Well boys and girls, for those of you who would like to challenge that we have to pay an income tax, Lawyer Tom Cryer was just acquitted on 2 counts of tax fraud, and one being not paying his income tax.
Quite simply, he proved that the definition of Income as defined by the supreme court is NOT income from our labor, but rather things like interest and profit. You CANNOT tax a persons labor because it is a God given right that we may work to support ourselves.
If I charge you $500 to fix your toilet, what part of that is profit or capital gain? The answer: You cannot decipher. Therefore, you cannot tax something that is considered an equal exchange on labor. You fix my toilet, I give you $500. It is quite simple.
Here is a link to a 5 part series of him talking about the Income Tax. Watch it if you want to learn why YOU don't have to pay an income tax on your labor. I cannot find any articles on his acquittal yet, but when I do I'll post that as well.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
World Net Daily story on Tom Cryer
July 26, 2007 - 13:24 ET by LionKingHere is the story from WND. (h/t NBer FastEd)
Withholding from paychecks is voluntary
August 2, 2007 - 08:19 ET by LionKingThe withholding of taxes on paychecks (W-4) is voluntary...FACT. The IRS and the DOJ may not like the fact that this information is being promoted, but it does not change the law.
[Ultimately, the citizenry must hold the government to the fire so that even the IRS and the DOJ cannot operate outside and above the law.]
An interesting aside to paying taxes - a littl off topic
July 26, 2007 - 14:06 ET by FastEdHere in the Great Garden State (yes, we grow tomatos, cranberries, corn, apples, as well as cracking towers at refineries) we are going into debt, as a state, because the politicos don't know how to, NOT spend, even when they don't have it. Add to that, the arrogance of our very blue, said to be a financial wizard, jon (who can't spell) corzine, was quoted today, speaking about the states' $60 billion debt, "We need to fix and find a solution, because we don't want to place this problem on the future tax payers of the state".
How about fixing the problem with the tax-spenders? And they can't figure out why everyone wants to leave - folks, from the Great Garden State, I can tell you, socialism doesn't work, but the demolibs and the rinos keep trying.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Does all of your 'news' come
July 13, 2007 - 15:36 ET by AvatarHow about this, instead: Why don't YOU evade your taxes, and then try your case at why you shouldn't have to pay your tax, and then write us from the federal pen on how the case went?
Believe you me, I'd love to not pay income taxes, but I'm certainly not going to stop paying taxes just because I think I shouldn't have to.
The Avatar
The Flimflam of Income Tax Denial
July 13, 2007 - 15:53 ET by sarcasmoI'll look at your stuff whenever I get to a faster connection, but for now you should know I think this guy's right. As Mr. Richman says: "The income tax is immoral not because it's an income tax but because it's an income tax." The way to get rid of it is to do it honestly, by eliminating a LOT of spending. If this guy won his case, why'd Irwin Schiff lose his? (And I've met Irwin, he's a very nice, very funny convicted felon and I like him very much more than I thought I would, but IMO he's going about the tax issue in the wrong way.)
JMR
hi sarc
July 13, 2007 - 16:02 ET by bigtimerI'm waiting for my faster connection too sarc...
..couldn't take it anymore, I got to get to so many links and some that relatives and friends send that just take too long, I can't wait for mine..any day now!
...and to think it was like XMAS when it got off of DSL about a year or so ago....
Too funny.
I too may be very interested in learning more about Cryer and his situation.
TP: Your comments don't make
July 13, 2007 - 17:08 ET by QueenMumTP: Your comments don't make sense in light of the indictment.
"CRYER is charged in the indictment with two counts of tax evasion. The indictment alleges that during calendar year 2000 and 2001, CRYER, an attorney in Shreveport, attempted to evade payment of income tax to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It is alleged in the indictment that CRYER created a trust, listing himself as the trustee, and received payments of dividends, interest and stock income to that trust. The indictment further alleges that CRYER concealed his receipt of these sources of income from the IRS by failing to file a tax return on behalf of that trust." - Source: Dept. of Justice (Bolding mine)
Or is the case you cite a different case?
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
QueenMum
July 13, 2007 - 21:37 ET by LionKingAn indictment is just the formal accusation in court, usually from a grand jury. What TP is talking about is the verdict (result) of the trial that is a direct result of the indictment.
I understand that, LK. What I
July 14, 2007 - 10:27 ET by QueenMumI understand that, LK. What I'm questioning is that the original charges have to do with failure to file re: trust funds that Cryer set up.
I don't really understand why this is some sort of victory re: whether or not one must pay income taxes in general.
P.S. I appreciate your link, but don't consider it to be completely accurate or comprehensive in outlining the reason for the verdict. But maybe I'm just dense. :)
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
QueenMum
July 14, 2007 - 14:13 ET by LionKingI am confused. (So should everybody actually.) The first line of the indictment refers to his tax evasion.
Everyone should be confused because there is no specific penal statute that refers to the crime of Tax Evasion. One of the major problems in the total vagueness of Tax Evasion and its penalties to the very definition of income.
So should we expect Lion King
July 14, 2007 - 14:16 ET bySo should we expect Lion King and Thought Police to claim 'exempt' on their W-2s and not file income tax returns?
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
I don't know. I guess I'm w
July 14, 2007 - 14:52 ET by QueenMumI don't know. I guess I'm willing to let them test the waters for the rest of us. :) Just don't expect me to pony up for the cost of defending them.
We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria
I meant to post a response
July 14, 2007 - 22:45 ET by ThoughtPoliceI meant to post a response after my initial post, but ran into some problems before I could.
With that said, No I do not advocate not paying your income tax. I'm not an expert on this case or the income tax in general. I was on the conference call with Mr. Cryer after he won and watched his youtube videos. Mr Cryer is strongly opposed to any individual not paying their taxes. He is however an advocate of group change (everyone gaining knowlede on the subject then getting together to make a change).
My understanding is that the way they "get us" is by not defining any law or straight forwardly telling us what we have to pay. The reason? Because if they did we would only have to pay "income tax" on things that go above and beyond our labor. For instance, if you make $40,000 a year, and invest $1,000 of that and make $100 in interest in one year, you then have to pay an "income" tax on the $100. You do NOT have to pay on the $40,000. This is my understanding from Mr. Cryer.
Yes, it is not as simple as "You don't have to pay an income tax." If you fill out a W-2 (even though it is not an official document because the OMB number is false) you are opening yourself up to paying on all that you make. Again, it's confusing and it's supposed to be or else we would know the truth.
Experiment
July 15, 2007 - 23:38 ET by UnsaneIf what you say about the W-2 is true, you are cordially invited to prove what you say by not filling one out, or filling one out with false data, and then using that defense in court.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
No to Tax Evasion
July 15, 2007 - 22:02 ET by LionKingI certainly do not believe that anyone should risk the wrath of the American Gestapo (aka the IRS).
That being said, every defeat of this ridiculous tax code is just one more step closer to tax reform. I strongly advocate a consumption tax. Taxing "income" only inhibits investment, corporate price competiveness, and increase consumerism.
"Taxing income (otherwis
July 15, 2007 - 23:36 ET by Unsane"Taxing income (otherwise known as wages, salaries and tips) only inhibits investment" You'll take that statement back in a hurry once you see my portfolio.
"Corporate price competitiveness" - Oh, that's right. This is code for your protectionist beliefs. What incentive will Ford or GM have to improve their products without competitors from Europe or Japan? What incentive does Boeing have to compete without Airbus? What incentive do our farmers have to grow better crops without the competition from abroad?
First, you want to steal from those who have money to buy what YOU consider "luxury goods" because "they can afford it", and now you want to punish people from daring to buy goods from a foreign manufacturer because they just MIGHT be better (and WORSE, could force American manufacturers to build a better mousetrap? Horrors!) in terms of quality and price?
"and increase consumerism" - I hate to break your heart, but the largest component of the economy is "C" - consumer spending. By the way, after the consumers shut their wallets, just what will corporations invest for?
I like the idea of a "flat tax", much like the one espoused by Steve Forbes in 1996.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
}}----> Follow Unsane
July 15, 2007 - 23:47 ET by Cool ArrowI'm ready to follow you Unsane. You make a lot of sense in this post.
I think the line is a little more blurred if you put Toyota into the mix, though. Other than bankrolling Shakedown Jackson, they provide a pretty good American product. (unlike Ford's Mustang which is a foreign car)
cool...
July 16, 2007 - 09:21 ET by LionKingCorporate competitiveness -- Imagine if US corporations were not saddled with an income tax...they could lower prices and compete with China. Sadly for unsane, this is not protectionism. Corporations do not just suck it up, they pass the cost of income tax onto the consumer.
unsane also bases the savings policy strictly on personal anecdotal experience. Unlike unsane, I tend to use facts...we have a negative savings rate as a nation right now.
Again, unsane speaks without facts concerning consumerism. Regardless, if consumers have more disposable income because it is not taxed up front, they not only can save, they can also spend. It is their choice that unsane seems to not support.
No nation has ever been taxed into prosperity.
If only you could factor in
July 22, 2007 - 21:32 ET by UnsaneIf only you could factor in labor costs into your dream world. One reason Chinese goods are cheaper is often because their labor is cheaper. Corporate income taxes are only a part of it.
And yet again, the sales taxes will make their way into business purchaese, and be passed on all the same to the consumer. Nice try.
You speak with only emotion, NOT facts, concerning consumerism. Like it or not, it is the driving force in the economy. In fact I rather like it. It was consumerism that brought me such wonderful things as my iPOD, a device that makes my life rather enjoyable. Perhaps you would be extremely happy living in a shack with bare walls and not much in it as an easy tax dodge. I won't be.
Besides, you simply refuse to explain where all this extra investment will be for once this sales tax is imposed. What will there be to invest in when the consumers slam their wallets shut? Japan has a savings rate of roughly 20%, yet they have been stuck in economic torpor since 1990.
Your "choice" isn't much of a choice. Consumers won't have more disposable income either way; you merely change the direction of the taxation. Besides, as sales taxes hurt those least able to pay them the most, they are highly regressive.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
}}----> True LionKing
July 16, 2007 - 09:37 ET by Cool ArrowI don't make a lot, but have a pretty generous 401k match. I'd be a multimillionnaire by now if the government would let me direct my total retirement. I'm 54 now and I could come out ahead if they'd release me from the Social Security sucker's bet.
John Edwards really ticked me off this weekend when he said the words "working poor" are two terms that should not go together. I was "working poor" once, and proud of it. The guy knows nothing about personal dignity.
I'll go along with a flat tax in a heartbeat as it would put so many of those IRS bloodsuckers out of business. Better yet a consumption tax and put them all on the street. Imagine the personal savings spike if individuals made their tax choices strictly when they made a purchase.
The savings rate in Japan
July 22, 2007 - 21:35 ET by UnsaneThe savings rate in Japan is 20% or so, one of the highest anywhere, yet their economy has been a laggard since 1990 (although there have been some recent upticks in the past two years). The personal savings rate does not an economic boom make.
In fact, what hasve successive Japanese governments pleaded with their citizens to do since then? Why, to spend more money. Imposing a sales tax is a very poor way to do that.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
exactly, Cool Arrow
July 16, 2007 - 09:58 ET by LionKing"Imagine the personal savings spike if individuals made their tax choices strictly when they made a purchase."
Exactly. Choose to save or not. Choose to spend (and be taxed) or NOT.
How unfortunate
July 22, 2007 - 21:22 ET by UnsaneUnfortunately for you, you don't use facts. Like you assertion that TX ONLY gets its money from sales taxes. I shot that down farily quickly, but then, I LIVE in TX and have most of my life.
And your little slogan is quite disingenuous. We ALL know the spending has to occur sooner or later. (But the rate of spending will slow. I know for one that, rather than pay an even more onerous sales tax on a new truck, I will fight tooth and nail to keep mine running as long as possible. That doesn't help out Detroit very much, does it? At which point, what do THEY spend THEIR meager earnings on?) Economists LOVE taxes such as this because it attacks "C". Unfortunately foir you, youy believe it is a great idea if the United States slits the throat of the greatest portion of our economy. Where will all that investment and saving go when the consumers slam their wallets shut? (Or, what happens if a "black market" develops on untaxed goods from various ill-gotten sources? If that market is moderately successful, then you start getting less federal revenue. Then what?)
Also, note Japan's experience. They are the biggest savers in the industrial world, yet they have not been growing at a decent clip in some time. In fact, their economy has contracted on occasion since 1990.
Finally, I'd sure appreciate it if you can name for me one natiuon, just one, that derives its income from sales taxes alone.
Hit everyone at a 15-17% flat tax, and keep the tax code exactly that simple.
Watch the IRS shrivel to 100 employees, if that.
Pass a balanced budget amendment, with a provision for the eventual paydown of the national debt, over, say, the next 30-40 years. Then the taxpayers save 15-17% a year on the interest on the debt.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
unsane
July 25, 2007 - 13:18 ET by LionKing"Unfortunately for you, you don't use facts. Like you assertion that TX
ONLY gets its money from sales taxes. I shot that down farily quickly,
but then, I LIVE in TX and have most of my life."
Really. When did Texas incorporate an income tax? Texas, the state, does not derive any revenue from property taxes. So, if you are going to use vehicle registration, gas tax, tobacco tax, toll roads, lottery...please feel free. These are relatively small compared to the sales tax and yet, they are still forms of a tax on consumption. Amazingly, Texas still has one of the most robust economies in the US.
All those forms of taxation
July 26, 2007 - 04:28 ET by UnsaneAll those forms of taxation are relatively small, you say? Then why utilize them?
For one example: In AK, vehicle registration (when I lived there) was $68 for TWO years. In TX it is $50 for ONE, and that's BEFORE the county slaps on its fee. I remember perfectly well that at one point, when my family registered a truck in CO (some years ago), they paid $6 for ONE year. How was that possible? CO has an income tax and can derive their money that way as well. (Additionally, I just paid nearly $40 for the yearly vehicle inspection.)
Spin it any way you wish, but the state of Texas does NOT get all of its revenue from sales taxes. Personally, I would not mind seeing TX get an income tax at all...BUT with my conditions strictly adhered to. Since no politician in their right minds will adhere to them, I will never support such a tax.
TX has a robust economy because it is quite diverse, and that diversification is a very recent phenomenon. It learned its lesson after the oil bust of 1982 which was quite painful for Houston and other cities and towns that get most of their cash from oil. Thus, cities like Austin sought out computer-and-Net driven growth (and 2000 for Austin was quite comparable to Houston in 1982).
You fail, again, and again, and again, to look at other factors. Businesses do not locate here because "They don't have income taxes!!!" They come here because of the pro-business environment here. If you are a major business or industry looking to relocate to TX, or one who wants to open a facility here, local governments roll out the red carpet for you. That explains why San Antonio got the Toyota plant back in 2002 (opened in 2005). Then you have Houston, one of the most ridiculously easy places anywhere to build a business (for one thing, there aren't even zoning ordinances here).
State government here is also considerably weaker than other states. The entire point of the Texas Constitution of 1876 was to make sure the government was very weak, in the wake of the governorship of Edmond J. Davis.
Any Texan will also tell you that the rate of taxation is quite low, so long as you stay away from property. Depending on where you buy it, you WILL get hammered by a myriad of local governments.
Besides, you still have not answered my very simple question: name ONE country that derives its tax revenue strictly from a sales tax.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
unsane...
July 26, 2007 - 11:42 ET by LionKing"Besides, you still have not answered my very simple question: name ONE
country that derives its tax revenue strictly from a sales tax. "
Brunei has no personal income tax or capital gains tax. I do not know of any country that derives ALL of its revenue from sales tax.
So what? If your argument is not to do something because no one else has, I trust you are smart enough to realize no progress would ever be made with an attitude like that.
As to your other question as to why use them if there contribution is small. For example, toll roads are usage tax. If you use the road, the tax you pay helps mitigate the cost of the road. Excise taxes on items like cigarettes and gasoline are used to discourage spending in these areas and used to offset costs related to them...gas taxes help with roads and cigarette taxes help with medical expenses and cancer awareness education.
"They come here because of the pro-business environment here."
Please define what you mean by pro-business environment.
When Boeing decided to move their location of their corporate headquarters, the cities in the running were Denver, Dallas and Chicago. Chicago for several reasons: Central Location, International Access, Special Perks for the CEO and Board, and Tax Incentives. Dallas was the leader until the State of Illinois and local officials offered Boeing the tax break.
I have another question...do you have any proof to your assertion that a sales tax actually affects consumerism?
My proof is quite simple:
July 28, 2007 - 00:16 ET by UnsaneMy proof is quite simple: hit any economics department, and see what the economists there tell you. Economists love the idea of consumption taxes. I do not have quotations directly in front of me, but if you can afford the patience of a day or two I will get you some.
I am an "old-school" kind of guy; one who relies heavily on print media (books) even to this day.
The pro-business environment is best described in an article I read some years back, comparing Houston to New Orleans in the wake of Katrina. I'll extract some quotes from it when I get it in front of me. Besides, re-read what I said. Wouldn't businesses prefer to NOT deal with a zoning board? They don't have to if they start their business in Houston. (Zoning has been put before the voters three times here, and was shot down three times here. Houston is the largest city in America without a zoning ordinance.) Many municipalities across the state of TX offer varying incentives to entice businesses to locate here. It doesn't hurt that land (where taxes are low, which encourages sprawl to neighboring counties), labor, and capital are generally cheap here in TX.
Not to mention, you don't appreciate the fact that state government is quite weak here. It can do relatively little in TX compared to other states. Therefore, there is very little the state can do to royally screw things up here.
Brunei has no personal income taxes or capital gains due to its oil reserves. There are quite a few Gulf States that lack income taxes of any kind for the same reason. But I apprciate your efforts. Keep looking...
My argument is less of "we can't do it because it has never been done before!" than it is "I don't trust the government to stop there". I haven't heard of a developed, industrialized nation that relies solely on sales taxes. Look at Canada. I'm sure you would LOVE them; they have a 7.5% federal GST on virtually everything, including postage stamps; and that is on top of rates as high as 8.5% that the province charges!
And even THAT isn't enough. Canada has income taxes on top of all of this. Granted, Canada is very much into babying its population, but the United States has its own issues, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
I want a user-friendly, dummy-proof tax code. 15-17% of income, with ZERO tax breaks or penalties...coupled with privatized Social Security, coupled with a Balanced Budget Amendment providing for a debt payoff in 30-40 years, coupled with the government getting out of medical care altogether. And with this, you won't have but 100 people in the IRS, IF THAT...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
}}----> Spend and tax
July 16, 2007 - 10:05 ET by Cool ArrowThe beauty of the system is that Americans would economically demand an end to planned obsolescence. Furthermore, the aging population could make better preparation for individually funded retirement.
Never happen because of the way money filters through the hands of lawmakers.
cool...fair tax & Fred
July 16, 2007 - 12:29 ET by LionKingA consumption tax has been endorsed by Greenspan.
Fred Thompson also seems to favor the consumption tax.
I am sure Bernanke favors a
July 28, 2007 - 00:17 ET by UnsaneI am sure Bernanke favors a consumption tax as well. Economists by and large love the idea.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
I just have to disagree with
July 16, 2007 - 10:33 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI have to disagree with your point about the negative savings rate. Americans generally have little to no savings not because of oppressive income taxes per se, but as a direct result of the "buy now, pay later" mentality. Millions upon millions of Americans see something they want and have to have it now. Rather, if most people would be a little patient and save up for a few months, they can buy that plasma screen tv outright with cash. I fell into the credit trap in my early twenties...I bought everything I wanted (as long as I had enough credit to buy it) and put nothing into savings. When I got married, my wife whipped our finances into shape and put us on a strict budget so we could climb out of debt and put money into savings. Today I am debt free (except the mortgage), I have about 9 months worth of income saved (and we add about $500 a month to it) and I am putting nearly $350 a month into the military TSP plan for retirement--all of this on E-6 pay (my wife does not work). Granted, because I'm military and my deductions, I usually get a tax return every year. However, if my taxes were more than they currently are, we would still be saving, just not as much.
If Americans had more financial discipline, we would have a positive savings rate. Consumers that are heavily laden in debt technically have zero disposable income (or more accurately, discretionary income) because all of their money is spent before they earn it.
The chart you linked had a positive savings rate before the Bush tax cuts. How do you explain that? Do European countries have positive savings rates? Most countries over there are taxed more heavily than the United States.
So again, my position is that savings is directly related to financial discipline.
I prefer a flat tax because everyone pays the same percentage of their income...the government doesn't determine who pays and who doesn't. The government also doesn't arbitrarily determine whether a particular item is taxed or not based on what the government thinks our needs should be.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
I know Americans can have
May 19, 2009 - 09:35 ET by ejmI know Americans can have much savings eventhough they have debts in credit card companies. Just have some knowledge in budgetting and learn how to handle finances well, you can achieve all the goals in life, plus live with debt free living. merchant accounts
I think you are all wrong.
July 16, 2007 - 13:52 ET by ThoughtPoliceI think you are all wrong. We need a "flat tax" or a "consumption tax" about as much as we need an income tax.
Why all these taxes? So you can continue your wars of aggression? How about so you can continue funding the Federal Reserve. I mean, they have to get their interest payments somehow, right?
Look, cut out the income tax and Federal Reserve. (the IRS soon follows of course). You could always impose a new tax on the people, but if you don't want to pay any new tax how about this: CUT BACK OUR SPENDING! Wow, what a novel concept, huh? don't want to spend 1 Trillion dollars a year? Stop the Wars of aggression in Iraq and soon to be Iran. Don't want more gov't? Cut out the DHS, DE, and any other "department" that we don't need.
Don't think this is possible? Wrong again: vote for Ron Paul.
Good day to you
TP, Ron Paul is one man. Th
July 16, 2007 - 13:56 ET by MightyMouthTP, Ron Paul is one man. The system will eat him alive. (literally)
The monster has gotten too big and there aren't enough Knights to slay the dragon. Sad to say...
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Yes, it's unthinkable to cu
July 16, 2007 - 14:02 ET by sarcasmoYes, it's unthinkable to cut back spending to the levels it was at the last year of Bill Clinton (which would allow us to entirely eliminate the IRS). Absolutely UNTHINKABLE! So please, stop trying to think about it, doing so only turns you into "a spammer" when folks have no idea how to respond! ;)
JMR
If you think the IRS will
July 26, 2007 - 04:32 ET by UnsaneIf you think the IRS will ever go away...keep dreaming. But then, I am addressing the biggest idealist on NB.
Say, are you going to buy this week's edition of The Economist? It has an article on your hero. After I read it, I am quite weary of traveling through Brazoria County, which is uncomfortably close to Harris County, IMHO.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Yep, the vaunted "Economist"
July 26, 2007 - 04:42 ET by sarcasmoYep, the vaunted "Economist" flunked Journalism-research 101 in that article by repeatedly calling the good Doctor "Mr." They looked pretty-stupid, too, and I haven't exactly let 'em forget it. :) Oh, and stuff like this is why we're gonna win, and get rid of the IRS by cutting spending back to Clinton's-last-year levels, to boot.
JMR
WWPD?
July 26, 2007 - 04:59 ET by UnsaneIf you ask me, the #1 reason you are screaming The Economist fails Journalism 101 is because they didn't publish a special edition praising your God as the greatest politician America has ever seen. Rather, they exposed him for the flake that he is. Seriously, he is a "gold bug"? I am truly frightened that Lake Jackson is connected to Houston via the South Freeway.
You should explain to me and others how this man, who really should have stuck to being an obstetrician, is going to magically cut spending to FY 2000 levels, AND get rid of the IRS (surprise! You shall ALWAYS have a bureaucracy dedicated to the collection of revenue!), all within his first week or two of office, with 535 roadblocks. Humor me.
And why not do it without posting links? If you believe in him so much, you should be able to articulate his position all on your own.
WWPD?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Nope, not even close. Not
July 26, 2007 - 05:11 ET by sarcasmoNope, not even close. Not researching the fact that he's a Doc is a pretty basic flunkola, buddy, like it or not. It's crappy journalism on the level of asserting Fred Thompson hasn't been an actor (or a lobbyist) along with a politician, only the masthead would be likely to actually note it and go ape-excrement, instead of me busting the bias again singlehandedly. And as President Dr. Paul would have only the unused veto power and a bully pulpit, along with actual-conservative allies in the Congress, like Georgia just elected while flushing a "traditional" big-spender incumbent Republican down the drain in a special election. Sorry!! :)
JMR
WWPD?
July 28, 2007 - 00:26 ET by UnsaneI also read that Paul tripled his poll numbers in The Economist (I am sure that a 164-year old newspaper is just QUAKING over your criticism). Now, I really suck at math, but as the same genius article states that he was consistently polling at 1%, wouldn't his numbers go to 3% if they tripled?
Wow. In that case, we had better just cancel the elections now and declare Paul PFL.
I disagree with the bully pulpit scenario (surprise). Winning the presidency doesn't guarantee anything (why do Libertarians always think that they can just win the presidency and solve everything if they understand the document they claim to understand better than even the Founding Fathers?); ask Bill Clinton, who was quite shocked in his first week of office to find out that no, not everyone was just going to shut up, roll over, and die just because he was president. Oh yes, it should be noted that when he entered office, both chambers of Congress were firmly Democratic.
Say, did you remember to denounce yourself last night for not loving Paul enough? Did you remember to hang a 11X16 portrait of Paul on every wall of your home? And most important of all...
WWPD?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
unsane-- a question---
July 28, 2007 - 01:14 ET by misterbillunsane-- a question---I cannot remember--does Steve Forbes flat tax cover SS/Medicare at 17%.
I recently attended a Fair Tax meeting. It sounded like a good idea. But then, anything sounds better than today's system. Here is one of the questions I asked the Fair Tax presenter-- "How is it possible that everyone pays lower taxes (per his chart) and yet we collect as much at 23% consumption tax as we do via income tax?"
Bear with me on the answer as I may not be quoting him correctly, but roughly, "the study of the amounts of gross sales in the US shows that 23% will be a neutral value. It eliminates non payment of taxes via under the table payments. It also , at 23%, covers SS and Medicare so that everyone is contributing." I did not bother to ask what would happen if we do get more enlightened and want to allow some privatization of SS. He also gave an example of how the loss of the deduction of home ownership was not a factor at 23%. There are some examples of what he discussed on the Fairtax site. So, now, I am in a little confusion. I was pro flat tax before, but now I am not sure which is better. Someone asked him what would happen to the IRS. He said there would always be an IRS, but the numbers would be reduced to 10-15% of today's employees. One person asked him what would happen to all those people let go and his reply was that those that had true accounting experience would find many new jobs open in the private sector since the retailers would be collecting the taxes.
????? What say you?????? I am puzzled.
On the Unfair Tax, other issues
July 28, 2007 - 01:32 ET by UnsaneOne BIG problem I have with what I like to call the "Unfair Tax" is that it disproportionally hits the poorest Americans. (So much for me not caring about the poor!) Not to mention the fact that it is designed to go after consumer spending, which makes up the largest portion of the economy.
I unfortunately cannot remember what the Forbes tax plan did for SocSec/Medicare...but IIRC it did not kick in until $36,000 of income was earned, giving those starting up the pay scale and the poor a bit of a break to start off. The Unfair Tax does not do this. And it exists ON TOP OF state sales taxes, which aren't just going to go away because of the federal government's involvement. So, with a rate of 23% on top of the 7+% Texans pay, that is a sales tax of 30%. No thanks.
Incidentally, I should point out that SocSec Taxes are also horribly regressive, as those making above $90,000 a year or thereabouts do not pay additional money into the system above that point. If you make $180,000 a year, you pay as much as you would making $90,000 a year.
Indeed, I love the idea of a privatized Social Security program myself - especially as I am some decades from retiring. I would much rather divert even a small portion of my SS Taxes to my IRA and watch it make a better return.
The whole idea of "eliminating non payment of taxes via under the table payments" is utter nonsense. Sales can take place between citizens without tax being collected quite easily. Not to mention the Unfair Tax crowd likes to say "Well, this way you can actually tax what criminals make!" Great. So we need this tax to subsidize criminal behavior and make it easier?
I also can only imagine what kind of a black market of non-taxed goods would erupt, and how much petty theft and larceny would increase to supply said black market.
So, what would Unsane do, if king for a day?
- Privatize Social Security AND Medicare/Medicaid, gradually.
- Amend the 16th Amendment so that only 17% of income taxes would be charged with ZERO TINKERING. Why would I put it in the Constitution? To make it much much much harder to tinker with. It is that damned tinkering that has made the tax code maddeningly complex, and the IRS reviled.
- Tack on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution with a proviso for the paydown of the debt over 30-40 years. That way you FORCE the Congress to live within its means. (Imagine the money that will be saved on interest on the debt not being paid!)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
unsane-- good points---
July 28, 2007 - 17:53 ET by misterbill"I also can only imagine what kind of a black market of non-taxed goods would erupt, and how much petty theft and larceny would increase to supply said black market." This was another area I was thinking about. plus bartering would most likely grow.
The privatization would be too late for me, but I would strongly encourage any younger person to go for it. I once did a rough study on what I and my employer had paid into SS. I then figured out year by year growth based on a table with growth in the stock market every year. I simply averaged the years out and applied it year by year to my contributions. I came up with a privatized annual amount that was 1.8 times my SS.
I never said to not cut spend
July 16, 2007 - 15:17 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI never said to not cut spending. The government definitely needs to slash spending. However, the government will still need to collect taxes in order to operate. What is Ron Paul's solution? So far, I haven't heard his solution other than to cut spending. How is he planning to reform our current tax system?
As far as spending goes, National Defense should be well funded, that is the one place we need to increase spending IMO. A strong and able military (that we aren't afraid to use properly--ie. being run by the CINC and his generals rather than politicians) is a great deterrent to other countries messing with us.
All the social programs can be trashed, they are the biggest drain on our tax dollars. HUD, BATFE, EPA, BIA, DEA, NASA, etc, etc, etc. (take your pick from this list) can also be decommissioned to reduce spending.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson
He goes into that subject o
July 16, 2007 - 15:39 ET by sarcasmoHe goes into that subject on various YouTube videos (which can be easily found via Google) whether or not the news media has ever bothered to cover the story. Ron also discusses the subject, among others, in his excellent talk TO Google. Briefly the Federal Income tax IS NOT the only revenue source for the federal government, the country somehow not only "got by" but became a world leading country WITHOUT it, and going back to no income tax would IMO cause such an unexpectedly large economic boom that we might not even see the fall of the now-only-paper dollar which would otherwise happen, if only because the Euro is such toilet paper and they're attacking gold as I've already repeatedly-said. (But note, IMO Ambrose -- while correct for now -- won't be right for as long as he forecasts about the dollar, because eventually inflation always comes.)
JMR
Though the United States
July 22, 2007 - 21:46 ET by UnsaneThough the United States premiered as a player on the world stage in 1898, for some reason it still managed to reach greater heights since 1916. I may be wrong, but the United States has managed to survive, and indeed thrive, with an income tax.
Can ANYONE here name a single nation that derives ALL of its income from a sales tax?
One more thing to bear in mind, sarc, is that you are conveniently forgetting that a major source of U.S. government income for much of the first two centuries of its existence were tariffs. I can't imagine that you are a protectionist, aching to bring back tariffs...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Uh, tariffs still exist,
July 28, 2007 - 03:31 ET by sarcasmoUh, tariffs still exist, there's nothing gone to "bring back." See the videos above for why they're NOT "conveniently" forgotten. We know our history, like it or not you're not the only one here, and you're often wrong -- as now...
JMR
Good enough for me! I Am
July 29, 2007 - 00:00 ET by UnsaneGood enough for me! I Am Always Wrong Because Sarcasmo Says So.
You moronic egomaniac.
With the increasing amount of free trade agreements we have, the amount of money the government gets from tariffs is LOWER than earlier in history. As you are so fond of saying, "the tongs are your friend." Swallow this rat: how did the government primarily get its money before the income tax? TARIFFS. Is that the case in 2007. NO. Throw your little hissy and scream all you want about how I am wrong I am, how full of crap I am as usual, or your other immature pre-teen antics, but here's three words of advice for you, little boy: DEAL WITH IT.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
sarc...agreed in principle
July 16, 2007 - 15:48 ET by LionKingObviously, I would like to eliminate much of what the Fed spends. Too many entitlements...removal of the income tax would be the start of a major economic boom...even if there was a consumption tax.
[Be careful not to mention tariffs unless you want to be called a protectionist.]
Protectionism is a very bad
July 22, 2007 - 21:41 ET by UnsaneProtectionism is a very bad thing. I like it when companies compete to build the better mousetrap. And that means that American corporations cannot be permitted to lead sheltered lives.
I bought five three-piece suits, tailored to my specifications, in Korea for $1000. Don't even ask what they would cost in the United States. I am guessing five times as much from what I have seen. If I can get the product cheaper there, why not?
Not to mention that there are simply some things that cannot be made/grown in the United States. I like getting my bananas for 99 cents a pound because many banana growers in different nations are beating each other up (for example).
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.