can't (you dont support your statement with evidence) i question your knowledge on the topic. you do know that we survied until 1913 without an income tax right? and you are correct we cant keep doing like we are and cut the income tax. and seriously look at where we are at now and ask yourself if you want to keep going the way we are now. first we gotta stop policing the world and participate in nation building. Interesting how whenever i discuss this with someone who disagrees all they can say is "we just can do it" they dont discuss legalities or what to cut or anything. until you have a more serious response it is simply difficult for me to take you seriously.

and of course we need this tax to pay the interest on the loans we have received from a private bank who we authorized to pull money out of thin air. how much sense does that make?!?!

im not nessecarily saying replace it with nothing
im not exactly sure what should be done with it
but im just baffled that the occupy group who wants "economic justice" wants to expand a tax that is highly arguable as unconstitutional

the income tax code is not 100% illegit
its just the fact that it is applied to so many people who do NOT fall under its requirements. dont quote me on this but i believe the income tax can be applied to corporations but not individuals. i do believe that the supreme court has defined income as gains or profits from corporate activity.

as far as your we cant keep going without it
the road thing was just one example
schools are mostly funded by property tax.

i gotta disagree with you on the we cant just make cuts thing
because we could go complete anarchy and have the spending cut to zero
obviously i am not suggesting that
just making a point

there have been several cases where "tax cheats" have won in court
an illinois man won
he was in court for not paying his state income tax which IS a law unlike the federal income tax. illinois state law requires you to pay state income if you are required to pay federal income tax. the man won because the courts and the prossecutor failed to prove that the law requires us to pay a federal income tax

we NEED an income tax if we want to police the world and participate in nation building


here you can see a former irs agent discussing the topic


and here you can see a film by Aaron Russo. A well known hollywood producer or director something like that. anyways it is a long and detailed documentary about the tax, legalities, and spending. this documentary also touches on some theory towards the end. just ingore that and pay attention to the facts. also this documentary talks about the national id act and when it will take effect. at the time this film was made that law was passed. after the film was made the law was repealed. you can look it up


now keep in mind that the irs tax code states that this is a voluntary tax
in the above listed documentary you will see the irs tax code author stating that voluntary is a euphemism and that it is truly manditory.

the irs' website even has an arguement that doesnt make much sense. tax code says "voluntary compliance" and the irs' website says that what that means is it is voluntary for you to "determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns" then it says "The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth". what does that mean anyhow? its voluntary for me to figure my taxes and complete the form but not voluntary to file a return?? so then i can just mail in a blank 1040 and let them figure it out for me? http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...106502,00.html

you better believe i fully intend on being a smart *** and mailing a blank 1040 and my w2's in to see what happens

Enginerd

iTrader: (1)

The latest and greatest in good ole Chicago politics:

http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-cook...0,907488.story
http://mobile.wgntv.com/p.p?m=b&a=rp...%3D0%26DPL%3D3

turotufas

iTrader: (7)

I spy some tig ol' bitties.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

I believe that the deficit is too large to solve in a timely manner by simply cutting back because even if it could be done with out raising taxes, it will take longer and more time = more debt (we have to spend money to keep the country going, and when a loan in taken out there is interest to be payed as well). I am thinking that if the powers that be tried to balance the budget simply by cutting back, they would cut things that shouldn't be cut. (defense budget for one thing).
Our nation was not nearly as large (in terms of population and infrastructure) in 1913 as it is now.
I do not want to keep going the way we are now, nobody does, which is why everybody is angry. What differs is how people want to solve the problem.
Remember why we are policing the world, if we do not seek out and eliminate enemies of the US it will come back and bite us in the *** (again) in the form of a terrorist attack. One could argue that Iraq was a mistake (to invade that is), I personally do not agree with that but you can't Afghanistan didn't need some policing.
If I was tasked with the job of cutting the budget, I would cut spending across the board by X%, with some exceptions. I would stop employing privet military contractors (not that I disagree with there existence, just that there too expensive, sry jtothawhat). I would encourage gov employees to point out and eliminate wasteful spending (probably use an incentives program that would attract employees attention without costing too much).

I'm glad to hear you don't know what you would replace it with. The country doesn't run off nothing.
Taxing people is necessary to keep the country going, I'm baffled by people who don't get that. (not looking @ you). I'm also baffled at people who look to the tea party demonstrators and see good wholesome Americans, but look at the OWS and think there scum.

That reminds me, the prison system is a place where we spend way to much. I think some creative cuts could be made there. I do not want to cut back on security in prisons though, that'd be bad.
Also, if we raised taxes on businesses too much, they may just go somewhere else, just something to think about.

If the tax is voluntary, do you mean in the way that if choose not to pay it you go to federal pound-you-in-the-*** prison? Nothing voluntary about that

Enginerd

iTrader: (1)

Can we cut the offense budget at least?

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

agreed

seems only logical to me that as the population grew that the two thirds of the revenue the federal government receives from sources other than income would grow as well. and yes government has expanded their power since then which also requires the income tax

the income tax only accounts for one third of the revenue
cutting it would bring our revenue down to clinton era spending
the income tax is far from everything

as you posted previously i agree there are people who are not idiots who are in ows. unfortunately there is no leadership to renounce bullshit activitist and political supporters. therefore they are affiliated with anyone who claims to be part of ows

as i already stated one thing we need to do to ditch the irs is to deauthorize the private bank whom we have permitted to pull money out of thin air who we pay interest to for this monopoly money


based on your post and mine one could simply conclude that the difference between the law and the courts actions are great. and as i have stated not everyone loses against the irs in court. the case i refered to is not the only one

can you do what the irs and the former agents and the rest of our government can not do? can you find the law that explicitly requires me to pay a tax on my wages? even reagan spoke out against the irs. i personally believe that ends dont justify unjust means. so the big question is....can i read the law that requires this of me please?

the documentary that i posted shows court rulings that stated that the 16th amendment gave the government no new power of taxation

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

What's the offense budget?

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

This fact is so often overlooked by people and I have been talking about it for years. The Representatives were representatives of the people and were therefore apportioned by population. The Senators were representatives of the legislatures of the states. This is part of the constitutional design of the balance of power. The two houses of Congress should be elected by different constituencies with different interests by design. This is designed to mediate the tendency toward mob rule and pandering to the lowest common denominator of a solely direct-elected congress.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

**** the balance of power, I have my people looking everyday for ways around congress.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Capitalize on Occupy:

JasonC SBB

Here's an outline of the history of the Fabian Socialists/Progressives, and the creation of the Federal Reserve, the 16th (income tax) and 17th (direct election of Senaturds):

http://www.nolanchart.com/article521...criminals.html


P.S. The One World types' biggest achievement was the Euro. It is falling apart and with it, their dreams.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

There are constitutional laws for how the government is to be funded. We are simply ignoring them. There are also constitutional laws about what the government is responsible for doing. And more succinctly, there are constitutional laws regarding what the federal government is not supposed to be doing. The federal government is more than adequately funded though its actual legal means to execute its actual responsibilities.

The federal government's actual responsibilities do not include education (responsibility of individuals or states), retirement or social security (except as part of a compensation plan for federal employees), medical care (individuals or states), support of the mutherfukin arts, researching millions of unprofitable ideas that couldn't get private funding because they were stupid ideas and didn't make business sense, foreign aid (are you fawking kidding me?), subsidizing businesses for any reason (including if they give you hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickbacks, Solyndra, General Electric, various banks), Housing and Urban Development, Department of Energy, Department of Education, IRS... ...wait...

Here's the list of just those departments that start with the letter A that are unconstitutional and you can tell me where we can save enough money to eliminate the income tax.

• Access Board
• Administration for Native Americans
• Administration on Aging (AoA)
• Administration on Developmental Disabilities
• Administrative Committee of the Federal Register
• Administrative Conference of the United States
• Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
• African Development Foundation
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
• Agency for International Development
• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
• Agricultural Marketing Service
• Agricultural Research Service
• Agriculture Department
• Air and Radiation Hotline
• Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (Treasury)
• Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau (Justice)
• AmeriCorps Recruiting
• AMTRAK (National Railroad Passenger Corporation)
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
• Antitrust Division
• Appalachian Regional Commission
• Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board)
• Arctic Research Commission
• Arms Control and International Security
• Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee

See partial list above.

Yes. But not nearly as many as we are used to taking in. We waste billions on superfluous crap and it is time for that to stop.

The rich? Who do you think that is? Most rich people aren't typically paid a salary because they aren't working for someone. You are thinking of "new money" rich people and not the truly wealthy. The wealthy are often paid in dividends and the proceeds of sales of goods or property that they own and are not receiving wages.

Most small incorporated businesses are required to file taxes as individuals. When you create a corporation you create an individual. When the small business makes money it pays taxes as if it were a person earning wages. But these aren't people. They are vilified as being rich people earning huge wages but they are not people at all. This design skews the charts significantly and makes it look like many people are earning $250k plus annually, when in might just be a small local business in an industrial park making wrought iron gates and employing 48 people. Be careful of statistics because they are often misleading.

Why do you think this is fucked up? Don't let jealousy rule your life.

Wealth is not static. It is able to be created by any individual. Just because someone else has more, doesn't mean that you will have less. It isn't like there is one pecan pie on the table and because someone eats a big *** piece that there is less for you. There are unlimited ingredients for pie all around you and people are constantly baking more. Look another one just came out of the oven. Get your own fill of pie.

So would you like to be on the board that decides how much people are allowed to make? So you can decide what their work is worth? Individuals making large wages are relatively few, as has been pointed out (1%?), and most are actually small businesses, but someone thinks that their particular knowledge and skill set is worth that to them and is willing to pay them that.

What business is it of yours how much my boss pays me for what I do? Should I be able to go to your boss and say, "You need to reduce Gearhead's salary because he isn't worth that much." Of course not. Why do you get to do that to anyone else? "I'm sorry for all of your hard work and extra effort all of these years, Mr. Jones, we're going to have to tax you more for having pushed yourself to achieve. Yes, you are making the company a whole lot of money but we are just paying you too much and the janitor is getting jealous."

And since most of these in question are really businesses are we going to tell them that they are doing too good a job at being productive and controlling costs? We already have the highest corporate tax rate in the world because we tax most of them as individuals. We are already running businesses off like mad. They are all going overseas because we are punishing them for being here and performing well. How much higher do you want it to go? Do you want all companies to be foreign companies? Do you only want the ones here that suck at being profitable, are poorly run, and don't grow? How are they going to hire additional workers?

I actually appreciate you having an interest and taking the time to discuss it, something most Americans can't be bothered with. Most know who won American Idol but can't tell you who their congressional representative is and really couldn't be bothered to care. We have the luxury and privilege to shape what happens in our country but it comes with the responsibility to learn what is happening and why. It demands that we take the time or that we will be sheared like sheep by those who have learned the workings of the system. But being passionate about what is happening is only the start.

Passion without understanding is what I see too often in the younger OWS protestors. They have good hearts and want good things for everyone but often lack perspective of wisdom through intense study over time. It is far easier to care than to learn or to follow a charismatic speaker than to spend hours studying. And all too often they are unfortunately following the lead of the older protestors who know of their passionate discontent and are striving to twist the righteous desires of the young to mold them into foot soldiers to suit their own socialist goals. It is so very often that socialism appeals to the passionate youth, but with age comes wisdom through understanding and a shift toward conservatism.

“Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.”
― Winston S. Churchill

^ I love that guy.