Taxes - why do i have to pay for,,,,

NorthofEngland

Well-Known Member
Why do I have to pay taxes towards the fire department,,,,?
I'm not on fire.

Why should MY MONEY be taken from me to help pay for SEEING EYE DOGS for BLIND PEOPLE....?

I CANNOT CLIMB A TREE,
NO ONES TAXES AREBUYING ME A GIBBON!

All I need is fresh air, the BIBLE and a collection of firearms deadly enough to wage war against one of them loser countries, like Denmark or New Zealand.

But The Bible is the most important thing I possess
because Jesus threw the tax collectors out of the shopping mall and leased the space to Ray's Sporting Goods
(Number ONE supplier of armor piercing bullets in all Amarillo).

ALSO
THE DEATH PENALTY IS TOO SOFT ON CRIMINALS
we should bring back crucifixion!

If it was good enough for OUR LORD - the SON of GOD
then it's good enough for everyone else.

I'll nail some respect into the motherfuckers
Just like it says in THE BIBLE
 

beenthere

New Member
Why do I have to pay taxes towards the fire department,,,,?
I'm not on fire.

Why should MY MONEY be taken from me to help pay for SEEING EYE DOGS for BLIND PEOPLE....?

I CANNOT CLIMB A TREE,
NO ONES TAXES AREBUYING ME A GIBBON!

All I need is fresh air, the BIBLE and a collection of firearms deadly enough to wage war against one of them loser countries, like Denmark or New Zealand.

But The Bible is the most important thing I possess
because Jesus threw the tax collectors out of the shopping mall and leased the space to Ray's Sporting Goods
(Number ONE supplier of armor piercing bullets in all Amarillo).

ALSO
THE DEATH PENALTY IS TOO SOFT ON CRIMINALS
we should bring back crucifixion!

If it was good enough for OUR LORD - the SON of GOD
then it's good enough for everyone else.

I'll nail some respect into the motherfuckers
Just like it says in THE BIBLE
Too much pudding?
 

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
The simple answer is that you volunteer to do so.....thus pledging support to what you seem to dislike. Not to say if you make a stand you wont suffer consequences but that's your call.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
This is an article by Paul Hein, it was posted at a website called Strike the Root. Ofcourse it will spellbind all of you, except Doer, he will read it and want to arm wrestle me.

We all acquire numerous statuses as we move through life. Some of them are natural, like the status of white male, or mother. They simply reflect who we are by our nature; they are built-ins, so to speak.
Others are the result of choices. I may acquire the status of pilot, for example, or Kiwanian. These statuses are chosen, and can be abandoned, renounced, or ignored with no untoward consequences. If I were to convert from Christianity to atheism, and then renounce that status, even vilifying it, I would not fear fine, arrest, or any other punishment except, perhaps, the disdain and contempt of my erstwhile peers.
Probably our most interesting statuses, and certainly the ones most fraught with significance, are those which are assigned to us, and which we, perhaps out of ignorance or apathy, accept. Some examples of these would be “citizen,” “taxpayer,” or even “employer.” A citizen, depending upon the legal dictionary used, is someone who swears loyalty to a nation, or who gives allegiance to a government. (A nation, or a government, is in reality, a group of people who differ from the rest of us by their belief that they can control our lives and property according to their will, which, written down, becomes law, and somehow binding upon us.) A taxpayer--according to the code itself--is anyone subject to the Internal Revenue Code--all those millions of words, and mind-boggling statutes and regulations. An employer is someone with a status assigned by the government, over and above that status assumed voluntarily by the individual. By virtue of the government-assigned status of employer, one becomes required to adhere to regulations promulgated by the rulers.
It is instructive to review what Thomas Jefferson said about government in his Declaration of Independence. Government derives its just powers, he said, from the consent of the governed. My state constitution, and probably that of your state, has a similar concept: that political power resides in the people, and is derived from them. A similar idea is expressed in the federal Constitution. The alternative to powers delegated to government by the people, or government operating with the consent of the governed, is slavery. To consent is to agree, and consent is not automatic, like breathing. If you consent to something, you could as easily have withheld your consent. Similarly, if you delegated your power--as the source of that power--to certain strangers, you could as easily have denied them that power.
And yet you find yourself with the status of citizen. Who bestowed that status upon you? Did you volunteer loyalty and allegiance to the various strangers in the town hall, the state house, or Washington D.C.? Maybe you did. Should you decide that you erred in doing so, could you retract your loyalty and allegiance? Could you notify those officious strangers that, although you intended to remain in his bountiful and beautiful land, you no longer owed them any loyalty or allegiance? Certainly, a free man could do so!
What if you asked the rulers how you acquired the status of employer, as they define it? You certainly didn’t choose it, and you don’t want it. Is there some objective proof that you are an employer, other than the assertion by the Rulers that you are? Can you renounce your federally-imposed employer status? Certainly a free man could do so!
Sooner or later you may wonder how it is that you’ve become a taxpayer; i.e., someone subject to the tax laws. Is it to your advantage to have that status? Can’t you notify the authorities that you no longer wish to be a taxpayer, having never given your consent to that condition, nor having delegated to them the power to claim your property as their own? Certainly a free man could do so! After all, doesn’t the government exist to protect your rights? You have the right to your own property, don’t you?
Ah, but the rulers have answers to your queries. They will point out that when you apply for a passport as a U.S. citizen, or enter the voting booth, you are identifying yourself as a citizen. Complete the forms regularly required of an employer, withholding pay from workers, and forwarding it to the rulers, and you have assumed the status of employer. And when completing the forms sent to “Dear taxpayer” containing data required from all taxpayers, your denial of taxpayer status rings hollow.
The plantation slaves of 200 years ago would have laughed at the idea that they had consented to their condition. So would their masters, who had bought and paid for them. No elaborate documents with florid language, expressing soothing platitudes, would have changed anything. Any slave attempting to abandon his slave status would have been punished, perhaps severely.
But today—in the land of the free--things are different! The offensive term “slave” has been replaced with much gentler terms, and the citizens, employers, taxpayers, etc., do, after a fashion, give their consent, and delegate their powers to those who oppress them, even if they do so in ignorance, or fear of their public servants. I’m sure the overseers didn’t mind how much the slaves grumbled, so long as they harvested that cotton! And the mugger will let you complain to your heart's content, so long as you hand over your wallet and watch. What he won’t do is insult your intelligence by declaring that you are obligated to give him what he wants pursuant to rules formally debated and published by the Muggers Association.
No, in this land of the free, you are free to reject any associations not to your liking. Right?



 

canndo

Well-Known Member
This is an article by Paul Hein, it was posted at a website called Strike the Root. Ofcourse it will spellbind all of you, except Doer, he will read it and want to arm wrestle me.

We all acquire numerous statuses as we move through life. Some of them are natural, like the status of white male, or mother. They simply reflect who we are by our nature; they are built-ins, so to speak.
Others are the result of choices. I may acquire the status of pilot, for example, or Kiwanian. These statuses are chosen, and can be abandoned, renounced, or ignored with no untoward consequences. If I were to convert from Christianity to atheism, and then renounce that status, even vilifying it, I would not fear fine, arrest, or any other punishment except, perhaps, the disdain and contempt of my erstwhile peers.
Probably our most interesting statuses, and certainly the ones most fraught with significance, are those which are assigned to us, and which we, perhaps out of ignorance or apathy, accept. Some examples of these would be “citizen,” “taxpayer,” or even “employer.” A citizen, depending upon the legal dictionary used, is someone who swears loyalty to a nation, or who gives allegiance to a government. (A nation, or a government, is in reality, a group of people who differ from the rest of us by their belief that they can control our lives and property according to their will, which, written down, becomes law, and somehow binding upon us.) A taxpayer--according to the code itself--is anyone subject to the Internal Revenue Code--all those millions of words, and mind-boggling statutes and regulations. An employer is someone with a status assigned by the government, over and above that status assumed voluntarily by the individual. By virtue of the government-assigned status of employer, one becomes required to adhere to regulations promulgated by the rulers.
It is instructive to review what Thomas Jefferson said about government in his Declaration of Independence. Government derives its just powers, he said, from the consent of the governed. My state constitution, and probably that of your state, has a similar concept: that political power resides in the people, and is derived from them. A similar idea is expressed in the federal Constitution. The alternative to powers delegated to government by the people, or government operating with the consent of the governed, is slavery. To consent is to agree, and consent is not automatic, like breathing. If you consent to something, you could as easily have withheld your consent. Similarly, if you delegated your power--as the source of that power--to certain strangers, you could as easily have denied them that power.
And yet you find yourself with the status of citizen. Who bestowed that status upon you? Did you volunteer loyalty and allegiance to the various strangers in the town hall, the state house, or Washington D.C.? Maybe you did. Should you decide that you erred in doing so, could you retract your loyalty and allegiance? Could you notify those officious strangers that, although you intended to remain in his bountiful and beautiful land, you no longer owed them any loyalty or allegiance? Certainly, a free man could do so!
What if you asked the rulers how you acquired the status of employer, as they define it? You certainly didn’t choose it, and you don’t want it. Is there some objective proof that you are an employer, other than the assertion by the Rulers that you are? Can you renounce your federally-imposed employer status? Certainly a free man could do so!
Sooner or later you may wonder how it is that you’ve become a taxpayer; i.e., someone subject to the tax laws. Is it to your advantage to have that status? Can’t you notify the authorities that you no longer wish to be a taxpayer, having never given your consent to that condition, nor having delegated to them the power to claim your property as their own? Certainly a free man could do so! After all, doesn’t the government exist to protect your rights? You have the right to your own property, don’t you?
Ah, but the rulers have answers to your queries. They will point out that when you apply for a passport as a U.S. citizen, or enter the voting booth, you are identifying yourself as a citizen. Complete the forms regularly required of an employer, withholding pay from workers, and forwarding it to the rulers, and you have assumed the status of employer. And when completing the forms sent to “Dear taxpayer” containing data required from all taxpayers, your denial of taxpayer status rings hollow.
The plantation slaves of 200 years ago would have laughed at the idea that they had consented to their condition. So would their masters, who had bought and paid for them. No elaborate documents with florid language, expressing soothing platitudes, would have changed anything. Any slave attempting to abandon his slave status would have been punished, perhaps severely.
But today—in the land of the free--things are different! The offensive term “slave” has been replaced with much gentler terms, and the citizens, employers, taxpayers, etc., do, after a fashion, give their consent, and delegate their powers to those who oppress them, even if they do so in ignorance, or fear of their public servants. I’m sure the overseers didn’t mind how much the slaves grumbled, so long as they harvested that cotton! And the mugger will let you complain to your heart's content, so long as you hand over your wallet and watch. What he won’t do is insult your intelligence by declaring that you are obligated to give him what he wants pursuant to rules formally debated and published by the Muggers Association.
No, in this land of the free, you are free to reject any associations not to your liking. Right?





SIlly argument. Firstly should you not wish to abide by the laws and customs set up by the people and the government, you are free to find other acommodations. Secondly, the article ignores other fundamentals, like borders. The fact that you are born in a certain country confers upon you certain rights - and of course certain responsibilities. the land you live on is within that border and even if you purchase it, you purchase it within the framework and laws of the country - thus it is never entirely "yours". You are a citizen of the united states by virtue of the happenstance of your birth. Being a citizen of this country you are entitled to certain priveleges, like the state sponsored protection of your posessions and life against incursion of other countries. Should you opt out of your citizenship the country would have the right to opt out of that defense - that is clearly not possible and so you are required either to leave,or be subject to the taxes needed to support the infrastructure and defend the land in which you inhabit. Don't like the rules? either change them or find a realm more akin to the rules you DO like. I suggest somewhere in the rain forest.
 

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
You are a citizen of the us by happenstance of birth eh? Funny, my birth certificate is from the state. You are a citizen by birth and happenstance occurs when the legalities of the social security card are enacted.

Citizen is status of society. Society has rules and laws, punishments and priveledges.....and a contract bust be present to confer either.

Laws and laws are completely different things. Laws apply to everyone evenly, laws only apply to the society.

Law is that I may take trout from a stream if Iam hungry.....statutory law says I may not at certain times in the year, what.methods Imay use ect.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
You are a citizen of the us by happenstance of birth eh? Funny, my birth certificate is from the state. You are a citizen by birth and happenstance occurs when the legalities of the social security card are enacted.

Citizen is status of society. Society has rules and laws, punishments and priveledges.....and a contract bust be present to confer either.

Laws and laws are completely different things. Laws apply to everyone evenly, laws only apply to the society.




The state is a part of the union, with each state agreeing to abide by certain provisions established by the Federal government through the representatation of not only the states but the people.

Who's stream is it that you remove the trout from? There are many tacit contracts. I resent the original post's comparison between tax payers and slaves. Slaves had neither the privelege nor the right to simply take their family and move to a place more condusive to their philosophy. We do. The only thing I know of that would keep me from leaving to someplace else is that someplace else's permission to do so. One could consider that a contract. Should I opt to move to Israel or Japan and they decide I have something to offer, then I would be bound to study their tax codes, statutes and laws. From there, my arrival there would constitute tacit acceptance of their methods.

So, in short, if one does not like the conditions one Inherits by virtue of one's birth, then, at least in the case of the U.S., one can construct that contract with another country.
 

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member





The state is a part of the union, with each state agreeing to abide by certain provisions established by the Federal government through the representatation of not only the states but the people.

Yes, with the People consenting to be represented by the State.
The more local you go the higher you move up the power ladder, your local neighborhood association for exp ample can make you mow your lawn.


Who's stream is it that you remove the trout from? There are many tacit contracts. I resent the original post's comparison between tax payers and slaves. Slaves had neither the privelege nor the right to simply take their family and move to a place more condusive to their philosophy. We do. The only thing I know of that would keep me from leaving to someplace else is that someplace else's permission to do so. One could consider that a contract. Should I opt to move to Israel or Japan and they decide I have something to offer, then I would be bound to study their tax codes, statutes and laws. From there, my arrival there would constitute tacit acceptance of their methods.

Public stream. I think "slaves" in the article has a figurative meaning not literal, wage slave ect...

So, in short, if one does not like the conditions one Inherits by virtue of one's birth, then, at least in the case of the U.S., one can construct that contract with another country.
So in short we should gtf out of the US if we dont like the contract we were given at birth. Lame.
The only contract you inherit at birth is the Constitution. Social Security was signed into for you by your parents. A newborn child does not have a capacity to contract recognizable by law.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
So in short we should gtf out of the US if we dont like the contract we were given at birth. Lame.
The only contract you inherit at birth is the Constitution. Social Security was signed into for you by your parents. A newborn child does not have a capacity to contract recognizable by law.
Not lame. Your family rents a home, they abide by the rules of the owner, you have no say until you turn a certain age, then if you don't like the rules, you have a choice to leave. Your point is valid, when exactly might you sign your contract and what is to be done with you if you opt not to do so? you stay anyway and get taken care of by the state - that same state that you don't agree with but they still have to protect you and provide for you in the interst of the common good?


Name a country where you get to negotiate the rules on a person by person level.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
So in short we should gtf out of the US if we dont like the contract we were given at birth. Lame.
The only contract you inherit at birth is the Constitution. Social Security was signed into for you by your parents. A newborn child does not have a capacity to contract recognizable by law.
damn, you sound just as whiny as robroy. i kinda suspected you were that way.
 

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
Not lame. Your family rents a home, they abide by the rules of the owner, you have no say until you turn a certain age, then if you don't like the rules, you have a choice to leave. Your point is valid, when exactly might you sign your contract and what is to be done with you if you opt not to do so? you stay anyway and get taken care of by the state - that same state that you don't agree with but they still have to protect you and provide for you in the interst of the common good?


Name a country where you get to negotiate the rules on a person by person level.
More lameness. A horrible example but very telling. Families do not generally rent their offspring, they are the rightful owners....if the "house" and "landlord" are the "government" and "president" then there's really no point continuing conversation......stick to the social as a contract please and weather you think its mandatory and if so some sources would be great.

What is to be done if you opt not to do so? Why would it be any of your concern as you would literally have ZERO "collective" interest?

I suppose he/she would just go on like me or you except they would need to plan for their own retirement, count on church and family for charity, buy their own rubbers and such. I see no reason these folks would not be entitled to protection from the millitary, they still pay Constitutional taxes after all.

Of course if you reject society you reject any privileges of society, have I typed anything to the opposite of that effect?

The state of course has an obligation to protect, paid for through excise, by anyone with or without a social........but when you lump "provide" for in there which is paid for through currency devaluation....now you're just waxing philosophical.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
More lameness. A horrible example but very telling. Families do not generally rent their offspring, they are the rightful owners....if the "house" and "landlord" are the "government" and "president" then there's really no point continuing conversation......stick to the social as a contract please and weather you think its mandatory and if so some sources would be great.

What is to be done if you opt not to do so? Why would it be any of your concern as you would literally have ZERO "collective" interest?

I suppose he/she would just go on like me or you except they would need to plan for their own retirement, count on church and family for charity, buy their own rubbers and such. I see no reason these folks would not be entitled to protection from the millitary, they still pay Constitutional taxes after all.

Of course if you reject society you reject any privileges of society, have I typed anything to the opposite of that effect?

The state of course has an obligation to protect, paid for through excise, by anyone with or without a social........but when you lump "provide" for in there which is paid for through currency devaluation....now you're just waxing philosophical.

Same question, I'll ask again, in what country are you allowed or expected to negotiate an individual contract with the government, local or otherwise?
 
Top