| Author | Post |
|---|
Footloose
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 22nd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 332 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 10:05 pm |
|
Terrance wrote: Unlike what's happened to every aspect of our economy under Bush and a Republican majority? Actually I thought the economy took unprecedented gains under 7 of the 8 years of the Bush admin. The stock market took historical highs. The downturn began after 2006 when the Democrats took control. And I'm sure that the rise in energy costs had something to do with it.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 07:59 pm |
|
Fred wrote: C'mon, Terrance..you know the truth doesn't matter to these folks. Data is good to them as long as it supports their side. You prove to them that there data they present is wrong, you show them the data that all of us (well, those of us making less then 200K a year) are going to do better under Barrack then John....and they go back on what they "feel".
I do understand that. What I really don't understand is why anyone making less than 200K a year doesn't understand that and I'm really sure that most, if not all, of these folks are not making anywhere near 200K a year. What do you call it when you vote contrary to your own interests? Ex. - Q: "You can have this car for $1000 or $2000, whatever you prefer." A: "I wouldn't consider paying anything less than $2000!"
There was another ranter in the letters to the editor today. He wrote a particularly vitriolic piece on Obama. I doubt he's making 200K.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 07:15 pm |
|
C'mon, Terrance..you know the truth doesn't matter to these folks. Data is good to them as long as it supports their side. You prove to them that there data they present is wrong, you show them the data that all of us (well, those of us making less then 200K a year) are going to do better under Barrack then John....and they go back on what they "feel".
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 06:53 pm |
|
Boo wrote: Terrance wrote: If you bother to read the link that Fred supplied then you'll know Cobra's info is false. You'll also see that you just might do better on taxes with Obama. Hmph! No difference dude. Everyone with or without a mule knows that no one ever makes out better with a Democrat on taxes. They is gonna go up, up, and away. Y'all better listen whut Obama tells ya.
Unlike what's happened to every aspect of our economy under Bush and a Republican majority?
|
Boo
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 19th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 481 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 06:50 pm |
|
Terrance wrote: If you bother to read the link that Fred supplied then you'll know Cobra's info is false. You'll also see that you just might do better on taxes with Obama. Hmph! No difference dude. Everyone with or without a mule knows that no one ever makes out better with a Democrat on taxes. They is gonna go up, up, and away. Y'all better listen whut Obama tells ya.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 06:42 pm |
|
Boo wrote: Terrance wrote: Cobra wrote: (INTERESTING DATA JUST RECEIVED ON TAXES & PROPOSED CHANGES IN TAXES AFTER 2008 GENERAL ELECTION.) Time to consider your pocketbook:
Just received from where/who? Whut in tarnation is th difference? They is what these guys been sayin' on the campaign trail. Done make no difference if ya is guttin a deer with a Bowie knife or a Jack Slade blade. The guttin's bein done anywhichway. 'Cept we is the ones being gut --- by taxes, yeahhuh. Y'all jes want a source so ya kin trash it.
When Mayor Roaringham wuz a-runnin' fer office the county was ablaze with all kind of trash talk 'bout him. He too wanted to know whence it come from cause it aint been read in the Skunkville Trib. But the rumors come from Aunt Bea so he threw his hands up cause Aunt Bea is the best gossip in the county. If she says it, must be gospel. Jest do whut the Cobra says and consider yer pocketbook.
If you bother to read the link that Fred supplied then you'll know Cobra's info is false. You'll also see that you just might do better on taxes with Obama.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 06:39 pm |
|
Boo wrote: Terrance wrote: Cobra wrote: (INTERESTING DATA JUST RECEIVED ON TAXES & PROPOSED CHANGES IN TAXES AFTER 2008 GENERAL ELECTION.) Time to consider your pocketbook:
Just received from where/who? Whut in tarnation is th difference? They is what these guys been sayin' on the campaign trail. Done make no difference if ya is guttin a deer with a Bowie knife or a Jack Slade blade. The guttin's bein done anywhichway. 'Cept we is the ones being gut --- by taxes, yeahhuh. Y'all jes want a source so ya kin trash it.
When Mayor Roaringham wuz a-runnin' fer office the county was ablaze with all kind of trash talk 'bout him. He too wanted to know whence it come from cause it aint been read in the Skunkville Trib. But the rumors come from Aunt Bea so he threw his hands up cause Aunt Bea is the best gossip in the county. If she says it, must be gospel. Jest do whut the Cobra says and consider yer pocketbook.
The difference in tarnation, as it should be everywhere, is whether or not it is true. It is fabricated, 100% of it.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp
|
Boo
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 19th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 481 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 06:37 pm |
|
Terrance wrote: Cobra wrote: (INTERESTING DATA JUST RECEIVED ON TAXES & PROPOSED CHANGES IN TAXES AFTER 2008 GENERAL ELECTION.) Time to consider your pocketbook:
Just received from where/who? Whut in tarnation is th difference? They is what these guys been sayin' on the campaign trail. Done make no difference if ya is guttin a deer with a Bowie knife or a Jack Slade blade. The guttin's bein done anywhichway. 'Cept we is the ones being gut --- by taxes, yeahhuh. Y'all jes want a source so ya kin trash it.
When Mayor Roaringham wuz a-runnin' fer office the county was ablaze with all kind of trash talk 'bout him. He too wanted to know whence it come from cause it aint been read in the Skunkville Trib. But the rumors come from Aunt Bea so he threw his hands up cause Aunt Bea is the best gossip in the county. If she says it, must be gospel. Jest do whut the Cobra says and consider yer pocketbook.
Last edited on Mon Aug 11th, 2008 06:38 pm by Boo
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 06:35 pm |
|
Let me guess, Cobra...another anonymous email from some "friend" who said you have to pass it on to 7 friends or a little puppy will die.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp
Wrong on every account, as usual. The first time I get one of these crappy, undocumented, unsourced, biased, and totally without attacks on McCain via the Internets, I'll be sure to let you know.
Snopes is your friend to avoid looking foolish....and behind the times, as well.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 05:48 pm |
|
Cobra wrote: (INTERESTING DATA JUST RECEIVED ON TAXES & PROPOSED CHANGES IN TAXES AFTER 2008 GENERAL ELECTION.) Time to consider your pocketbook:
Just received from where/who?
|
Cobra
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 352 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 05:45 pm |
|
(INTERESTING DATA JUST RECEIVED ON TAXES & PROPOSED CHANGES IN TAXES AFTER 2008 GENERAL ELECTION.) Time to consider your pocketbook:
CAPITAL GAINS TAX
MCCAIN:
0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales in com e tax.
OBAMA:
28% on profit from ALL home sales
How does this affect you?
If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.
DIVIDEND TAX
MCCAIN : 15% (no change)
OBAMA : 39.6%
How will this affect you?
If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that p ays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama becomes president. The experts predict that “Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market, yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.â€
INCOME TAX (find your bracket)
MCCAIN ( no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9, 000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250
OBAMA (reverse all tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Under Obama, your taxes will more than double!
How does this affect you? No explanati on needed. This is pretty straight
forward.
INHERITANCE TAX
MCCAIN 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax)
OBAMA Restore the inheritance tax
How does this affect you?
Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the i nheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will only lose them to these taxe s.
NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSE D BY OBAMA
New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet.
New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already)
New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity)
New taxes on retirement accounts, and last but not least....
New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!
THE FOREGOING IS SOM ETHING YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF. . . IT SHOULD MAKE YOU THINK BEFORE YOU CAST YOUR VOTE IN NOVEMBER.
This will catch a lot of families off guard.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 8th, 2008 08:41 pm |
|
The Insyder wrote: http://www.myheritage.org
The Heritage Foundation.
Why not FOX News? How about something from a neutral reporter or a government source?
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 548 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 8th, 2008 08:39 pm |
|
http://www.myheritage.org
The Heritage Foundation.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 8th, 2008 08:37 pm |
|
The Insyder wrote: Speaking of taxes, here is something that indicates the impact of tax increases when the Bush tax cuts expire:
$2.4 trillion dollars is the total amount of the overall tax increase.
$1,716 is the average increase for over 100 million taxpayers.
$2,034 is the average tax increase that will hit 17 million seniors.
8.3 million is the number of jobs that were created after the 2003 tax cuts were implemented.
$91 billion dollars is the cost of reinstating the Death Tax.
$17.2 billion dollars is the amount spent by the Congress on "pork" projects that use taxpayer funds to feed special interests. Both parties are guilty.
44 million is the number of married couples affected by the Marriage Penalty before it was reduced. Think of how hard you will be hit when this is reintroduced.
$1,480 is the average cost for couples affected by the Marriage Penalty.
I don't think that either political party can justify us getting hit with these kinds of taxes in these times.
That's a nice list. Can you list your sources?
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 548 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 8th, 2008 08:35 pm |
|
Speaking of taxes, here is something that indicates the impact of tax increases when the Bush tax cuts expire:
$2.4 trillion dollars is the total amount of the overall tax increase.
$1,716 is the average increase for over 100 million taxpayers.
$2,034 is the average tax increase that will hit 17 million seniors.
8.3 million is the number of jobs that were created after the 2003 tax cuts were implemented.
$91 billion dollars is the cost of reinstating the Death Tax.
$17.2 billion dollars is the amount spent by the Congress on "pork" projects that use taxpayer funds to feed special interests. Both parties are guilty.
44 million is the number of married couples affected by the Marriage Penalty before it was reduced. Think of how hard you will be hit when this is reintroduced.
$1,480 is the average cost for couples affected by the Marriage Penalty.
I don't think that either political party can justify us getting hit with these kinds of taxes in these times.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 28th, 2008 12:25 pm |
|
Except, of course, that supply side economics has proven to not work. Government revenues fell sharply during Reagan's dalliance with them, contributing greatly towards the deficits he rang up.
There are aspects of the plan that make sense, but it is not a panacea.
And, if it goes according to plan, someone will now mention the flat tax or a national sales tax as the answer to all our problems.....
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1027 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27th, 2008 11:29 pm |
|
Income Redistribution: Mundell on taxes
Nobel Prize-winning economist and Columbia University professor Robert Mundell is often credited as being one of the original “supply-side” economists, so when he speaks, one should listen. Mundell now advises that if the Democrat-controlled Congress follows through on its promise to rescind the Bush tax cuts, “the U.S. [economy] will go into a big recession, a nosedive.” He further warns Democrat nominee and sworn tax hiker Barack Obama, “It’s a lethal thing to suddenly raise taxes. This would be devastating to the world economy, to the United States, and it would be, I think, political suicide” in a general election.
Instead of the typical Democrat solution, Mundell advocates lowering taxes even further. Specifically, the marginal rate, which is currently 35 percent; it should be 30 percent, according to Mundell. Additionally, the corporate rate should be cut to 25 percent. He advocates making the other Bush tax cuts permanent because “[e]liminating that uncertainty would be more important than pushing for a further cut—in the income tax rates, anyway.” The uncertainty is all the more glaring when looking at the history of income taxes. The top marginal rate has been anywhere from three percent when first instituted to 92.5 percent during World War II. Should Obama be elected and Democrats further expand their congressional majorities, the “change you can believe in” may be only what you can find in the couch.
patriot-SK08207667@m1.PatriotPost.US
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 21st, 2008 07:12 pm |
|
Ben Franklin wrote:
All the govs and corps exist only on paper. where was the US before the constitution was signed? where were the 50 states before their const. where enacted. they did exist. the US of A is not a geographical area it is a gov. which exists no where but on paper.
i would suppose that the argument is as its a fiction it cant touch me. Which is bull. But it doesnt belay the fact that it is a legal fiction. I reject the all caps nonsense also.
As i said its irrelevant to any court case. If you read that motion again you will notice that the protestor argument is not actually stated. so we cant be sure what they DOJ is trying to stop.
By that logic, I guess ANY organization, be it the VFW, the Boy Scouts, or NAMBLA (two of which I have belonged to) only exists on paper as well, right?
You still are misunderstanding the "legal fiction" bit. It does NOT mean that something is false, it means that certain assumptions are made so that legitimate work can be done...
Here is another defination which might be a bit closer to a "legal" one...
An assumption that something occurred or someone or something exists which, in fact, is not the case, but that is made in the law to enable a court to equitably resolve a matter before it.
Now, if you take your first point that the United States doesn't exist anywhere but on paper (which I don't quite understand the significance, even if true) THEN the "legal fiction" would be that the US has rights and exists so that laws can be enforced.
And while I am almost afraid to do this.....if the US exists "only on paper".....where does that put countries like the UK, which doesn't even have that? Or China, which existed before there WAS paper?
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 21st, 2008 04:55 pm |
|
Fred wrote: No, Ben....I've taken what you've said, and posted a counter-argument. If there is a flaw in it, or if I am wrong, it is up to you to try to prove me wrong.
As I've said, the person you quoted took a legal term that sounded scary, took something out of context where, I guess, it said that the government ACTED in a "legal fiction" mode, and someone built the argument that the United States is a legal fiction. I refuse and reject it....as much as I reject the ALL CAPS crap that the same crowd likes to spew about.
All the govs and corps exist only on paper. where was the US before the constitution was signed? where were the 50 states before their const. where enacted. they did exist. the US of A is not a geographical area it is a gov. which exists no where but on paper.
i would suppose that the argument is as its a fiction it cant touch me. Which is bull. But it doesnt belay the fact that it is a legal fiction. I reject the all caps nonsense also.
As i said its irrelevant to any court case. If you read that motion again you will notice that the protestor argument is not actually stated. so we cant be sure what they DOJ is trying to stop.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 21st, 2008 02:45 am |
|
No, Ben....I've taken what you've said, and posted a counter-argument. If there is a flaw in it, or if I am wrong, it is up to you to try to prove me wrong.
As I've said, the person you quoted took a legal term that sounded scary, took something out of context where, I guess, it said that the government ACTED in a "legal fiction" mode, and someone built the argument that the United States is a legal fiction. I refuse and reject it....as much as I reject the ALL CAPS crap that the same crowd likes to spew about.
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 20th, 2008 07:26 pm |
|
Fred an online legal dictionary come on man. Use blacks or bouviers look for ficticisous entity. youll find it.
You are no doubt correct. many people take alot of stuff out of context. My favorite is voluntary compliance. how anyone twisted that to me the income is voluntary is beyond me.
but the simple fact is judges are biased against those they label tax protestors and attempt to disallow evidence that should be allowed in.
there were 167 indictments brought against contractors in vegas cos they were paying people in gold coins and only the face value of the coin was claimed as income. this is what a treasury decision says to do and the US code states its value is its face value. Once the judge in these cases was instructed to take judicial notice of these two things the case should have been dismissed. instead teh judge would not allow the defendants to show the jury the treasury decision. By no machination of imagination could that be considered a fair and meaningfull process. It shows the judge conspired with the DOJ/IRS to put a stop to it. That was the goal to stop this ligitimate form of tax evasion---evasion is legal--from spreading. Fortuanately for the defendants they had a smart lawyer who simple asked his clients on the stand what they had read in the treasury decision. This resulted in ZERO convictions for the IRS.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 20th, 2008 03:58 pm |
|
Ben Franklin wrote:
All Govs and corporations are legal fictions. You can read that in any law dictionary. The test is can I put it on the witness stand, then its a legal fiction. Someone representing it doesnt change that status. Again its irrelevant that they are legal fictions.
This is a perfect example, Ben. Someone takes a perfectly good term that has NO negative connotations to it, stretches the truth, adds in something questionable, and thinks they have a bona fide argument.
These entities are NOT legal fictions, but have legal fictions applied to them....first, let's take the definition....
legal fiction
n. a presumption of fact assumed by a court for convenience, consistency or to achieve justice. There is an old adage: "Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions."
The legal term applies to principles, such as the "legal fiction" that when one is employed by the corporation as an officer and you testify in court, you are the corporation. Do you see the difference?
When the AG testifies in court as the "United States", the "legal fiction" is that he is the United States...he, of course, is not, but it gets around getting 250 million people to testify.
So....these entities can, and do, have this applied, but it does NOT mean that they are not real.
Last edited on Tue May 20th, 2008 05:36 pm by Fred
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 20th, 2008 03:37 pm |
|
Fred wrote: Almost everything you have wrote has been argued unsucessfully because it is wrong. Some of it is clever, some of it is ingenious, some of it is wordplay, some of it is the occasional odd ruling, but it all fails in the court of law.
Let me just take one new wrinkle that you have listed...someone you quotes says that the United States is a fictional entity because you can't put it on a courtstand. This is pure, 100% BS. Even if it is true (and it is not; the AG "represents" (a word that I am sure you'll somehow stretch to mean that it doesn't mean that the US actually exists), so what? I'll take the US Constitution as the legal document that defines our coming into existance.
The difference I think, Ben, is that I have read all the arguments on BOTH sides, and believe that those you choose to believe do, ocassionally, make interesting arguments...but like any argument, there are two sides, and they fail against the better one.
And, as I have asked you before....so what? Let's say that your fantasy comes true, and the courts rule that a point or two is enough to overturn it. Do you really think that Congress wouldn't pass the appropriate legislation, the appropriate language to continue? Do you really ever think that the US government would not figure out a way to get about the same amount of money to continue to exist?
Argueing something unsucessfully does NOT mean you are wrong it means you argued badly. All of these points have NOT been argued. Most are irrelevant to begin with. unless the court case is on point as its called you cant make a blanket statment that they have been argued at all. the DOJ always trys to twist what your argument is attempting to lump it into something that has been argued before such as wages are not income.
I have made no statements on what arguments I beleive and dont believe fred, not in this post. I just pointed out what I know to be fact and analyzed what the DOJ lawyer was attempting to get around.
All Govs and corporations are legal fictions. You can read that in any law dictionary. The test is can I put it on the witness stand, then its a legal fiction. Someone representing it doesnt change that status. Again its irrelevant that they are legal fictions.
"Do you really ever think that the US government would not figure out a way to get about the same amount of money to continue to exist?" Yes I do believe they would do this its called the Amero
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 20th, 2008 03:07 pm |
|
Almost everything you have wrote has been argued unsucessfully because it is wrong. Some of it is clever, some of it is ingenious, some of it is wordplay, some of it is the occasional odd ruling, but it all fails in the court of law.
Let me just take one new wrinkle that you have listed...someone you quotes says that the United States is a fictional entity because you can't put it on a courtstand. This is pure, 100% BS. Even if it is true (and it is not; the AG "represents" (a word that I am sure you'll somehow stretch to mean that it doesn't mean that the US actually exists), so what? I'll take the US Constitution as the legal document that defines our coming into existance.
The difference I think, Ben, is that I have read all the arguments on BOTH sides, and believe that those you choose to believe do, ocassionally, make interesting arguments...but like any argument, there are two sides, and they fail against the better one.
And, as I have asked you before....so what? Let's say that your fantasy comes true, and the courts rule that a point or two is enough to overturn it. Do you really think that Congress wouldn't pass the appropriate legislation, the appropriate language to continue? Do you really ever think that the US government would not figure out a way to get about the same amount of money to continue to exist?
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 20th, 2008 02:36 pm |
|
Fred wrote: You did not fail to disapoint me, Ben. It's been a while since you've been up on that soapbox, eh?
Facts are facts Fred cos one points them out doesnt mean one is on a soapbox.
Can you find any errors is what I posted?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 20th, 2008 01:35 am |
|
Bix...somethings it doesn't matter who is controlling the house, does it? Be they Dem or Repub, the farm lobby (Mr. Greenjeans pushed out in front by ConAgra to run interference for them) is waaay too powerful....maybe as powerful as the oil lobby.
You would think with the profits they made from ethanol, they would be happy.....
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 20th, 2008 01:31 am |
|
JP. Get a grip! Don't go down that path again. Here are some tax issues that really matter. The links may have been posted before. From the National Taxpayer's Union (NTU)
Grocery bills are climbing, yet Congress is poised to pass a five-year, $300 billion agricultural policy plan that will actually make things worse. Known simply as the Farm Bill, it includes provisions that deliberately aim to keep certain food prices (like sugar and dairy products) high!
This Farm Bill allows millionaires to continue receiving subsidy handouts from the government, and it will also spend more money on fraud-ridden food welfare programs.
President Bush intends to veto this wasteful and unreformed Farm Bill, but taxpayers need to build enough support in Congress to uphold his decision. Please, take a moment to reach out to your Senators and Representative. Ask them to "Remember the Taxpayer!" when they cast votes on the Farm Bill.
Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What
History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates
NTU
**
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 20th, 2008 12:10 am |
|
| You did not fail to disapoint me, Ben. It's been a while since you've been up on that soapbox, eh?
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 09:42 pm |
|
Lets take it on a point by point bases
1. Its not unconstitutional its misapplied. the Income tax is a tax on excise. see polluck case. the 16th amend. did not put any new subject under taxation--IE it did not do what the IRS says it does. case cites omitted
2. If what you are paid has no value then you received no profit. I agree except the US code states that a FRN is a debt obligation, therefore it can not be a unit of value.
3. Wages are defined four times in title 26 which meaning do they mean here? this alludes to the argument that wages are not income. which is WRONG cos wages are defined. So 'wages' as defined are income. HOWEVER THIS IS SLICK COS THE CORE ISSUE IS WHAT IS INCOME? so if i cant put on the record what teh USSC says income is-which is the law of the land- you have caused a violation of the 5th and fourteenth admendments due process clause
4. Ridiculous---willfull intent must be proven by the plaintiff in a willfull failure to file suit which this probable was. Proving intent is mandatory in a criminal case. Rebuttable presumptions can not stand under the 5th and `14ths due process clause
5. Signing a tax return under that penalty of perjury statement obviously violates self incrimination. I disagree with the courts on this one
6. this would also be a violation of the 5th and 14th due process clause. If i relied upon that material to form my intent then i must be allowed to put it on the record
7. No doubt wanted to circumvent showing 6331a to the jury. which clearly states a small select group ONLY can have property removed via a NOTICE of LEVY/LIEN. a court order is needed in America for anyone especially the Gov. to remove your property. looking at whom 6331a lists(by the way this is not on the notice document turned over to the people IE your bank or whom you work for who will be handing your money over to the IRS) its clear that most people do not fall into this category. If i was the gov. lawyer i would object to this being irrelvant.
8. As i said specific definitions that create implied jurisdiciton over any entity. cos the tax is not laid clearly upon whom they collect it from.
7(?) who numbered this thing? Absolute Bull Crap. jurisdiction may be challenged at anytime so says the supremes It doesnt matter if the judge or DOJ like it or not and any lawyer who put his name to a request for disallowing evidence of jurisdiction should not only be santioned but disbarred then tared and feathered.
8(?) If I relied on these opinions to establish my intent then it must be allowed to meet due process requirements. Fred it matters not where these opinions came from.
9 a. Only titile 27, not 26 where the income tax is, has enforcement in it. plus any IRS agent must have a delegation of authority from the Sec. of Treasury or the IRS Commisioner BY LAW. they seldom do. Most dont even know what youre talking about. Second all field agents must have an E for Enforcement field commision or they are without authority. this also is rutinley ignored.
b. As the contraversey is the IRS/DOJ say you where involved in a taxable activity, its the entire presumption cough they operate under, this would in affect not allow you to rebut and cause a complete lack of....anyone....thats right due process
c. this is probley true, but irrelevant. and they do have lawful jurisdiction in the 50 states. One could argue a specific agent does not have lawful jurisidiciton due to not having a delegation order or an enforcement. I would actually like to here a court explain away how title 26 has no enforcment sections but is enforced the same as title 27. This indeed is a valid argument which has NEVER been addressed properly
d. A case was brought in district court with all the evidence to prove it WAS NOT properly ratified. the court said its a political issue. nice duck huh. however the point is moot as the USSC has stated the 16th brought no new subjects under congresses taxing powers. Which should have you asking why the heck am i paying an income tax then.
e. discussed above
f. From where do the judges get paid? Taxes. So how is it not a confilct of interest? it is but bringing this up is useless and stupid. Never heard an argument about why grand juries cant issue tax protestor indictments
g. this would be an interpretation of law which the judge would not allow the defendants to present to the jury anyway.
h. Absolutley true. Read title 26 definitions and you will see how this is fact.
I. This is also true. the United States is a fiction. Can I put the US on a witness stand? no i cant so its a fiction. this may be to cut off an argument that the US being a fiction has no standing to sue
j. If i were the judge I would be duty/law bound to here any evidence to these accusations. In other words any judge who allows this disallowence is a traitor to his oath of offce and has violated a federal law. the juge MUST here any such evidence and rule on its validity.
k. Complete nonsense. I can think of no way for a tax law to violate your right to contract.
l. In fact they are not positive law. But so are a bunch of other sections of US code. What the really means is open to debate
m. again this lawyer needs to be tarred and feathered for such a request
n. If i wasnt at the grand jury observing I have no idea what the Gov. who is a well known lier. I have no idea what lies this jury was told to secure the indictment. Now Ben knows that Ben has the right to be there and present evidence to the grand jury. Ben also knows this NEVER happens.
Lindsay Springer makes a good point the judge and the prosecutor travel around the state giving instruction on how to handle tax protestors. the judge should be recused for both those reasons. 1. is he gives talks on dealing with tax protestors--which shows his bias 2. he gives them with the person prosecuting me? No you need to recuse yourself.
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 08:56 pm |
|
Fred wrote: Sorry, JP, I disagree (but can tell you that Ben will be screaming "ABSOLUTLEY (and he probably will spell it that way  ).
EVERY one of the points, with the possible exception on number 8, has been argued so often that it is not considered a nuisance to bring them up. EVERY tax protestor has the same basic set of arguments, and while they change happy to glad, change the specific point of code, the points have been argued ad nauseum.
I'd like to see some clarification on point 8; I think I know what they mean, which are those people who are "best selling authors" of tax avoidance strategies based on the other points. I don't think, unless there is clarification elsewhere, that it is clear enough.
And, sorry, judges rule consistantly on cases like this because the law is consistant. Every once in a great while someone wins a minor point on a technicality, but I don't think the fact that the judges rule the same way every time anything but affirmation of the case law.
 ABSOLUTLEY I also mistype teh quite a bit too.
Eight seems clear to me. they are supressing the argument that only certain entities are liable. a 'person' under law is not the same as a person. the gov loves to use special definitions to confuse and obfuscate things.
but the law is not consistant in whom is actually liable for the income tax. the tax is laid upon taxable income not everyone earning a paycheck.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 06:04 pm |
|
Sorry, JP, I disagree (but can tell you that Ben will be screaming "ABSOLUTLEY (and he probably will spell it that way ).
EVERY one of the points, with the possible exception on number 8, has been argued so often that it is not considered a nuisance to bring them up. EVERY tax protestor has the same basic set of arguments, and while they change happy to glad, change the specific point of code, the points have been argued ad nauseum.
I'd like to see some clarification on point 8; I think I know what they mean, which are those people who are "best selling authors" of tax avoidance strategies based on the other points. I don't think, unless there is clarification elsewhere, that it is clear enough.
And, sorry, judges rule consistantly on cases like this because the law is consistant. Every once in a great while someone wins a minor point on a technicality, but I don't think the fact that the judges rule the same way every time anything but affirmation of the case law.
|
Jurisprudence
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 823 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon May 19th, 2008 05:52 pm |
|
U.S. v Schwartz - Government uses the motion in limine to suppress every possible defense that one may muster.
“Motion in limine” means an effort to stop an opponent at the threshold (beginning) of a case. The government uses such a motion to stop IRS opponents from effectively arguing their case which they based on principles against which other courts have resolutely ruled, or which have utterly no relevance to the issues of the case. In the attached motion in limine, the government seeks to prevent the alleged taxpayers (the Schwartz’) from prevailing by preventing them from presenting any case at all. They need to respond with a motion to strike or some other effort to get the court to allow them to put on their case as they planned.
What problem do we have with motions in limine? The fickleness and criminality of courts, of course. All judges pay income tax and therefore they suffer from prejudice against people like the Schwartz defendants against whom the IRS has a complaint. All jurors pay income tax and believe people like the Schwartz’ ‘should do the same. Besides that, panel courts like the appeals and Supremes often do not present unanimous rulings. Since even they disagree as to the meaning and applicability of the law, the arguments deserve to be thrashed out in every court of opportunity until they reach a unanimous ruling. Furthermore, unless the Supremes have heard and ruled on arguments, fairness and justice dictates that the opinions of lower courts really cannot rightly conclusively stand for the law.
Thus I give my opinion, one of principle here. Certainly the judges would and do disagree with me in practice, for I should know that they are the earthly equivalent of gods.
Here I give you the lead-in to the pleading. You will regurgitate those foul breakfast eggs when you read what evidence they want to suppress – every salient argument that might give the defendants Schwartz some hope of remedy. See attachment for case.
Attachment: US v Schwartz.doc (Downloaded 5 times)
|
Duncan Idaho
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 378 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 4th, 2008 03:32 am |
|
Do you know that the US Senate may vote any day on the stealth imposition of what could amount to an $845 BILLION United Nations style global tax on American citizens? It's called the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), and it is being sponsored by none other than Senator Barack Obama.
This disastrous legislation could eventually force U.S. taxpayers to fork over as much as 0.7 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product -- or $845,000,000,000.00 -- on welfare to third-world countries. Obama's costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433), which could come up in the Senate any day, is called the Global Poverty Act. It would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on foreign handouts..." Time is of the essence because Senator Joe Biden, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just issued a report on the Global Poverty Act and it was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on Thursday the 24th. That means that time is of the essence as this potentially massive surrender of your hard-earned tax dollars to the third world may be close to a vote.
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 331 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 30th, 2008 04:05 pm |
|
As to the "fairness" of the proportion of income taxes paid relative to proportion of income earned - another wrong tree to bark up.
Millions of households with children make less than $20,000 of income. Their proportion of total U.S. income earned is greater than zero, but their income taxes paid is zero. This is because families with children are allowed to earn several thousands of dollars with an annual income tax bill of zero - exemptions plus credits negate their income tax liability. This will shift the proportion of total income taxes paid away from low income households and onto high income households. It also shifts it away from families with children and onto single tax payers without dependents. It also shifts it away from home owners and onto renters (home mortgage and property tax credits). And so on.... This is the reason we have a disproportionate percentage paid by higher income households - they can afford it. If you want it equalized, then you need to eliminate all exemptions, deductions, and credits - good luck getting elected on that platform.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 30th, 2008 03:08 pm |
|
Good point, Kirk. To many conservatives (such as the one Bix quotes) convienently ignore 1/2 of the theory. Their version of the curve would be great to go sledding on, but it isn't good for much else.
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 331 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 30th, 2008 03:01 pm |
|
Bix: the Laffer Curve has a hill-shaped profile. If tax revenues always increased if rates were cut, then we should cut the rates all the way to zero so as to maximize revenues - but obviously, a zero collection rate results in zero revenues. Likewise, a 100% rate results in zero revenues as no one would want to earn anything because they would pay it all in taxes. Somewhere in the middle - and Laffer openly acknowledges that he has no idea where - is a rate where the incentive to work is still high enough that the rate is not a deterrent to earning income, and the rate is not so low that the government is missing out on revenues.
This curve has been dubbed the "Laugher Curve" in Economics because there is no way of knowing until after the rates have been changed what the effect of the rate change will be. Essentially, it is a guess. There is no way of perfectly predicting within even a couple hundred billion dollars what the actual tax revenues will be from a change in the tax code of any significance.
Keep in mind the joke told by Economists at the Annual American Economic Association Meetings, "Economists have predicted 9 of the last 3 recessions."
|
Footloose
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 22nd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 332 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 29th, 2008 10:48 pm |
|
What borders????? I was unaware we had any!
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 29th, 2008 03:40 pm |
|
When the borders are removed under the North American Union we central americans should take our wealth and move to south america. For those of you who are really wealthy i recommned the Dick Cheney retirement plan. take tens of millions convert it to foriegn currnecy(cos the dollar is tanking) then buy a house in dubai.
"I am proud to be an American........."
|
Idaho Observer
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 333 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 29th, 2008 01:12 pm |
|
| An interesting read is a report by Robert Rector, "Senate Immigration Billl Would Allow 100 Million New Immigrants Over the Next Twenty years." In another report, "The Fiscal Cost of Low Skill Immigration to the US Taxpayer" is an eye opener. It claimed that throughour their lives, illegal immigrants will cost taxpayers (you and me) far more in benefits than they pay in taxes.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 28th, 2008 10:07 pm |
|
Income Redistribution: The Laffer curve
If no one here has ever heard of Arthur Laffer, he is an economist probably best known for theorizing the “Laffer curve,” which shows what happens when taxes are cut. Democrats refuse to or are too blind to see that federal revenues actually increase. It is a concept that has completely eluded the demagogues on Capitol Hill for years. The reasons for this are pretty easy to understand: “Those with higher incomes have more to gain from avoiding taxes and spend money looking for ways to do so, while those with lower incomes have less flexibility in that area. Therefore, when tax rates for “the rich” are reduced, less effort is made to avoid taxes, while more money is made to begin with, yielding higher tax revenues for the federal government.” (Laffer)
But our socialist Democrats, of course, operate on the class warfare platform and want to raise taxes on people with higher incomes and lower taxes on those with lower incomes. Let’s go back to when Reagan took office. At that time, the top marginal rate was 70 percent. Today, it is 35 percent. The top one percent of income earners paid less than 18 percent of all federal income taxes in 1981, whereas today, the same group pays nearly 40 percent of all income taxes.
Fred, I know that you hate when I use the label “socialist” but facts are stubborn things. Socialist thinking Democrats were responsible for the 70-percent rate and likely wouldn’t mind a return there. One result of such economic nonsense would be far less revenue to the federal government. More important, it will harm the economy by redistributing wealth and stifling job creation. Look on the bright side—at least Chuck Schumer would be pleased.
Referenced from: Human Events
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 11:18 pm |
|
Ben Franklin wrote: I understand we have a progressive income tax. I also understand that the wealth is consentrated in the hands of the top 1 to 2 % of the population. Therefore of course the richest would pay more taxes. so your facts seem to fall short of making any type of rebuttal.
Ben. You are confused as well as confusing. You have at times professed to be a Ron Paul supporter and a libertarian but yet you propel a Marxist view of taxes and buying into the class warfare bit.
Do wealthy taxpayers pay their fair share of taxes? Polls consistently show Americans believe they don't. But are they right? The U.S. Treasury Department recently released a memo (PDF) that sheds some light on the issue:
...[A] small group of higher-income taxpayers pay most of the individual income taxes each year. In the year of this example of data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (59.67 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.
With the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers paying roughly 39.38 percent of income taxes and earn just 16.5 percent of income, it's hard to argue they're not paying a fair share by any reasonable definition of "fair."
Last edited on Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 11:23 pm by Bixby
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 05:53 pm |
|
Cobra wrote: Ben Franklin wrote:
"OR IN OTHER WORDS THE RICH WILL HAVE TO START PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE OF INCOME TAXES. While I dont agree with all the spending. I certainly agree that you seem to want to play the poor little rich boy. Or should I say greedy capitolist? You are always on about how the democrats will raise taxes but what you really mean is the democraps will be removing all those tax breaks the repubs put into place for their rich friends."
Boy, are you underinformed!!!!
These figures are for 2005 from the IRS
Top 1% paid 39.38% - $364,657
Top 5% paid 59.67% - $145,283
Top 10% paid 70.30% - $103,912
Top 25% paid 85.99% - $ 62,068
Top 50% paid 96.93% - $ 30,881
Bottom 50% paid 3.07% those making under $30,881
The dollar amounts are the AGI threshholds.
Ranked by percentage of AGI.
I understand we have a progressive income tax. I also understand that the wealth is consentrated in the hands of the top 1 to 2 % of the population. Therefore of course the richest would pay more taxes. so your facts seem to fall short of making any type of rebuttal.
|
Cobra
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 352 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 04:23 pm |
|
Ben Franklin wrote:
"OR IN OTHER WORDS THE RICH WILL HAVE TO START PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE OF INCOME TAXES. While I dont agree with all the spending. I certainly agree that you seem to want to play the poor little rich boy. Or should I say greedy capitolist? You are always on about how the democrats will raise taxes but what you really mean is the democraps will be removing all those tax breaks the repubs put into place for their rich friends."
Boy, are you underinformed!!!!
These figures are for 2005 from the IRS
Top 1% paid 39.38% - $364,657
Top 5% paid 59.67% - $145,283
Top 10% paid 70.30% - $103,912
Top 25% paid 85.99% - $ 62,068
Top 50% paid 96.93% - $ 30,881
Bottom 50% paid 3.07% those making under $30,881
The dollar amounts are the AGI threshholds.
Ranked by percentage of AGI.
Last edited on Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 04:25 pm by Cobra
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 03:33 pm |
|