I am home from work. I am gradually making my way through the replies on things I've received over the past day or two. I may get to that long one from you tonight or maybe tomorrow. But, as for this question ... ... it is by consent. I accept it as legal; that is, I agree to its authority to structure the country I live in. That's basically it in its essence. Seth
Seth, to remind everybody, there was one heck of a very long war over that document. I wonder what Gen. Washington's income taxes amounted to? Anybody have data on his taxes? Jefferson ended up in poverty. Could be from paying taxes. I advise people to visit both homes if they are in VA.
Lucky you ... I'm tellin' ya, Robert, this is not a bad place to live up here. Just sayin ... OK, it rains a lot. Our state plant is moss .... Our major universities are "Ducks" and "Beavers". Windshield wipers are never on sale. People here rarely use umbrellas, but hats and gortex are big ... When we do get California-like weather it lasts for about 4 weeks, and people complain about it. When warm weather makes them sweat, they "feel icky".
I'm pretty sure that's the essence of legality. If some critical mass of people believe a thing to be illegal, it is, otherwise, it is not. But that doesn't amount to consent for everyone. Many yield to avoid injury or death, while not granting consent which is permission and can only be given voluntarily.
oh, I get it now. You were simply telling everybody how progressive taxation works. You weren't really approving of them, or your lower rate compared to others
I enjoy amusing posts. Ed, a good friend of mine lives in Oregon and runs his businesses from there and races too. This engine has only 122 cu in. or a tad less than 2 liters. Pay attention to top speed and the elapsed time. Speeds like this once took over 2,000 hp to achieve. [video=youtube;av0JCDBtJ1Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av0JCDBtJ1Y[/video]
Your entire posting strategy is to make fallacious allegations about other posters even though they have not posted what you allege. That is nothing but baiting and taunting IMO. I post facts and state positions but I am not emotionally invested in them so I can't be baited. This nation was not incurring massive deficits until Republicans began cutting taxes for the 1%. That is documented fact. Unless those progressive rates of taxation are reintroduced, and measures taken to bring down the debt, this nation will continue to experience these same problems for the foreseeable future. That is another statement of fact. If you persist in egregiously accusing me of things I have not posted your subsequent responses will be given all of the consideration that they are due, namely none whatsoever. Have a nice day!
You gonna run away because you can't defend freeloading? I'd expect that. You boys are all the same. You can come up with a thousand justifications "for the good of the country", and they always involve others chipping in more than you.
If my taxes pay for police, nice roads, and a good school - that's not theft, that's an investment. If my taxes pay for some fat pig to eat donuts, then that's theft that leads to diabeetus.
Freeloaders are always unwilling to address their grubbring ways. They like to point fingers at other people's grubbing ways, but come up with a thousand reasons in defense of their own. There is no defense for demanding that others pay a higher rate than you. It is morally reprehensible, no matter the number of common good arguments you can think of in defense of your personal greed
Yes, obviously it is. The government,without asking, pulls x% of your salary to pay for their and other people's crap. If that is not theft, I don't know what is.
Your ignorance of how progressive taxation works is not my problem. http://blog.taxact.com/how-tax-brackets-work/
The income tax per se is not theft but the manner in which the income tax system is applied by the US government violates the Bill of Rights (4th, 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments) and the 13th and 14th Amendments in many ways and is theft. There is no provision in the Constitution that grants the US government the power or authority to violate or bypass the Bill of Rights or other provisions in the Constitution in order to "collect" taxes. "Everything Hitler did was legal" - Martin Luther King Jr.
Wow, who'd a thunk it? Progressive tax rates increase with increasing income? And,........ you defend being subsidized by those forced to pay higher rates than you. Morally indefensible to demand others pay more than you. I don't care how many greater good arguments you can think up. You demand and defend your subsidy and cry about other people's. You have no leg to stand on in that argument. Your greed opens the door for theirs. Exactly what the elite who write the tax codes knew you would do. If you would simply support equal treatment for all under the law, we wouldn't have these problems. Petty jealousy of the lower classes allows the upper crust to rape everyone by decree.
For starts the average man cannot understand it. Then there is the matter of how its appliedhttps://onenewsnow.com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2014/04/15/16th-amendment-irs-has-no-legal-authority-to-tax-your-wages-or-salary Profits are to be taxed not labor. You make no profit from your labor
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. Doesn't say anything about profits or labor. It states income. Is not unconstitutional. Do you even know what amendments do
I voted Yes. Income taxation is theft. It's also immoral. Explanation: Income taxation presumes that the government has a higher claim on our property than we do. It presupposes that the government owns us, owns all of our income, and that the government provides the conditions upon which we are allowed to keep a certain percentage. If I'm at home one night and someone knocks on my door and points a gun at me demanding me to hand over my money because they've seen that I have it and have decided that they want it because they want to give it to someone else in my name name, is that not theft? It absolutely is.
It's theft because it's already taxed. Corporate entities pay taxes, they then pay salaries and bonuses and whatnot with their own already taxed income. Nationalized sales tax is the way to go, with an increase in "commodity" items, like 2nd homes, 3rd + vehicles, high cost vehicles, etc.
Okay. While the average income is less, the Cost-of-Living is also less. For example, should you take a job that pays $100,000 in White Plains, New Jersey, or take the same job that pays $58,000 in Cincinnati, Ohio? The job in Ohio actually pays more, because the Cost-of-Living is lower. The Cost-of-Living is lower in "poorer" States. In Mississippi, it only takes $6,000 to live the life of someone in California earning $26,000. States could set up schemes to swap credits, or grant reciprocal credit for time worked and monies paid. Or you can just collect 4 separate retirement checks.
Okay, I see the logic. But "I" or "you" are just two people. We are a country of 330,000,000, and we are very mobile. I have only earned money in 4 states in my lifetime, which is really very few. Many people have earned money in by far more states in their lifetimes. It seems to me that the bureaucratic effort to pay someone who had earned money in multiple states in their lifetime, multiplied by hundreds of millions of people, would be terribly inefficient compared to just having one agency do it.
Mobility is not necessarily a good thing. Too much mobility invites instability and chaos. There's already gross inefficiency in the federal government's one-size-fits-all programs. 1] Two families of four, each receiving $400/month in Food Stamps. The problem is that $400 buys.... $578.13 worth of food in Cincinnati. $210.23 worth of food in San Fransisco ....due to the differences in Cost-of Living and Purchasing Power. Is that fair and equitable? 2] Two single retirees, each receiving $1,100/month in Social Security Disability or Retirement. The problem is that $1,100/month equals $2092.95 per month in Cincinnati $761.07 per month in San Fransisco Again, Cost-of Living and Purchasing Power cause those very real differences. Is that fair and equitable? 3] Presently, a minimum wage workers pays $96/month in FICA payroll to receive $763/month in Social Security benefits. Returning Social Security back to the States -- and 35 States had social security programs before FDR nationalized them, and allowing the States to privatize it as Old Age & Survivors Insurance program as private insurance...which has nothing to do with Wall Street or Bankers or 401(k) Plans would result in a minimum wage worker paying ~$40/month in OASI premiums and getting $1,600/month in benefits. 4] A single woman in Indiana earning $16/hour does qualify for HUD Section 8 subsidized housing at tax-payer expense, while a single man in Connecticut earning $26.75/hour --- $53,490 annually -- gets his rent subsidized under HUD Section 8 by tax-payers. At the same time, some single guy earning $7.25/hour in Monroe County, Mississippi makes too much money to have tax-payers pay his rent, but he has to pay taxes so some joker earning $26.75/hour can have his rent paid by tax-payers. Is that fair and equitable? 5] When the 50 States all had their own Disability Programs before Eisenhower nationalized them under Social Security Disability Insurance, the States paid Total Temporary Disability as well as Partial Total Disability and Partial Temporary Disability. What do you do when your temporarily totally disabled due to a non-work related accident, such as an auto accident? You're not covered by anything specific, save for your auto insurance. Note that Social Security Disability does not pay such benefits. Americans were actually better off under the State Disability Programs. Your concerns about bureaucratic inefficiency might be justified in pre-1970s America, before everything was computer automated, but not in the present. The only real hassle would be for the individual in managing and collecting retirement payments from more than one State.
Why complicate this thread with the FICA tax? I agree it needs attention but since it is a separate revenue stream it would make sense to discuss it on its own. Relative to the 'income tax' I tend to agree some/lots with both Mircea and Seth Bullock. It is my opinion that States should be held totally responsible for the funding of ALL aid provided to citizens living legally/undocumented in their respective States with NO redistribution of Federal government acquired revenue. Repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments along with with giving back the responsibility to each State to provide for the needs and care of their inhabitants would make it quite easy to balance the Federal budget, AND would give the working taxpayers in each State reason to hold not only those elected to local and State government but also those elected to serve as their and their States representatives in Federal government feet to the fire in keeping the cost of all government affordable.
