Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 787475)
So where would the money come from to do stuff like make roads etc.?
Infrastructure is a tiny % of total gov't expenditure. The income tax (16th Amendment) was ratified the same year as the creation of the Federal Reserve, with the same corrupt politicking done by the same bunch of insiders. It's no coincidence. The income tax was needed as a new income stream to pay the interest on the debt that the new Federal Reserve was gonig to rack up. (later on the Fed was required by law to turn over interest income to the Treasury after an expose) The 17th Amendment (direct election of senaturds), was also put in by the same group of conspirators, all Progressives, in order to weaken the States. Originally the State legislatures elected the Senaturds - this would help the States keep the Fed Gov under control. With direct election, candidates could be fielded that were Establishment insiders that would further the centralized power of the Fed Gov. |
|
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 787475)
So where would the money come from to do stuff like make roads etc.?
and the roads are paid for in large part from the gasoline tax |
|
|
|
Originally Posted by y8s
(Post 787728)
mom and pop stores don't feel threatened by wal*mart I guess.
apparently not. Occupy Big Government!!!! :vash: |
What I meant by "roads etc" is how would you pay to keep our society going, roads, infrastructure, the military, everything. You can make cuts, but your dreaming if you think you can balance the budget by simply making cuts alone. We need $ to keep going, taxes need to be raised for the rich. The top 1% controls 40% of wealth in this country, and that's fucked up. I'm not saying I'm in favor of big gov, socialism, a handout or anything like that, I just want to quit giving the extreem rich a break. I'm just trying to be realistic and reasonable, something that many people don't seem to want to bother with. I know y'all are going to disagree with me, but It's what I believe.
http://operatorchan.org/vg/arch/src/...8882420490.png |
not trolling. stating facts. you state only "common sense"
i disagree with you because i have researched it and seen the numbers and since you say it can't work simply because it can't (you dont support your statement with evidence) i question your knowledge on the topic. you do know that we survied until 1913 without an income tax right? and you are correct we cant keep doing like we are and cut the income tax. and seriously look at where we are at now and ask yourself if you want to keep going the way we are now. first we gotta stop policing the world and participate in nation building. Interesting how whenever i discuss this with someone who disagrees all they can say is "we just can do it" they dont discuss legalities or what to cut or anything. until you have a more serious response it is simply difficult for me to take you seriously. and of course we need this tax to pay the interest on the loans we have received from a private bank who we authorized to pull money out of thin air. how much sense does that make?!?! im not nessecarily saying replace it with nothing im not exactly sure what should be done with it but im just baffled that the occupy group who wants "economic justice" wants to expand a tax that is highly arguable as unconstitutional the income tax code is not 100% illegit its just the fact that it is applied to so many people who do NOT fall under its requirements. dont quote me on this but i believe the income tax can be applied to corporations but not individuals. i do believe that the supreme court has defined income as gains or profits from corporate activity. as far as your we cant keep going without it the road thing was just one example schools are mostly funded by property tax. i gotta disagree with you on the we cant just make cuts thing because we could go complete anarchy and have the spending cut to zero obviously i am not suggesting that just making a point there have been several cases where "tax cheats" have won in court an illinois man won he was in court for not paying his state income tax which IS a law unlike the federal income tax. illinois state law requires you to pay state income if you are required to pay federal income tax. the man won because the courts and the prossecutor failed to prove that the law requires us to pay a federal income tax we NEED an income tax if we want to police the world and participate in nation building here you can see a former irs agent discussing the topic and here you can see a film by Aaron Russo. A well known hollywood producer or director something like that. anyways it is a long and detailed documentary about the tax, legalities, and spending. this documentary also touches on some theory towards the end. just ingore that and pay attention to the facts. also this documentary talks about the national id act and when it will take effect. at the time this film was made that law was passed. after the film was made the law was repealed. you can look it up now keep in mind that the irs tax code states that this is a voluntary tax in the above listed documentary you will see the irs tax code author stating that voluntary is a euphemism and that it is truly manditory. the irs' website even has an arguement that doesnt make much sense. tax code says "voluntary compliance" and the irs' website says that what that means is it is voluntary for you to "determine the correct amount of tax and complete the appropriate returns" then it says "The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth". what does that mean anyhow? its voluntary for me to figure my taxes and complete the form but not voluntary to file a return?? so then i can just mail in a blank 1040 and let them figure it out for me? http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...106502,00.html you better believe i fully intend on being a smart ass and mailing a blank 1040 and my w2's in to see what happens |
The latest and greatest in good ole Chicago politics:
http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-cook...0,907488.story Cook County board president wants higher taxes on alcohol, cigarettes and cars CHICAGO— Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle says the county must do more with less to get its financial house in order. There is a $315 million budget gap to close. To do it, she wants to cut 1,000 jobs and impose higher taxes on alcohol, tobacco and cars. She presented this plan before the full board this morning. Parking at the Cook County courthouses would cost $4.75. It's currently free. But, Preckwinkle is keeping her promise to roll back part of the county's sales tax with a quarter percentage point set to expire January 1st. Commissioner William Beavers said, "I don't see anybody on this board voting for this budget." Beavers believes Preckwinkle's proposed tax increases are excessive. Despite the opposition, Preckwinkle says she's confident she'll meet the November 30th deadline to pass a budget. Illinois lawmakers weigh tax breaks, penalties for business By Kathy Bergen , Julie Wernau and Dan Hinkel Mon Oct 24 2011 10:48 PM Chicago's financial exchanges would see a 50 percent decrease in their Illinois corporate income tax bills under legislation introduced Monday afternoon by Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago. Illinois would tax a fraction of the income generated by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the Chicago Board of Trade and the Chicago Board Options Exchange, all of which have threatened to move operations out of state after Illinois temporarily raised its income tax earlier this year. The bill, which would reduce the exchanges' taxes by tens of millions of dollars, attempts to limit levies on income attributed to Illinois-based transactions and would continue to fully tax income derived from open-outcry transactions on trading floors in Chicago. But those transactions represent a small slice of business now, with most activity having migrated to electronic trading. Under the proposal, only 27.54 percent of income stemming from electronic trading and clearing fees would be subject to Illinois' corporate income tax, compared with 100 percent now. A spokesman for Cullerton added that the legislation could change in the days ahead. Michael Shore, a spokesman for CME Group Inc., parent of the Merc and the Board of Trade, declined to comment. But CME Executive Chairman Terrence Duffy told Bloomberg News earlier this year that his company paid $150 million to Illinois last year. Clearing and transaction fees represent the bulk of revenue for CME Group, also parent of the New York Mercantile Exchange. And only 10 percent of those fees comes from open-outcry trading, according to the company's 2010 annual report. CBOE Holdings Inc., parent of the Chicago Board Options Exchange, also declined to comment. The state's corporate income-tax rate applies to profits resulting from in-state sales. For many multinational corporations, this means Illinois' tax applies to only a slice of their income. But for the Chicago-based exchanges, the tax applies to all trades, and they say this is unfair since many trades are placed electronically by out-of-state parties. |
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 787917)
|
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 787917)
not trolling. stating facts. you state only "common sense"
i disagree with you because i have researched it and seen the numbers and since you say it can't work simply because it can't (you dont support your statement with evidence) i question your knowledge on the topic. you do know that we survied until 1913 without an income tax right? and you are correct we cant keep doing like we are and cut the income tax. and seriously look at where we are at now and ask yourself if you want to keep going the way we are now. first we gotta stop policing the world and participate in nation building. Interesting how whenever i discuss this with someone who disagrees all they can say is "we just can do it" they dont discuss legalities or what to cut or anything. Our nation was not nearly as large (in terms of population and infrastructure) in 1913 as it is now. I do not want to keep going the way we are now, nobody does, which is why everybody is angry. What differs is how people want to solve the problem. Remember why we are policing the world, if we do not seek out and eliminate enemies of the US it will come back and bite us in the ass (again) in the form of a terrorist attack. One could argue that Iraq was a mistake (to invade that is), I personally do not agree with that but you can't Afghanistan didn't need some policing. If I was tasked with the job of cutting the budget, I would cut spending across the board by X%, with some exceptions. I would stop employing privet military contractors (not that I disagree with there existence, just that there too expensive, sry jtothawhat). I would encourage gov employees to point out and eliminate wasteful spending (probably use an incentives program that would attract employees attention without costing too much).
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 787917)
im not nessecarily saying replace it with nothing
im not exactly sure what should be done with it but im just baffled that the occupy group who wants "economic justice" wants to expand a tax that is highly arguable as unconstitutional Taxing people is necessary to keep the country going, I'm baffled by people who don't get that. (not looking @ you). I'm also baffled at people who look to the tea party demonstrators and see good wholesome Americans, but look at the OWS and think there scum.
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 787917)
the income tax code is not 100% illegit
its just the fact that it is applied to so many people who do NOT fall under its requirements. dont quote me on this but i believe the income tax can be applied to corporations but not individuals. i do believe that the supreme court has defined income as gains or profits from corporate activity. as far as your we cant keep going without it the road thing was just one example schools are mostly funded by property tax. i gotta disagree with you on the we cant just make cuts thing because we could go complete anarchy and have the spending cut to zero obviously i am not suggesting that just making a point there have been several cases where "tax cheats" have won in court an illinois man won he was in court for not paying his state income tax which IS a law unlike the federal income tax. illinois state law requires you to pay state income if you are required to pay federal income tax. the man won because the courts and the prossecutor failed to prove that the law requires us to pay a federal income tax Also, if we raised taxes on businesses too much, they may just go somewhere else, just something to think about.
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 787917)
you better believe i fully intend on being a smart ass and mailing a blank 1040 and my w2's in to see what happens
|
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 787942)
(defense budget for one thing).
:x: |
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 787942)
Also, if we raised taxes on businesses too much, they may just go somewhere else
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 787942)
Our nation was not nearly as large (in terms of population and infrastructure) in 1913 as it is now.
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 787942)
The country doesn't run off nothing.
cutting it would bring our revenue down to clinton era spending the income tax is far from everything
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 787942)
I'm also baffled at people who look to the tea party demonstrators and see good wholesome Americans, but look at the OWS and think there scum.:
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 787942)
when a loan in taken out there is interest to be payed as well)
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 787942)
If the tax is voluntary, do you mean in the way that if choose not to pay it you go to federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison? Nothing voluntary about that :giggle:
can you do what the irs and the former agents and the rest of our government can not do? can you find the law that explicitly requires me to pay a tax on my wages? even reagan spoke out against the irs. i personally believe that ends dont justify unjust means. so the big question is....can i read the law that requires this of me please? the documentary that i posted shows court rulings that stated that the 16th amendment gave the government no new power of taxation |
Originally Posted by cymx5
(Post 787944)
Can we cut the offense budget at least?
:x: |
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 787502)
The 17th Amendment (direct election of senaturds), was also put in by the same group of conspirators, all Progressives, in order to weaken the States. Originally the State legislatures elected the Senaturds - this would help the States keep the Fed Gov under control. With direct election, candidates could be fielded that were Establishment insiders that would further the centralized power of the Fed Gov.
|
Fuck the balance of power, I have my people looking everyday for ways around congress.
|
|
Originally Posted by sixshooter
(Post 788137)
This fact is so often overlooked by people and I have been talking about it for years. The Representatives were representatives of the people and were therefore apportioned by population. The Senators were representatives of the legislatures of the states. This is part of the constitutional design of the balance of power. The two houses of Congress should be elected by different constituencies with different interests by design. This is designed to mediate the tendency toward mob rule and pandering to the lowest common denominator of a solely direct-elected congress.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article521...criminals.html P.S. The One World types' biggest achievement was the Euro. It is falling apart and with it, their dreams. |
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 787898)
What I meant by "roads etc" is how would you pay to keep our society going, roads, infrastructure, the military, everything.
The federal government's actual responsibilities do not include education (responsibility of individuals or states), retirement or social security (except as part of a compensation plan for federal employees), medical care (individuals or states), support of the mutherfukin arts, researching millions of unprofitable ideas that couldn't get private funding because they were stupid ideas and didn't make business sense, foreign aid (are you fawking kidding me?), subsidizing businesses for any reason (including if they give you hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickbacks, Solyndra, General Electric, various banks), Housing and Urban Development, Department of Energy, Department of Education, IRS... ...wait... Here's the list of just those departments that start with the letter A that are unconstitutional and you can tell me where we can save enough money to eliminate the income tax.
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 787898)
You can make cuts, but your dreaming if you think you can balance the budget by simply making cuts alone.
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 787898)
We need $ to keep going,
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 787898)
taxes need to be raised for the rich.
Most small incorporated businesses are required to file taxes as individuals. When you create a corporation you create an individual. When the small business makes money it pays taxes as if it were a person earning wages. But these aren't people. They are vilified as being rich people earning huge wages but they are not people at all. This design skews the charts significantly and makes it look like many people are earning $250k plus annually, when in might just be a small local business in an industrial park making wrought iron gates and employing 48 people. Be careful of statistics because they are often misleading.
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 787898)
The top 1% controls 40% of wealth in this country, and that's fucked up.
Wealth is not static. It is able to be created by any individual. Just because someone else has more, doesn't mean that you will have less. It isn't like there is one pecan pie on the table and because someone eats a big ass piece that there is less for you. There are unlimited ingredients for pie all around you and people are constantly baking more. Look another one just came out of the oven. Get your own fill of pie.
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 787898)
I'm not saying I'm in favor of big gov, socialism, a handout or anything like that, I just want to quit giving the extreem rich a break.
What business is it of yours how much my boss pays me for what I do? Should I be able to go to your boss and say, "You need to reduce Gearhead's salary because he isn't worth that much." Of course not. Why do you get to do that to anyone else? "I'm sorry for all of your hard work and extra effort all of these years, Mr. Jones, we're going to have to tax you more for having pushed yourself to achieve. Yes, you are making the company a whole lot of money but we are just paying you too much and the janitor is getting jealous." And since most of these in question are really businesses are we going to tell them that they are doing too good a job at being productive and controlling costs? We already have the highest corporate tax rate in the world because we tax most of them as individuals. We are already running businesses off like mad. They are all going overseas because we are punishing them for being here and performing well. How much higher do you want it to go? Do you want all companies to be foreign companies? Do you only want the ones here that suck at being profitable, are poorly run, and don't grow? How are they going to hire additional workers?
Originally Posted by Gearhead_318
(Post 787898)
I'm just trying to be realistic and reasonable, something that many people don't seem to want to bother with. I know y'all are going to disagree with me, but It's what I believe.
Passion without understanding is what I see too often in the younger OWS protestors. They have good hearts and want good things for everyone but often lack perspective of wisdom through intense study over time. It is far easier to care than to learn or to follow a charismatic speaker than to spend hours studying. And all too often they are unfortunately following the lead of the older protestors who know of their passionate discontent and are striving to twist the righteous desires of the young to mold them into foot soldiers to suit their own socialist goals. It is so very often that socialism appeals to the passionate youth, but with age comes wisdom through understanding and a shift toward conservatism. “Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” ― Winston S. Churchill ^ I love that guy. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:13 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands