which tax is fairest?

[AdamLanes 1]

Quote

In most cases, there would be no need for a gun. They would be able to use other methods, such as freezing your assets. Remember, tax monies owed belong to the government, not to the person who paid or owes the taxes. Failure to pay is no different from theft.

Taxes are nothing more than legalized theft. A person not paying taxes is more like a victim fighting off a mugger. A democracy where the majority has the ability to vote away the rights of minorities is evil and immoral.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Taxes are nothing more than legalized theft. A person not paying taxes is more like a victim fighting off a mugger.

A person not paying their taxes is no different than a thief. They are nothing like a victim fighting off a mugger. If you want to live in the USA, then you have to meet certain responsibilities, among which is paying taxes. If you don't believe the government has a right to collect taxes from you, then you should read the Constitution, particularly Amendment XVI:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

You do recognize the Constitution as the supreme law of the land in the USA, right? Regardless of what you may read on some tin-foil hatter libertarian website, there is nothing unConstitutional about the government collecting income taxes. (Just ask Wesley Snipes.)

If you don't want to pay taxes, then have the courage to stand up for your convictions and relocate to a country with a tax structure that you agree with. But, if you choose to remain in the USA, then you are obligated to pay taxes. Failure to do so is a crime. If you commit a crime, don't be surprised if agents of the government use unpleasant means to collect their property from you.

Quote

A democracy where the majority has the ability to vote away the rights of minorities is evil and immoral.

A democracy in which the majority votes away the rights of minorities would indeed be an unjust system. That, however, is not the situation in this case.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[champu 1]

Quote

Taxes are nothing more than legalized theft. A person not paying taxes is more like a victim fighting off a mugger.

If you don't want to pay taxes to the United States Department of the Treasury, don't use their dollars. It's quite simple actually.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Bill, do you have any idea as to how our common defense was paid for before the income tax?

It seems worth pointing out that in this era, the US military was basically an impotent force. And one of the key reasons for the Constitution replacing the Articles was a inability to control the peace.

Our military contributes to our economic success, albeit at considerable expense. Adam - if you want the benefits of it, you have to pay for it. If you don't, move to Belize.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Our military contributes to our economic success, albeit at considerable expense.

and it's getting more expensive (with less return) every day...

Quote

In the midst of an economic crisis that's getting scarier by the day, it's time to ask whether the nation can really afford some 1,000 military bases overseas. For those unfamiliar with the issue, you read that number correctly. One thousand. One thousand U.S. military bases outside the 50 states and Washington, DC, representing the largest collection of bases in world history.

Officially the Pentagon counts 865 base sites, but this notoriously unreliable number omits all our bases in Iraq (likely over 100) and Afghanistan (80 and counting), among many other well-known and secretive bases. More than half a century after World War II and the Korean War, we still have 268 bases in Germany, 124 in Japan, and 87 in South Korea. Others are scattered around the globe in places like Aruba and Australia, Bulgaria and Bahrain, Colombia and Greece, Djibouti, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, Romania, Singapore, and of course, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba -- just to name a few. Among the installations considered critical to our national security are a ski center in the Bavarian Alps, resorts in Seoul and Tokyo, and 234 golf courses the Pentagon runs worldwide.

Unlike domestic bases, which set off local alarms when threatened by closure, our collection of overseas bases is particularly galling because almost all our taxpayer money leaves the United States (much goes to enriching private base contractors like corruption-plagued former Halliburton subsidiary KBR). One part of the massive Ramstein airbase near Landstuhl, Germany, has an estimated value of $3.3 billion. Just think how local communities could use that kind of money to make investments in schools, hospitals, jobs, and infrastructure.

http://www.alternet.org/audits/130900/the_costs_of_empire%3A_can_we_really_afford_1%2C000_overseas_bases/

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

... if you want the benefits of it, you have to pay for it. If you don't, move to Belize.

I think you may be too generous. While Belize can be a tax haven for American ex-pats (along with other cool things), I've been thinking more along the line of the a state that truly has *really* low taxes because the infractructure is so degraded - Somalia. Self-interest is paramount.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Obama wants to greatly increase this tax to gain revenue for the government thus giving us back the problem we have overcome.

From FACTCHECK.ORG

A new e-mail being circulated about Obama's tax proposals is almost entirely false.
Alert readers may already have noted that this chain e-mail does not provide links to any of Obama's actual proposals or cite any sources for the claims it makes. That is because they are made up.This widely distributed message is so full of misinformation that we find it impossible to believe that it is the result of simple ignorance or carelessness on the part of the writer. Almost nothing it says about Obama's tax proposals is true. We conclude that this deception is deliberate.




Estate Tax. The claim that Obama proposes to "restore the inheritance tax" is also false, as are the claims that McCain would impose zero tax and that Bush "repealed" it. McCain and Obama both would retain a reduced version of the estate tax, as it is correctly called, though McCain would reduce it by more.

The tax now falls only on estates valued at more than $2 million (effectively $4 million for couples able to set up the required legal and financial arrangements). It reaches a maximum rate of 45 percent on amounts more than that. It was not repealed, but it is set to expire temporarily in 2010, then return in 2011, when it would apply to estates valued at more than $1 million ($2 million for couples), with the maximum rate rising to 55 percent.

Obama has proposed to apply the tax only to estates valued at more than $3.5 million ($7 million for couples), holding the maximum rate at 45 percent. McCain would apply it to estates worth more than $5 million ($10 million for couples), with a maximum rate of 15 percent.


"New Tax" Falsehoods: The e-mail continues with a string of made-up taxes that it falsely claims Obama has proposed. He has not proposed a tax on new homes with more than 2,400 square feet, or a new gasoline tax or a tax on retirement accounts. The most laughably false claim is that Obama would tax "water."

Two claims in this message, while not completely false, are still grossly misleading.

The claim that Obama would impose "new taxes on natural resources" may refer to his support for a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions, which indeed would impose large costs on industries burning coal, gas or oil and, indirectly, on their consumers. But McCain also supports cap-and-trade legislation, and even coauthored an early version of a bill that reached the Senate floor this year. Obama's plan would give the federal government more of the revenue from auctioning pollution permits than McCain's plan. Whether cap-and-trade amounts to a "tax" is a matter of interpretation. The fact is neither McCain nor Obama call it that.

There is also some truth to the claim that Obama would impose "new taxes" to finance his health care plan, depending on your interpretation of "new." He has said he would pay for much of his plan "by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year, as they are scheduled to do." That would certainly be a tax increase for those high-income persons, compared with what they are paying now. But whether that's imposing a new tax, or just letting an old one come back, depends on your point of view. It may well be that Obama will eventually propose tax increases to finance some of his plan. We've noted before that the "cost savings" that he says will finance much of his plan are inflated and probably won't materialize, according to independent experts we consulted. But it's wrong to say that he's proposing such taxes now.

The short answer to our reader's question is, no, this message isn't real. It's a pack of lies.

-Brooks Jackson


Sources
“Background Questions and Answers on Health Care Plan.” Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008.

“Energy and Environment. “Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008.


News Release: “CNBC’s Maria Bartiromo Speaks with Senator Barack Obama on CNBC’s “Closing Bell.” 27 March 2008. CNBC Web site.


“Plan to Strengthen the Economy.” Barack Obama’s Web site, accessed 10 July 2008.


Tax Policy Center: Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. “A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans,” 20 June 2008.

[masterrig 1]

Well, you're a breath of fresh air! I thought for a while I was the only one in this arguement.
I've watched it through the seventies to the present, 'it's all about me' and 'instant gratification'. Young folks want a pay-check, they just don't think they have to work for it. I guess, that's because they've all been told that they are 'special'. What's sad is, they think we are the suckers!
I appreciate ya'!


Chuck

[AdamLanes 1]

The 16th amendment to the US Constitution, and the IRS, actually conflicts with most other parts of the constitution.

Quote

A democracy in which the majority votes away the rights of minorities would indeed be an unjust system. That, however, is not the situation in this case.

So what happens then when the majority votes to take away the property of the wealthy minority, depriving them of their property?

[AdamLanes 1]

Quote

If you don't want to pay taxes to the United States Department of the Treasury, don't use their dollars. It's quite simple actually.

Have you ever heard the expression, "Its better to be thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt"? Thanks for playing.

[masterrig 1]

I was never given a figure and I didn't ask... that's their business. I do know, the siblings felt the taxes were too much and decided to sell-off. They didn't have the money to pay the taxes either. Actually, Nature's Conservancy bought it and actually 'pressured' my friend to sell... he held his ground.
I've got more respect for farmers and ranchers and anyone else who does the back breaking work in this country.

Chuck

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The 16th amendment to the US Constitution, and the IRS, actually conflicts with most other parts of the constitution.

Where it conflicts with the rest of the Constitution, up to and including Amendment XV, Amendment XVI supersedes the other parts. If it conflicts with with Amendments XVII (inclusive) or later, the newer amendments supersede Amendment XVI.

Where, specifically, do you believe Amendment XVI confllcts with the Constitution?

Quote

Quote

A democracy in which the majority votes away the rights of minorities would indeed be an unjust system. That, however, is not the situation in this case.

So what happens then when the majority votes to take away the property of the wealthy minority, depriving them of their property?

Do you have an example of such occurring?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Chuck, ya got to remember that some of these clowns have no concept of what earning a personal reward through hard work means. They have lived the live of "entitlement" and will probably never realize the sense of pride that comes from actually doing something...

The flaw in the argument is that the kids actually do something on the farm.

Some kids do nothing before inheriting the family fortune (think Paris Hilton).

I see no reason that farms should get some special exemption from taxes that the rest of us pay.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Young folks want a pay-check, they just don't think they have to work for it.

especially the young of the gilded rich

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[AdamLanes 1]

Quote

Quote

Bill, do you have any idea as to how our common defense was paid for before the income tax?

It seems worth pointing out that in this era, the US military was basically an impotent force. And one of the key reasons for the Constitution replacing the Articles was a inability to control the peace.

Our military contributes to our economic success, albeit at considerable expense. Adam - if you want the benefits of it, you have to pay for it. If you don't, move to Belize.

Um, the income tax came about in 1913, after the United States defeated two of the most powerful empires in the World, The Brtish (twice) and the Spanish. How does the military contribute to our economic success? Contrary to popular belief, war and destruction is actually a drain on the economy.

[AdamLanes 1]

I don't want to spend all day cutting and pasting the entire constitution here for ya, so I'll just point a few of the conflicts out. The inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, Article 6, amendments 1, 4, 5, and 8.

[masterrig 1]

I've seen it on all levels. Seems as though, parents don't know how to say 'NO'! Go to any of the big stores like Wally-World, Home Depot, Lowes and etc. and just try to find someone if, you need help. You usually have to hunt them down. When you do find someone, their response is; 'This isn't my department... I'll get someone!' or it is their department and they don't know squat or they don't speak English. They're most likely, hiding somewhere.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

I've seen it on all levels. Seems as though, parents don't know how to say 'NO'! Go to any of the big stores like Wally-World, Home Depot, Lowes and etc. and just try to find someone if, you need help. You usually have to hunt them down. When you do find someone, their response is; 'This isn't my department... I'll get someone!' or it is their department and they don't know squat or they don't speak English. They're most likely, hiding somewhere.

and how much are these workers getting paid?

(perhaps they didn't inherit a farm to work on)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I don't want to spend all day cutting and pasting the entire constitution here for ya, so I'll just point a few of the conflicts out. The inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, Article 6, amendments 1, 4, 5, and 8.

I think you will find that Amendment XVI supersedes every part of the Constitution you listed if it actually conflicted.

Having said that, there doesn't appear to be any conflict of interest with Article VI or Amendments I, IV, V or VIII.

It's interesting that you failed to list Article I, which is really the only part of the Constitution with which Amendment XVI does conflict. From Section 9:

"No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

However, Amendment XVI clarifies/supersedes that clause, maintaining consistency within the Constitution.

Now you can sleep better at night, understanding that the tin-foil hatters were wrong about income taxes being unConstitutional.

Edit to add: "The inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not listed in the Constitution.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I've seen it on all levels. Seems as though, parents don't know how to say 'NO'! Go to any of the big stores like Wally-World, Home Depot, Lowes and etc. and just try to find someone if, you need help. You usually have to hunt them down. When you do find someone, their response is; 'This isn't my department... I'll get someone!' or it is their department and they don't know squat or they don't speak English. They're most likely, hiding somewhere.

I think you'll find that is due to large chains trying to get by with as little labor and training costs as possible, not from lazy employees who don't want to work. WalMart is especially bad about being understaffed to the point of terrible customer service or inability to offer customer service in a timely manner.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[DanG 1]

Quote

Edit to add: "The inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not listed in the Constitution.

Rush Limbaugh said it was, hell, he even added the word "freedom". Are you saying Rush was wrong?

- Dan G

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Rush Limbaugh said it was, hell, he even added the word "freedom". Are you saying Rush was wrong?

Well, if Rush said it …

I think the last time I agreed with RL was when he said something about Snapple being a tasty beverage on a hot day when one is rather thirsty.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I've seen it on all levels. Seems as though, parents don't know how to say 'NO'! Go to any of the big stores like Wally-World, Home Depot, Lowes and etc. and just try to find someone if, you need help. You usually have to hunt them down. When you do find someone, their response is; 'This isn't my department... I'll get someone!' or it is their department and they don't know squat or they don't speak English. They're most likely, hiding somewhere.

and how much are these workers getting paid?

(perhaps they didn't inherit a farm to work on)

That shouldn't make a damned bit of difference! You tell a man you'll give him a days work for a days wages... that's what you do! No matter what the pay! I've worked for .50 cents an hour and I busted my ass for that man. It's a matter of self-pride and taking pride in what you do, no matter what the job. With the attitude today, it's no damned wonder this country is in the shape it's in. Everybody wants something for nothing and little damned effort.


Chuck

[DanG 1]

Quote

I've seen it on all levels. Seems as though, parents don't know how to say 'NO'! Go to any of the big stores like Wally-World, Home Depot, Lowes and etc. and just try to find someone if, you need help. You usually have to hunt them down. When you do find someone, their response is; 'This isn't my department... I'll get someone!' or it is their department and they don't know squat or they don't speak English. They're most likely, hiding somewhere.

Then go to locally owned and operated stores. They still exist, although they're not as convenient. And when the punk kids are rude, tell their Dad, he probably owns the place.

- Dan G

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Everybody wants something for nothing and little damned effort.

like the bankers? and if you expect me to believe you worked for fifty cents an hour - pull the other one!

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding