Income tax is theft

Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
“The revenue issue is now closed,” Mr. Boehner said Thursday, before the House left town for the weekend without acting on the cuts and a Senate attempt to avert them died. Mr. Boehner said the dispute with Democrats amounted to a question of “how much more money do we want to steal from the American people to fund more government.” “I’m for no more,” he said. -- Boehner Halts Talks on Cuts, and House G.O.P. Cheers, Ashley Parker, New York Times, today So Ronald Reagan was a thief. Who knew? And so, it's now clear, was every president beginning with Abraham Lincoln. Until George W. Bush, that is. Teddy Roosevelt? Yup. Calvin Coolidge? Uh-huh. Harry Truman? I guess that's what they meant by "hell" that he was giving 'em. They each stole from the American people via income taxes to fund the federal government. But since FDR was the one who initiated the stealing to pay for such specifics as Social Security, the Tennessee Valley Authority and other New Deal programs, we’ll start with him. He also stole--a lot--from American people to pay for WWII. Dwight Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter perpetuated this theft. Big time. Of course, Nixon, who assured the country that he was not a crook, did turn out to be one after all, so in retrospect, his theft from the American people was just in character. And we knew all along that Dwight Eisenhower was the perpetrator of the theft from Americans that established a Soviet-style interstate highway system--or so Florida Rep. John Mica, the last Congress’s chairman of the House Transportation Committee, would describe the socialist ownership of the interstate highways. That controversial statue of Eisenhower that’s planned for D.C. should be scratched, not because of its design, which his ancestors dislike, but because of his criminality. LBJ, of course, stole a lot of money from American people in order to fund the Vietnam War, a theft that this country did pay a very high price for, although not in a lengthy prison sentence after indictment and conviction for grand larceny. But if that weren’t bad enough--from a criminal-law standpoint, that is--he also stole lots of money to fund the student-loan program that helped so many baby boomers go to college and graduate school. Some of them--the ones who became hedge fund managers, anyway--would now be in imminent danger of becoming crime victims themselves, rather than the beneficiaries of thefts past, but John Boehner has infiltrated the den of thieves and had has called the FBI, which, luckily, still has some agents working full-time schedules, despite the sequester. And we won’t even get into George H.W. Bush, who, as we all know, lost his reelection bid to Bill Clinton partly because he had firmly and repeatedly promised during his first campaign to not steal more from the American people than was already being stolen, only to turn around and rob the American people blind. Luckily, he son was available eight years later to provide restitution, although his Department of Justice never did indict his father. And, speaking of Bill Clinton--well, they didn’t call him Slick Willie for nothing, did they? But Reagan? Reagan? Et tu? Yup. I keep forgetting that tax rates were much higher during Reagan’s time as president then they are now, and that after lowering tax rates, he raised some. He’s dead now, so he can’t be indicted. And anyway, I think the statute of limitations has run. Which is too bad. But Bill Clinton is very much alive, and active. And since Obama seems unwilling to rebut Boehner’s and other Republicans’ intended inferential misrepresentation that Obama’s and the congressional Democrats’ tax-increase proposals, now and the ones enacted as part of the “fiscal cliff” resolution in early January, would tax Americans other than Americans who are quite wealthy, or who have income from capital gains or dividends and who still pay taxes for that income at lower rates than during the Reagan or the Clinton era, or who are corporate Americans. The Republicans expect that they will get a majority of Americans to believe falsely that the Dems are proposing to raise their taxes. If Obama remains mute instead of correcting this misrepresentation, Clinton should step in and do that. He should hang the taxes-as-stealing statement around John Boehner’s neck, and then tighten the noose by answering the question Boehner posed: How much more money do we want to steal from the American people to fund more government? He then should answer the questions, from which American people, and for what? And he should be specific. But he also should ask this: Since when is it theft of Americans to institute tax increases that a majority of Americans who voted in the recent election actually specifically voted for? And he should point out that what Boehner really thinks the crime is is that public prefers that the federal government continue to fund Medicare and other social safety-net programs, as well as myriad other services, agencies and perks of being an American; the National Institutes of Health, the National Parks Service, FEMA, and the EPA come quickly to mind, but of course there are many others. As criminality goes, the aggressive attempts to undermine the very nature of democratic government, through an unremitting series of stunts and use of bizarre language and concerted campaigns of disinformation, strike me as more serious ones than the theft of wealthy Americans through tax increases that would remain substantially lower than they were during most of the 20th Century. But, by all means, Speaker Boehner, bring on the theft language, again and again. Keep it up, all the way through the 2014 midterm elections. Please. But if you don't feel like it, hopefully the Dem congressional candidates will pick up the slack and help you out with that, in their TV and Internet commercials. It should help them steal some elections. http://www.investingchannel.com/article/183191/John-Boehner-Lists-Our-Presidential-Thieves--And-Ronald-Reagan-Is-Among-Them
Click to expand...
"concerted campaigns of disinformation" "It should help them steal some elections." Dis is funny!
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Mr Neutron said:
I have read Title 26, as have many others including several IRS agents and have yet to see what I am asking for. If you read it without the preconception that it is legal and pertains to everybody, then, I can see where you could misinterpret it that way.
Click to expand...
No, no. SCOTUS says....we don't get to interpret or misinterpret. It's the rule of law, not citizen opinion.
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
Mr Neutron said:
I have read Title 26, as have many others including several IRS agents and have yet to see what I am asking for. If you read it without the preconception that it is legal and pertains to everybody, then, I can see where you could misinterpret it that way.
Click to expand...
I some how doubt you have actually read the code. What is vague or ambiguous about this?:

(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households) There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is:
The tax is:

Not over $22,100 15% of taxable income.
Over $22,100 but not over $53,500 $3,315, plus 28% of the excess over $22,100.
Over $53,500 but not over $115,000 $12,107, plus 31% of the excess over $53,500.
Over $115,000 but not over $250,000 $31,172, plus 36% of the excess over $115,000.
Over $250,000 $79,772, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.
Click to expand...
There you have it, straight from the US code which is LAW passed by congress. There is hereby imposed on taxable income a tax determined by the table. There are other sections that deal with being married, and pretty much every other possible scenario you can think of.
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
Mr Neutron said:
It's the ONLY thing that validates it.
Click to expand...
What? I fail to see how the misinterpretation of a law by a citizen does anything to validate or invalidate the law. The law is the law, it is written in black and white that you can go read for yourself, and if you don't understand it it does not matter because your interpretation of the law is worthless and not important to anyone, the only interpretation that matters is that of the judges, which btw has been consistent with the written law since it was introduced.
 
Mr Neutron

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
No, no. SCOTUS says....we don't get to interpret or misinterpret. It's the rule of law, not citizen opinion.
Click to expand...
"In substance, the court holds that the 16th amendment did not empower the federal government to levy a new tax."
NY Times 1/24/1916

1883: Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746.
1895: Pollack v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601
Adams v. New York, 192 U.S. 585 , 48 L. ed. 575, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 372
1916: Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1.
1916: Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103.
1920: Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189.
1930: Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111
1938: Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303
1978: Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21

... these are just a few, I left a bunch out.
 
Mr Neutron

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
guy incognito said:
I some how doubt you have actually read the code. What is vague or ambiguous about this?:



There you have it, straight from the US code which is LAW passed by congress. There is hereby imposed on taxable income a tax determined by the table. There are other sections that deal with being married, and pretty much every other possible scenario you can think of.
Click to expand...
What is income and where does it say who is liable?
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Mr Neutron said:
"In substance, the court holds that the 16th amendment did not empower the federal government to levy a new tax."
NY Times 1/24/1916

1883: Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746.
1895: Pollack v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601
Adams v. New York, 192 U.S. 585 , 48 L. ed. 575, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 372
1916: Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1.
1916: Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103.
1920: Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189.
1930: Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111
1938: Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303
1978: Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21

... these are just a few, I left a bunch out.
Click to expand...
OK, and these were not adjudicated by SCOTUS, were they? Don't they mean, in the NYT, "lower courts have held....."?

So, I seriously don't understand the dis-connect. I know you are a good thinker. But, this is fallacy. I've tried not to pay. The triple penalty comes eventually, in a very recognizable envelope.
 
Mr Neutron

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
OK, and these were not adjudicated by SCOTUS, were they? Don't they mean, in the NYT, "lower courts have held....."?
Click to expand...
Nope.

Doer said:
So, I seriously don't understand the dis-connect. I know you are a good thinker. But, this is fallacy. I've tried not to pay. The triple penalty comes eventually, in a very recognizable envelope.
Click to expand...
Were you liable or did the IRS bully you?
 
Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Why does government have to get involved with my game of Go? If I want to atari, why should I pay tax when nothing new happened?

Barter and inheritance, for example, create nothing new. Those and many others shouldn't get taxed.
 
Mr Neutron

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
Canna Sylvan said:
Why does government have to get involved with my game of Go? If I want to atari, why should I pay tax when nothing new happened?

Barter and inheritance, for example, create nothing new. Those and many others shouldn't get taxed.
Click to expand...
Somebody's got to pay their bills.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Why not just get over puberty and pay your taxes and contribute to society instead of being an incessantly whining little bitch?
Click to expand...

How does paying for things like bombs, bullets and prisons for plant lovers contribute to "society" ?


If you'd like to contribute to "polite society" please consider focusing on consistent intellectual arguments to defend your position, rather than insults. Have a great day.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
If we didn't pay for those things there would be no country to bitch about. England would have had our ass in 1812, and the French would have shrugged.

Do you know how much the USS Constitution and President cost our tiny Treasury. Modern 44 gun Frigates?

Almost all of it. And Constitution kicked HMS Java to the bottom off Brazil and that was that for the sea war. Very disheartening for the Admiralty to lose to WE.

http://www.history.navy.mil/docs/war1812/const6.htm

WE rule the waves since then.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
The constitution doesn't allow for a standing army. Nor does it allow prohibition of plants or prohibit people from owning themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top