Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/5/06 03:41 PM, Fenrus1989 wrote: Your point.

there's still dispute as to how many actually aproved it,the courts dismiss any claims though as it's in it's best interest. if 3/4th of the states didn't sign the amendment is not valid

& the IRS having lost quite a few court battles is proof enough

At 7/5/06 04:18 PM, xXDathDalerXx wrote:

At 7/5/06 03:41 PM, Fenrus1989 wrote: Your point.

there's still dispute as to how many actually aproved it,the courts dismiss any claims though as it's in it's best interest. if 3/4th of the states didn't sign the amendment is not valid

So this would be your argument.

http://en.wikipedia...titution#Controversy

But you see, Federal Courts have rejected the appeals based on non ratification. So it is an ammendment.

At 7/4/06 09:42 PM, Nylo wrote: http://www.apple.com..domtofacism/trailer/


A hype movie on the element that there's no law requiring any American citizen to pay taxes out of his or her income to the Federal government; in fact the surpreme court has ruled it against the law. So why is Tax Evasion such a high-profile crime?

I'm a moderate myself, though this one looks somewhat interesting.

Hey, lookie there, it's called the 1913 amendment to the constitution (the 16th Amendment): "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."

Since when has the High Court ruled against it?

At 7/5/06 05:19 PM, Fenrus1989 wrote: But you see, Federal Courts have rejected the appeals based on non ratification. So it is an ammendment.

they do so because it is convenient to them,none of them have actually taken it seriously & by the IRS failing to produce evidence of a legal document stating you must pay federal income tax i'de say it weighs pretty heavy

At 7/5/06 08:08 PM, xXDathDalerXx wrote:

At 7/5/06 05:19 PM, Fenrus1989 wrote: But you see, Federal Courts have rejected the appeals based on non ratification. So it is an ammendment.

they do so because it is convenient to them,none of them have actually taken it seriously & by the IRS failing to produce evidence of a legal document stating you must pay federal income tax i'de say it weighs pretty heavy

Dude, give it up. You're wrong.

Taxes aren't some evil government conspiracy and financial mishandling does not justify an abandonment of our whole tax syste, You are even wrong about the loophole in the tax laws. NOW you are argueing that the Supreme Court doesnt review cases fairly.

Seriously, mail the $5,000 check you owe the government for taxes and be happy that some jerk you've never even heard of is paying $50 million dollars out of his salaray so that the postal service can send your $5,000 dollar check.

At 7/5/06 08:16 PM, FightingForFreedom wrote: angry ranting

calm down buddy

At 7/4/06 09:57 PM, xXDathDalerXx wrote: well this is something that goes back to the days of kings an queens...nobels want money,but they don't want to work for it...so guess what :)

oh yeah let me tell you that's it

shut the fuck up and die

At 7/5/06 08:17 PM, xXDathDalerXx wrote:

At 7/5/06 08:16 PM, FightingForFreedom wrote: angry ranting

calm down buddy

Your right. I have so much emotional investment in an arguement that you've already lost that I need a second to calm down. Something about the 16th ammendment and tax law INFURIATES ME.

At 7/5/06 09:25 PM, mofomojo wrote:

At 7/4/06 10:01 PM, FightingForFreedom wrote: Say good bye to Welfare.
Say good bye to free Public Education.
Say good bye to Firefighters, our Police, and the Military.

Truth of the matter is, or so I've heard from the trailer for that movie, is that the taxes are currently being used only for paying off the interest on the deficit.

You do realize that Taxes are practically the only source of revenue for the United States. You also, of course realize that America's tax revenue exceeds $1 trillion. Do you think that we spend ever cent of that repariing our deficit? If we did that we'd be very much out of debt.

By the way... it is interesting to note that in the time it took to write this post, the United States will have lost more money than my graduation class will make in their life time.

:Assuming that 106 people wont make more than 1 million dollars each on average.

I'm Glad A Few People Realize This. The Federal Reserve Controls The Currency. Which Means They Have The Power To Regulate How Much Money Goes Into Circulation. It Would Be Beneficial To The Private Bankers That Own The Federal Reserve Banks For The American Public To Be In Debt.

From Freedom To Fascism. Watch The Video. It Will Explain The Evils Of The Federal Reserve.

At 7/5/06 09:55 PM, FightingForFreedom wrote: By the way... it is interesting to note that in the time it took to write this post, the United States will have lost more money than my graduation class will make in their life time.

This was a great way to put it in perspective. It constantly amazes me how a filthy rich country like the USA can simultaneously have the largest GNP/GDP and the largest national debt.

For those who don't know, the budget of the USA will allow the spending of roughly $92000 every second, which is $7500 more than it can make back. That's a deficit of $239 billion every year!

At 7/5/06 03:34 PM, xXDathDalerXx wrote:

The amendment was ratified by 38 states in all

Yes, and in 1913 there were 48 states. As any American of moderate intelligence who has taken their mandatory civics course in junior high, high school, or college can tell you, you need three-fourths of the states to approve an amendment. Three-fourths of 48 is...anyone? Anyone? That's right, thirty eight. So right there, the idea that income tax is somehow "illegal" is null. Once it's a U.S. amendment, nothing can touch it except...anyone? Anyone? Right, another amendment, as was seen with...anyone? Anyone? Prohibition.

And that Supreme Court case that Nylo is referring to seems to be Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. , which ruled that certain income taxes from property, which is in an 1894 law, not the 16th Amendment, were unapportioned direct taxes and were unconstitutional. Really, what the court decided was that a tax on the income of a property, rather than being an income tax, should be an apportioned property tax. Either way, once the 16th Amendment was in place, this case became obsolete.

The conspiracy theorists say that the amendment was never "properly ratified" because in the copies of the amendment distributed to states, there were changes in spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. And while Ohio was a state at the time, Congress did not actually pass an official proclaimation stating so until 1953. Courts have ruled that all these "reasons" are meaningless. The amendment stands.

At 6/20/07 01:03 AM, Ian-Glanzman wrote: I'm Glad A Few People Realize This. The Federal Reserve Controls The Currency. Which Means They Have The Power To Regulate How Much Money Goes Into Circulation. It Would Be Beneficial To The Private Bankers That Own The Federal Reserve Banks For The American Public To Be In Debt.

From Freedom To Fascism. Watch The Video. It Will Explain The Evils Of The Federal Reserve.

First off, you don't need to capitalize everything. Or that's the worst goddamn title I've ever seen.

Second, of course it's beneficial for bankers to have the public be in debt. That's how they make money! Banks only make income by distributing loans and collecting interest. That's how they work! Are you saying that bankers should not make money?

There seriously seems to be some lack of understanding on economics here. Yes, it is in the interest of bankers to have as many Americans as possible in debt, just as it is in the interest of the supermarket industry to have as many Americans as possible to be hungry and want food (hungry as in wanting to eat, not starving). That's just good business. However, the amount of debt is key. If there's too little debt, the banks won't make enough money, and they'll go under. Banks going out of business are a BAD THING. Many people lose their money, and the FDIC only insures the first 100,000 dollars you have in the bank. If there's too much debt, then people will get loans and not be able to repay them. They declare bankruptcy and default on their loans. Then the bank won't make enough money, and they'll go under. Banks going out of business is a...you get the idea.

The Fed regulates the amount of money that goes into the economy, and also helps determine the purchasing power of the dollar. Too much money is inflation, and hyperinflation. Imagine Germany after WWI. People used the deutchmark to wipe their ass, it was so worthless. Too little money will create deflation, and possibly depression. Imagine America in the 1930s. Not enough money in circulation means not enough to go around.

The Fed is not an evil entity. It is a balancing act that attempts to keep the economy going. People who claim otherwise either have a severe lack of understanding on how economics operates, or are just fools.

At 7/4/06 09:42 PM, Nylo wrote: A hype movie on the element that there's no law requiring any American citizen to pay taxes out of his or her income to the Federal government; in fact the surpreme court has ruled it against the law. So why is Tax Evasion such a high-profile crime?

Tax evasion is a crime because you have to pay taxes.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode 26/usc_sup_01_26_10_A_20_1.html

That is Title 26 Chapter 1 of the US Code. It is why you have to pay taxes.

At 7/4/06 11:52 PM, RedScorpion wrote:

Some people are exempt from taxation, simply because they would be too poor to support themselves otherwise. And some people are taxed higher, because even with this higher percent gone, they have a large amount of wealth still.

;
I really am not trying to offend you here.
But if you think that people that make a much higher income, pay more taxes than say a minimum wage earner, you sir a very mistaken.
The ways 'Leagally Available' to offset what would normally be paid in taxes for higher income earners can actually get your tax paid yearly to ZERO.
I have a good job.
Last year & the year befor I paid zero
I make a lot more money a year than $40,000 dollars.
My total taxes paid in 2006 was $108.00 that's right a hundred bucks. I pay nothing off my checks for the entire year, I file through my accountant & am told what I have to pay for income tax at year end.

IF you do your taxes through say H/R Block, you are an idiot. The reason they can do a T.V. Ad saying "if you are penalized by the goverment for our mistake, you pay only the tax , no interest or penalty"
Is because they don't give a shit if you get your legally entitled deductions!
All they want is their percentage of your return & they are not willing to go the extra distance that a fully trained Accountant can & will go for you.
Any of you here with a full/part time job compare how much you paid for income tax in 2006.
Compare that to my payment of $108.00 on over $40,000 earnings (actually my earnings were not in the $40's) it was much higher.

Good accountants, take their advice, I cannot stress that enough.

$108? For a $40,000+ income?

Woah! USC 26 is working out nicely for you.

At 6/20/07 11:17 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote: $108? For a $40,000+ income?

Woah! USC 26 is working out nicely for you.

I'm Canadian, so I don't know what USC 26 is.
But
Good accountant, worth their weight in gold bars.
Stay away from the shopping mall 'Mcdonalds' style of tax offices-useless-

Even more impressive because it's in canada. IIRC, the Canadian tax rates are exponentially higher.

Check the wikipedia talk page on this documentary. People blast the fuck out of this thing that actyally know what they are talking about and it is quite funny. At least it was when I saw it like 6 months ago, dont know its state now.

And many of you keep confusing your taxes and what they do. The federal government spends money on roads, but this is mostly highways and is mostly in the form of pork. The state and local government pays for a majority of this. Same with firefighters and police officers. Same with education. The federal government throws some money at it but it is your state and local government that are responsible for the majority of things you come in contact with on a daily basis. I think even welfare is paid for mostly by the state. So beware the trap many of you are falling into, the federal government takes a fucking crapload of your money and it goes into a big sink that swirls around and usually ends up back in your state or local government anyways. They dont really direct it towards shit that they directly fund except for their big suites in the Senate with craploads of assistants, the military, the President, CIA, and all those other departments. And we cannot forget the conveyor belt that is Social Security, taking money from one person and simply transfering it to another on a national scale.

The federal government wastes a fucking crapload of money and complicates many issues with their oversight. The state and local governments are deserving of our tax dollars but I dare say, the federal government needs to loosen their strings on the government purse because they are gripping it like a bunch of greedy children fighting for a chocolate bar.

And fuck Nancy Pelosi!

At 7/5/06 06:35 AM, FightingForFreedom wrote: There is no law making sex legal but noone would come out and call sex illegal.

Last I checked, you dont send a form into the government saying how much sex you got. So I dont see your point.

At 7/5/06 02:01 PM, FightingForFreedom wrote: Don't you get it? If you don't pay income tax you'll just have to pay more of other taxes to compensate. Whatever you do, you're still obligated to contribute the same amount of money to society. Don't give me that "I worked hard for my money" bullshit because you pay sales tax using money you "worked hard" for and you pay property tax with the money you "worked hard for". In fact you pay every tax with income money dont you?

In 2006 the federal budget was $2.7 trillion. Federal income tax accounted for approximately one-third of the total federal revenue. So, assume that the federal income tax was abolished and Congress did not budget for it. The budget would then be $1.8 trillion. Guess what. The 2000 federal budget was less than that. You think we cannot cut out enough unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unfair federal programs and fire enough beaurecrats to bring our spending levels down to where they were just seven years ago after having a Democrat in the White House?

In any case, everyone works or has worked hard for their money so get off your fucking crucifix.

You're kidding, right? Take a look at the entitlement system that steals thousands of your hard earned dollars and just gives it to someone else.

And don't you make this a fucking class war arguement, I'm not the rich elitus and you aren't the poor masses, ok. Theres not gonna be some glorious proletarian revolution over income tax.

There does not need to be if we can start holding our government accountable for the way it spends its money. That means voting out these corrupt charlatans that have been bought by interests groups or evil collectivists that proclaim that you should sacrifice your individualism in the interest of "community."

At 6/20/07 03:53 PM, Tal-con wrote: Sixteenth Amendment
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.

I win, you all lose, now shut up.

Ex. The IRS demands you include income off of the drugs you sold. Or the lottery. And even bribes.

Well how about the government appease you.

Allow you to choose if you want to pay federal taxes or not. But if you don't you cannot:

Attend Public Schools
Attend a Non Private College
Apply for Federal Student Aid
Cannot go to an Emergency Room
Cannot Call 911
Cannot get help from firefighters
Cannot get help from Police
Cannot use roads
Cannot vote
Cannot watch TV
Cannot use the Internet
Cannot listen to the radio
Cannot sue anyone for any reason
Cannot get social security

And I'm pretty sure I missed 1 or 2 things.

At 6/20/07 04:19 PM, ReiperX wrote: Allow you to choose if you want to pay federal taxes or not. But if you don't you cannot:

This is not a question of whether or not we should be taxed, but rather how we should be taxed.

At 6/20/07 05:18 PM, Tal-con wrote: Drugs and bribes are illegal, secretive, and therefore nontaxable. You are taxed if you win the lottery, so yeah.

;
We are not taxed if we win the lottery.
We are taxed on the 'interest' of the money we win in lotteries.
So if you win big & you get it out of the country, you can save yourself money because they tax the monies earned.
A little different here in Canada, I can't believe the Gov. hasn't jumped up & down on that loop hole yet!

At 7/5/06 01:28 PM, Memorize wrote: I don't mind paying taxes. But considering the government spends billions of dollars on useless crap...

Which in turn creates thousands of jobs.

At 6/21/07 02:37 PM, JoS wrote:

At 7/5/06 01:28 PM, Memorize wrote: I don't mind paying taxes. But considering the government spends billions of dollars on useless crap...

Which in turn creates thousands of jobs.

A.k.a a goofy form of welfare?

At 6/21/07 02:53 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 6/21/07 02:37 PM, JoS wrote:

At 7/5/06 01:28 PM, Memorize wrote: I don't mind paying taxes. But considering the government spends billions of dollars on useless crap...

Which in turn creates thousands of jobs.

A.k.a a goofy form of welfare?

I would argue its mroe productive then wlefare. Welfare you give someone the money and recieve essentially ntohing in return. Create public works projects and you get a new rec center, university or bridge. Not only does this create jobs now in building it, but gives vital services to the public and creates future jobs.

the services govt gives u aint free so it rly dont matter it is legal or not, id pay my taxes anyway so it doesnt crumbkle

Oh really?

At 6/21/07 03:05 PM, JoS wrote: I would argue its mroe productive then wlefare. Welfare you give someone the money and recieve essentially ntohing in return. Create public works projects and you get a new rec center, university or bridge. Not only does this create jobs now in building it, but gives vital services to the public and creates future jobs.

That's just pork. Why spend my money so you can have a bridge in your town? I may never even see that bridge, but yet I still have to pay for it. Why not just tax people less, and if there is a real demand for the bridge, or the service is truly "vital," then let the people who will be using it or desire to profit off of it pay for it themselves.