You missed the other essential ingredient: inflation. In fact, Karl Marx is alive and well in our current government. Rampant inflation and worthless dollar make for perfect Marxist recipe for wiping out the middle class.
superstition
Platinum Member
- Feb 2, 2008
- 2,219
- 221
- 101
Taxation can be abused, but progressive taxation isn't a bogeyman, either. Inflation should be factored in to determine how much money someone has in the first place.
and reinstated, and repealed, and reinstated, and repealed, and so on.
estate taxes have nothing to do with communism, so stop throwing the word around like you know what it means.
ROFL, too bad inflation only matters if wages don't keep up and, over the long run, they mostly have. Nice boogeyman, but it's BS.
which shows to prove it was meant to serve as temporary means of funding whatever shortfalls there were NOT to reduce stratification of income.
It's pretty obvious what happens when wealth is allowed to be too concentrated and passed through generations. History has many lessons in this area.
thats a pretty interesting (and pretty false) hypothesis there.
it was originally put in place on the basis of people fearing the power of hereditary wealth.
Do you think it applies in today's economy and free flow of information? The power of wealth in Carnegie's days is different than today.
When was the last time a person of normal wealth and power was elected to the Presidency? When were they last supported by people of normal wealth and power?
Wealth concentration goes a long way to projecting and acquiring power.
OP, I think you missed some of the critical points of the story. The IRS doesn't have to "come up with something" to "counter this". As far as I can tell the defendants still will end up owing the taxes and penalties. They escaped criminal culpability (for now, the jury was hung on the charges, they will be retried), but the IRS still got their money. Nothing to see here, a clever attempt by someone, and it failed.
superstition
Platinum Member
- Feb 2, 2008
- 2,219
- 221
- 101
LTC8K6
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2004
- 28,520
- 1,575
- 126
?If a coin says it is a $50 gold piece, and it says ?In God We Trust,? and the law says that it is legal tender, and it is in circulation, isn?t it reasonable for people to think that they can calculate their tax liability based on that?? Hansen asks.
If you're an idiot or a crook, maybe.
Can I buy that coin off you for $50? I'll bet you suddenly remember it's worth 20X more when I want to buy it.
If you're an idiot or a crook, maybe.
Can I buy that coin off you for $50? I'll bet you suddenly remember it's worth 20X more when I want to buy it.
Morally, the tax evaders are in the wrong, IMO. I don't know why some on the right -and I don't mean Perry by this - seem to have an insatiable appetite for people 'getting away' with things like this.
It seems to go to some character issue for many of them, not unlike the stories of the 'Bush arrogant smirk' when confronted at Harvard about advocating the war while avoiding serving.
The story is 'interesting' and a 'clever idea', but I think it'd be best left at that, told for interest, not used for attempting to evade paying real taxes.
The bottom line is, is the income tax itself immoral, justifying refusing to pay it? Is it even arguably some gray area where it's justified not to pay it if you can find some scam out of it?
No, this is the equivalent of trying to take advantage of a coupon accidentally saying $100 off instead of $1.00 off, the equivalent of keeping the money when a cashier gives you too much back.
It seems to go to some character issue for many of them, not unlike the stories of the 'Bush arrogant smirk' when confronted at Harvard about advocating the war while avoiding serving.
The story is 'interesting' and a 'clever idea', but I think it'd be best left at that, told for interest, not used for attempting to evade paying real taxes.
The bottom line is, is the income tax itself immoral, justifying refusing to pay it? Is it even arguably some gray area where it's justified not to pay it if you can find some scam out of it?
No, this is the equivalent of trying to take advantage of a coupon accidentally saying $100 off instead of $1.00 off, the equivalent of keeping the money when a cashier gives you too much back.
So what's it about? As best I can tell, they tried to use this somewhat clever way to try and justify not paying their taxes. They failed. The may or may not end up in jail for trying, but either way they will pay their taxes, and going forward neither they (nor anyone else) can use the same 'clever' idea again. How is this anything but a clear failure?
As the Income Tax system unravels, it will be replaced by a different system of tax collection. Hence the talk these days of an enormous Sales Tax (Fair Tax) of one form or another. Indeed, the increased talk of a new tax system (Sales Tax / Fair Tax) is itself a sign that the current Income Tax system is losing legitimacy in the mind of the tax payers.
Moreover, as the United States monetary system in general unravels, it will need to be placed, and hence the talk of a new economic unit, the Amero, for the countries of North America. As the value of the Federal Reserve Note heads toward zero, look for increased talk of the Amero to replace it.
Moreover, as the United States monetary system in general unravels, it will need to be placed, and hence the talk of a new economic unit, the Amero, for the countries of North America. As the value of the Federal Reserve Note heads toward zero, look for increased talk of the Amero to replace it.
- Jun 11, 2004
- 4,359
- 1
- 76
Either you don't seem to grasp that many people firmly & honestly believe that the income tax is unconstitutional or you're attacking the individuals right to protest with a cheap character assault. Only you know which of these is the truth. Either way you are by bypassing one side of the argument. This is not the same thing as stealing.
How can you steal what is rightfully yours?
You're trying to say one of two things is true. Let's look at each.
Do I think some people might misguidedly think the Income Tax is unconstitutional?
There are a couple of issues on that topic - one, what is the law, and two, what is right.
And on the law, there are two issues: what our opinion is, and what the law is for all practical purposes. Now, I'm of the opinion that the constitutional amendment passed to allow the income tax did just that, and I'm aware some people say otherwise. We could debate who's right. But the second issue seemse pretty clear - rightly or wrongly, the law is what the Supreme Court says it is, and they have said the Income tax is constitutional; people are in jail for not paying income taxes who the Court lets sit in jail.
So, what's the practical effect on the legal issue? Do you want to try to win a debate, which I don't think you will win, but even if you do, leaves you with no option but revolution?
If you want to win the argument on any practical level, you need to amend the constitution again, making it clear the income tax is not allowed, and public opinion opposes you.
Feel free to try to get people to agree to pass that amendment, but that's a far argument from thinking you can say it's unconstitutional now for any practical issue.
On the second issue, whether the Income tax is right or not, it seems to me that in our modern society, it's needed, as a progressive tax. I think it's served the nation well.
Do you want to return the US to the days of an agrarian society with small government where tariffs are used instead? I don't think that would work or be good for people, and I view a national sales tax that replaces the income tax as regressive. What I see are complaints about the excesses and corruption and imperfections of our government used for trying to justify breaking the system worse than it's already broken by not taxing adequately for the government to function.
It's a little like people who don't like the random drunk drive checkpoints trying to abolish the police force.
The radical reactions of the anti-income tax crowd aren't bad because they're radical, sometimes radical is best; they're bad because I think they'd harm our country severely.
And perhaps more importantly, I think it's unfortunately that the people who fixate on that approach are not doing much that I see to fix the issues more practical ways.
I can't recall ever seeing a post from someone saying their first choice is anti-income tax, but in the meantime they're also fighting for campaign finance reform.
- Jun 11, 2004
- 4,359
- 1
- 76
If you honestly believe that because I or anyone else believe the income tax is unjust, that we somehow are of less character then you are a poor judge of character. Gandhi broke law because he believed some laws are unjust. Would you say he was of little character?
In fact Gandhis case was weaker as he lost in court.
These people were not found guilty and are therefor innocent.
I really don't feel like repeating myself. My views are well. known.
Low taxes and a non-interventionist foreign policy means the government can't do great amount of damage as has our government over the past fifty years. Millions of bodies strewn across the land because of our righteous indignation.
I remember hearing about a guy doing this same basic thing in his land dealings, it allowed him to make huge tax write-offs.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter