Quantcast

Tax dodgers taunt police from hilltop compound

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Matt King, Jun 21, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    Bart - I did not know that this was a payroll Tax issue. I thought that this was an income tax issue. I am sure you are well aware that the Supreme Court found that there is no responsibility of the government to send those taxes to those ''special'' programs.
     
  2. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    And therein lies the problem ... :uhoh:
     
  3. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    The IRS isn't a federal department because it is a subsection OF a federal department (The Deparment of Treasury). It is in the Federal Register just like any other federal agency.

    Congress does write and pass the tax code into law on a regular basis. The current tax code was completely rewritten and passed by Congress in 1986 (thus the whole Internal Revenue Code of 1986 thing). You can look on Thomas now and see literally hundreds of proposals to further amend it. If you are suggesting that Congress does not control the tax code, then you are simply misinformed.

    Second, any tax case CAN go to federal court. Tax court is simply an administrative court that is there to speed up the process. There is no requirement that you use it. There are dozens of agencies that use administrative courts - Immigration, EPA, FDA, etc. these are very common and all part of Congress's power to establish courts and jurisdiction.

    Ad hominems on the person who authored the site aside, perhaps you would like to address the arguments he made and explain why they do not hold up?

    Congress can modify the tax code because the Consitution gives them the power to collect taxes and the 16th Amendment gives them the additional power to levy a non-apportioned tax. This does not mean that Congress can rewrite the 16th Amendment by itself though.

    Modifying a law is different than modifying an Amendment to the original Bill of Rights. The THR Library has a link describing the legislative process if you would like more information on the subject.

    Your quote said ALL TAXES... so it was a bit vague; but even without that, payroll taxes are very much a part of the income tax from a practical perspective and it strikes me as showing only part of the picture to discuss what portion of the income tax the wealthy pay without ever mentioning the much larger burden in payroll taxes borne by the middle class.
     
  4. Warbow

    Warbow Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Messages:
    611
    Location:
    Central Texas
    They did. The US tax code is law, passed by Congress and signed by the President.

    Edit: Heh, posted at the same time as Bartholomew above.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2007
  5. Matt King

    Matt King Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,151
    Location:
    USA
    And that is?
     
  6. Cel

    Cel Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    204
    Geez..

    Bart-You're right I should have chose my words better. They can modify the law so that it is not necessarily in agreement with the amendment. Remember the AWB? As many people have asked in the past, "What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand"? My point is why should they be selectively able to modify what they want to modify? As someone pointed out, this country did fine without an income tax for years. Income was not originally defined as the money you make from the work you performed. If it is legal it is legal. If it is not then it is not. However, we should be looking at the WHY'S of such legislation and is everything that the government does really in OUR, the people's, best interest. (A lot of times, it doesn't seem like it)

    Bart-your own quote "The price good men pay for indifference to politics is to be ruled by worse men" - Plato

    Like I said in an earlier post, this is a great discussion and we can all learn.
     
  7. DMF

    DMF Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,247
    Location:
    Nomad
    I wonder if commodities traders ever follow these discussions. If so I'm sure the price of aluminum will spike soon.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    Texas, you really should not have said that....
     
  9. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    Well, yes and no, sorta ... IIRC, in order to get a tax case into federal district court, you must first pay the disputed amount and then sue for a refund.

    *****

    Texas, your own namesake state was once a free and independent republic, that joined the union of "united States". I'm not aware of any constitutional amendement that officially disolved the individual states and made them provinces or territories of the national government (though the states have been in effect pretty much gelded over the years). For instance, state governors are elected by the people of the individual state, not appointed by the US President.

    And if states are part of the US government, why can I not buy a handgun legally in any state of the "union" - but must be a resident/citizen of a particular state?
     
  10. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    Bart- Of course the middle class pays a bigger percentage of payroll taxes. But the rich still pay more per person. These are as close to flat tax as we will ever come in this country.
     
  11. Matt King

    Matt King Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,151
    Location:
    USA
    You make valid points, however don't you agree that the state governments work together with the federal government to run the country? In my view, that makes them a part of the United State's government. A confederacy of bureaucracies if you will.
     
  12. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    Texas- I don't agree. Maybe some states like NY and CA try, but they should not and are often stopped.
     
  13. tyme

    tyme Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,550
    Location:
    Novalis
    We have representation, but it's institutionalized, corrupt representation.
     
  14. Matt King

    Matt King Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,151
    Location:
    USA
    I didn't say that they should, I said that they do. State law doesn't overrule federal law.
     
  15. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
  16. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    Some of them, like New York and California, try to run the whole country. :(

    Others, like Montana and Wyoming, don't play well with others. :p
     
  17. Soybomb

    Soybomb Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    3,959
    What is with THR lately? Why do you want to see men killed for this? You have people who have had a trial by jury convicted of breaking the law that are refusing to serve their sentences. Why would you want LEOs to be killed trying to do the job you pay them to do? If you have a problem with the law, then change it. Would you cheer for the death of cops trying to take a drug dealer to jail?
     
  18. helpless

    helpless Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    Messages:
    770
    None of the above are paid for by the income tax, nice try.

    No I will not. You are just grasping here man. Give it a rest.
     
  19. Kentak

    Kentak Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,468
    Location:
    Ohio
    Apparently, a guy is a JBT when he's enforcing a law one doesn't agree with, and a guardian of proper society when he's enforcing a law one agrees with.

    K
     
  20. helpless

    helpless Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    Messages:
    770
    No one wants to see any innocent people killed but "Just following orders" is not going to cut it.

    These people are not drug dealers. so give it up.
     
  21. helpless

    helpless Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    Messages:
    770
    "JBT" Jack Booted Thug?

    From Urban Dictionary...
    I have to say that you are half right. Replace "one does not agree with" with "that is unconstitutional"
     
  22. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    Helpless- Roads are paid in substantial part by federal tax dollars. The military is paid for entirely by federal tax dollars. Many of the others are supported wholly or in part by federal tax dollars. Think before you post or at least educate yourself.
     
  23. helpless

    helpless Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    Messages:
    770
    But none are paid with Federal Income Tax.
     
  24. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    Yes they are. If you are that helpless I can not help you.
     
  25. Matt King

    Matt King Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,151
    Location:
    USA
    This is true, however if the federal gov. enacts a law, the states have to follow it. The states are free to make their own laws, but none can conflict with federal law.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice