POLL: Income Tax

[Mr Neutron]

If there was no law stating that you had to pay an income tax, would you pay anyway?
This is based on the assumption that the government would receive enough revenue from tariffs, excise and corporate taxes to provide for it's Constitutional responsibilities; Establishing courts, coin money, provide defense (international) and to ensure that no individual's rights are impinged

 

[Mupphet.Man]

The U.S. Mail Service should be included. (Constitutionally legal) Therefore you also need to account for a way for the service to do its duties, (roads). At one time that was a purely Federal matter, should it be again? If not, how much of the current services provided by the Fed. Gov't would you propose the state gov'ts take over? Then, if it is unlawful to have an income tax (Aaron Russo) - and you weren't paying your Fed, why would you pay your state? Lol - Who the fuck is going to fix the roads, dude? There are other vital services that you take for granted, that would disappear. The problem with neo-conservatism in respect to socio-economics is that neo-conservatives assume there are enough good people out there to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves. The truth is, and if you're a drug user, drug dealer, drug manufactorer, then you know it already, is that people are selfish. So, that leaves: let the weak die and the strong live, ok then, but what about small children, could you be the dude saying that then? Not me... Sorry to get on a tangent here, but I thought why not a little debate.

 

[Girdweed]

^ Good post, mupphet

 

[Mr Neutron]

The U.S. Mail Service should be included. (Constitutionally legal) Therefore you also need to account for a way for the service to do its duties, (roads). At one time that was a purely Federal matter, should it be again? If not, how much of the current services provided by the Fed. Gov't would you propose the state gov'ts take over? Then, if it is unlawful to have an income tax (Aaron Russo) - and you weren't paying your Fed, why would you pay your state? Lol - Who the fuck is going to fix the roads, dude? There are other vital services that you take for granted, that would disappear. The problem with neo-conservatism in respect to socio-economics is that neo-conservatives assume there are enough good people out there to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves. The truth is, and if you're a drug user, drug dealer, drug manufactorer, then you know it already, is that people are selfish. So, that leaves: let the weak die and the strong live, ok then, but what about small children, could you be the dude saying that then? Not me... Sorry to get on a tangent here, but I thought why not a little debate.

OK, throw the mail service, although private companies could do it better and more efficient.
Roads are supposed to be taken care of with the gasoline tax.
I'm a little confused, who is a neo-conservative?

 

[newworldicon]

I've read or heard somewhere before that there is in fact no law in place forcing you Americans to pay federal income tax but I'm wondering without ever looking into to it whether there is some slimy never mentioned corporate law that binds you through a third party agreement of sorts....

 

[UncleBuck]

I've read or heard somewhere before that there is in fact no law in place forcing you Americans to pay federal income tax but I'm wondering without ever looking into to it whether there is some slimy never mentioned corporate law that binds you through a third party agreement of sorts....

just send the irs a letter stating you don't have to pay income taxes.

feel free to learn what a "frivolous return" is. expensive lesson to learn.

 

[UncleBuck]

OK, throw the mail service, although private companies could do it better and more efficient.

private companies would lose money running the mail service. they have o set up shop in each and every town, even in shitshatapoopton, nebraska. sometimes they'll have someone there full time to handle the 3 or 4 transactions per week that occur. it's just not a profit maker.

that said, i do like being able to mail something from one coast to the other for a mere $0.44. can't get that with fedex or ups.

 

[Mr Neutron]

I've read or heard somewhere before that there is in fact no law in place forcing you Americans to pay federal income tax but I'm wondering without ever looking into to it whether there is some slimy never mentioned corporate law that binds you through a third party agreement of sorts....

We the People Foundation has offered a $50,000 reward for anybody producing "THE" law and so far no one has claimed it. In fact, several IRS agents, bent on getting said reward, have left the agency because they discovered that there is none and have filed no returns since.

 

[mame]

What does revenue from income taxes pay for? I mean, if you want to abolish the tax than in order to maintain a solvent government you would have to cut services as well... So what would be lost in the event there was no income tax? Would the people accept these lost services as a fair trade off to not having to pay income taxes?

I feel like without mentioning the services that income taxes provide, that you're only telling one side of the story... Why not tell the people(of whom you're obviously trying to make the point that there shouldn't be an income tax) what they'd be giving up in exchange for no income tax? Is it because you know most people (even teabaggers... "get your govt hands off my medicare!") wouldn't be willing to give up these services?

 

[Charlie Ventura]

The federal income tax is a tax on one's labor. As such, it is a slave tax. The portion of one's labor that is taxed is the portion of one's labor that government owns. During our early history we had a system whereby others owned people's labor. We called that slavery. So, what's so different with the federal income tax other than degree?

The cost of our present system is enormous when considering that the private sector spends upwards of 500 BILLION each year just to comply with the current 70,000 page IRS tax code.

With the present system, over 40% of the people who occupy the country pay no income tax. The burden is laid upon the other 60%.

Why, in a supposedly free country, should any citizen fear a government tax audit or the possibility of going to jail for avoiding income taxes?

I'm an advocate of the FAIR tax ... a simple end-user federal sales tax. This way, there is no fear of audits, no underground economy and everyone pays and has a stake in the system.

And by the way, roads are paid for through the state and federal gasoline taxes that we all pay at the pump.

 

[NoDrama]

private companies would lose money running the mail service. they have o set up shop in each and every town, even in shitshatapoopton, nebraska. sometimes they'll have someone there full time to handle the 3 or 4 transactions per week that occur. it's just not a profit maker.

that said, i do like being able to mail something from one coast to the other for a mere $0.44. can't get that with fedex or ups.

You aren't really paying $.44 to mail a letter. The post office loses about $8 Billion a year. You and the other 180 million people that pay taxes are also paying to make up for the loss. So that lettter you just sent costs you $.44 up front, but in the end costs you much much more. It delivers about 170 billion pieces of mail a year so 170/8= $.22 extra per piece of mail to subsidize its failure through taxation.
So to make the PO a almost self sustaining operation means it will need to raise the price of stamps to at least $.66 each and about 15% increase each year after.

 

[NoDrama]

just send the irs a letter stating you don't have to pay income taxes.

feel free to learn what a "frivolous return" is. expensive lesson to learn.

The IRS won't be getting a return from me this year, but im not going to send them a letter rubbing their faces in it either.

 

[UncleBuck]

You aren't really paying $.44 to mail a letter. The post office loses about $8 Billion a year. You and the other 180 million people that pay taxes are also paying to make up for the loss. So that lettter you just sent costs you $.44 up front, but in the end costs you much much more. It delivers about 170 billion pieces of mail a year so 170/8= $.22 extra per piece of mail to subsidize its failure through taxation.
So to make the PO a almost self sustaining operation means it will need to raise the price of stamps to at least $.66 each and about 15% increase each year after.

well, that still beats the going rate to mail a letter with ups or fedex. and ups and fedex do not have a store in every shitshatapoopton, nebraska out there.

The IRS won't be getting a return from me this year, but im not going to send them a letter rubbing their faces in it either.

good idea.

for the record, i answered 'yes', but only as a matter of agreeing with mupphet man. if fed taxes are eliminated, the state will tax higher to cover the difference.

 

[Mupphet.Man]

A better question for people like us, is, why do we care? How many of you guys pay income taxes all the time? Don't even lie, so fuck it.

 

[TreeGear]

Nobody would pay yet everyone would ask where all their shit was....isn't that whats happening already?
Re: post office, they should charge what it takes it for them to break even so its more "user" paid for....they subsidize the post office with tax dollars and bulk mail rate for companies to fill your mailboxes with junk mail. It much more than the extra 22 cents if you subtract the dime a letter they charge for that crap in your mailbox. The internet has pretty much saturated rural U.S. so its high time they just charge the $1-2 dollars it really costs to force everything electronic and allow a private company to pick up what paper is leftover. Fedex already delivers everywhere, it would just cost more to go to that town in Nebraska you were referring to. Its not the taxpayers responsibility to make sure you get your birthday cards at your trailer in the middle of rural USA.

 

[londonfog]

A better question for people like us, is, why do we care? How many of you guys pay income taxes all the time? Don't even lie, so fuck it.

I do...don't want it to come back and bite me in the ass...Too much to lose!!!!

 

[Mr Neutron]

What does revenue from income taxes pay for?

Interest on the debt, waste, fraud and over-budget spending. Why do think they created the Federal Reserve Act AND the 16th Amendment at practically the same time? (see "The Creature From Jekyll Island" G W Griifin)
It is questionable as to whether or not the 16th amendment was legally ratified.
The SCOTUS has ruled that "income" is NOT wages. Income is profit from investment or corporate activity.
The SCOTUS has ruled that wages are NOT taxable.
The IRS say compliance is voluntary.
If you have "income", you must file and pay your taxes but if all you had was wages, well...

I mean, if you want to abolish the tax than in order to maintain a solvent government you would have to cut services as well

EXACTLY... a solvent government that lives within it's means.

So what would be lost in the event there was no income tax?

That's easy, any function not authorized by the Constitution should be abolished. We'd be better off without them, anyway.

Would the people accept these lost services as a fair trade off to not having to pay income taxes?

I believe that if it was explained to the people in a rational way and without all the emotional fear mongering, most would accept it. Even more after implementation, when they see how better their lives are.

I feel like without mentioning the services that income taxes provide, that you're only telling one side of the story... Why not tell the people(of whom you're obviously trying to make the point that there shouldn't be an income tax) what they'd be giving up in exchange for no income tax?

OK! Here's what you will have to give up in order to not pay a slave tax (income tax).
+ No more fear of IRS audit
+ No more losing %15, %20 or more to withholding
+ No more sending your kids to school, not to learn basic language skills, math and science but how to be politically correct and feel good about yourself
+ No more sexual assaults on airline travellers
+ No more assisting Mexican drug lords attain weapons
+ No more invading sovereign nations, whether under false pretenses or not
+ No more foreign welfare (foreign aid)
+ No more endless wars against fictitious enemies
+ No more government run by central banks (stealing our countries wealth)
+ No more fear of government arresting me or invading my home, by mistake or otherwise.
+ No more holding back on medicines that are available elsewhere in the world but not here because of pharma controlled FDA
+ No more veterans languishing in pain and suffering, sometimes suicide because we will have more than enough money to treat them properly
+ No more paying farmers to NOT grow
+ No more corporate welfare
+ No more bailouts
+ No more "too big to fail"
+ No more mistrust and disdain for government, at home and abroad because it will be manageable and under control. Any mistakes or abuses will be minuscule
in comparison
I could go on, bit I think most will get the picture. I'm sure you will paint a much different one. Just remember this, we've been trying it your way for the last 100 years or so and it is not working. I think it is time to try a new approach.

Is it because you know most people (even teabaggers... "get your govt hands off my medicare!") wouldn't be willing to give up these services?

Thank you for the "teabaggers". I just love it when those on your side resort to denigrating those you do not agree with. However, you may be right. Whether those who would oppose such measures are a majority or not, does not matter.
"Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it"
If you lived in the mid 18th century, I suspect you would be against independence and side with King George.
Finally, there are a lot of people who profess that they are for freedom until they find out that means protecting EVERYBODY'S freedom, even those you do not like. Here, in this forum, we have debated whether or not ALL drugs should be legalized, not just marijuana. It's plain to see the disparity in thought. You're either for freedom for everybody or none at all. Do I have to mention that freedom does not allow for bringing harm to others? Just remember the "Golden Rule", THAT, really is the only law we need.

 

[undertheice]

I believe that if it was explained to the people in a rational way and without all the emotional fear mongering, most would accept it.

there are a lot of people who profess that they are for freedom until they find out that means protecting EVERYBODY'S freedom, even those you do not like.

i'm afraid you have a bit more rosy view of the people than i do. one of democracy's great flaws is that the majority may change the most basic rules we live by. they may decide that personal wealth can be confiscated for the greater good, they may choose to demonize any segment of the population and convict them of the most venal sins without judge or jury. the poor, outnumbering the wealthy as they always have and always will, may choose to use their power of numbers to interfere in the freedoms of that wealthy minority and, through the illegitimate means of political gamesmanship, this is exactly what is being done.

we have gotten used to the entitlements afforded by this theft of personal wealth. we have come to believe that a slice of the good life is the birthright of every american citizen, no matter who has to pay for it. we have decided that the universal sin of avarice is punishable only when its perpetrator has succeeded in his greed and that failure is to be rewarded or at least subsidized. without the slave tax and the bureaucracy it feeds, all this must come to an end. all of the extravagances must cease. the people must take responsibility for themselves, defense spending must once again become a matter of "defense" and our government must learn to function within its means.

"Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it"

but this is the essence of the populist creed, a tool of statism. the more our "leaders" spread their brand of ignorance, the more widely accepted it will be and the closer to "right". perception is the better part of reality and our perceptions have been under attack for quite some time. it has been said that one man may be quite capable of acting honestly and responsibly, but that the people as a whole must be considered to be no less ignorant than any other beast of the herd. this nation, as well as any other, is a living proof of that concept. this is precisely why our constitution went to such pains to limit the consolidation of power at a federal level, even though that power was placed ostensibly in the hands of the people themselves, and why the rights of the individual were not enumerated but considered natural and self-evident.

Just remember this, we've been trying it your way for the last 100 years or so and it is not working. I think it is time to try a new approach.

how many times have we heard opponents of the american system as it was intended claim that the two-hundred years of this experiment have ended in failure? what they seem to forget is that "great minds" have been "improving" on the concept since before any of us were born. they have done their best to pervert every tenet on which this country was based, most often in the name of necessity or compassion. the liberties inherent in the capitalist system have been undermined, the merits of the democratic process have been exaggerated and the natural tendency of government to expand and enslave has been indulged. the statist creed, the socialist agenda, is what has failed us. the power we have allowed our servants to usurp has enabled them to create a paradise for themselves and threatens to create a hell for the rest of us. the duties we have relinquished as individuals we can now see as rights we have abdicated.

 

[Mupphet.Man]

What we're really dealing with here is a divide between what I like to call reality and idealism... Aaron Russo was a cool dude, at least for the one interview I managed to see of his that's plastered all over YouTube. However, like my homeboy Ron Paul, who wants to end the Fed' - they have all these great ideas that sound so nice on paper, and really make you angry, and really get your blood boiling, because it's not fair... However, anyone could point these issues out - some of Aaron's conspiracy theories are "interesting" - what they should be doing is trying to answer simple questions like: "Who is going to fix the roads when the Federal Gov't stops taxing us?" Then, and only then, could the rest of us go balls deep with his name in our sigs and everything, lol...

 

[Mupphet.Man]

Last poster, you are spot on! The biggest problem with conservatism is it places too much responsibility on a minority of people to help the rest. End of story. If you got some extra dough, and I'm not talking about a couple G's you leave on your coffee table for your homeboys to see so they think your king shit, I'm talking about $$$$$$$$... Multi-Millionaires - Billionaires - those guys.