Irwin Schiff was correct in terms of his interpretation of the law. I don't know what his motivation was in terms of drawing attention to those issues as he must have known that U.S. authorities are indifferent to such arguments. In any case he was a completely innocent man whom our totalitarian government retaliated against for spreading his political views.
test
First things first: 8/10 for the OP--I think that's my highest grade in years. Kids, *this* is how you troll. I might have gone even higher (and may still--this thread might have legs) were it not for the nudge-nudge-wink-wink of the OP's moniker.
Second, and more seriously (because some posts on this thread appear to be serious): black-letter statutes and treaties are NOT the whole of "the law." U.S. law also comprises the Constitution and court decisions, especially decisions by the Supreme Court--whose province (Marbury v. Madison) is to say what the law *is*.
SCOTUS has consistently upheld the constitutionality of individual income taxation, and so have other courts. That means that there IS "law" requiring Americans to pay income tax.
We don't have to *like* the law, and may want to change it--but individual income taxation IS the law.
Rater of trollage wrote:
First things first: 8/10 for the OP--I think that's my highest grade in years. Kids, *this* is how you troll. I might have gone even higher (and may still--this thread might have legs) were it not for the nudge-nudge-wink-wink of the OP's moniker.
Second, and more seriously (because some posts on this thread appear to be serious): black-letter statutes and treaties are NOT the whole of "the law." U.S. law also comprises the Constitution and court decisions, especially decisions by the Supreme Court--whose province (Marbury v. Madison) is to say what the law *is*.
SCOTUS has consistently upheld the constitutionality of individual income taxation, and so have other courts. That means that there IS "law" requiring Americans to pay income tax.
We don't have to *like* the law, and may want to change it--but individual income taxation IS the law.
Wow, you sound so, like authoritative and shit! Ooooh!!!
Ok, i like everyone else don't like taxes and i think collective voluntary contributions should be sufficient for solving practically all shared problems. However we are pretty much stuck in the current tax system as it is going to take nothing short of a revolution to reform it.
So my question is this: Can you earn little enough to not pay taxes and get away with it? Obviously if you have lots of money and assets, the IRS will come after you and it will be worth their while. But what about somebody who lives dirt cheap (relatively speaking), like say under 10 grand income annually? That of course raises other questions like where do you live for that cheap, but assuming you could pull it off surely the IRS can't afford to chase you down if you are worth so little...
Rater of trollage wrote:
First things first: 8/10 for the OP--I think that's my highest grade in years. Kids, *this* is how you troll. I might have gone even higher (and may still--this thread might have legs) were it not for the nudge-nudge-wink-wink of the OP's moniker.
I agree. Whoever's behind the OP must be a genius.
truely millennial wrote:
Ok, i like everyone else don't like taxes and i think collective voluntary contributions should be sufficient for solving practically all shared problems. However we are pretty much stuck in the current tax system as it is going to take nothing short of a revolution to reform it.
So my question is this: Can you earn little enough to not pay taxes and get away with it? Obviously if you have lots of money and assets, the IRS will come after you and it will be worth their while. But what about somebody who lives dirt cheap (relatively speaking), like say under 10 grand income annually? That of course raises other questions like where do you live for that cheap, but assuming you could pull it off surely the IRS can't afford to chase you down if you are worth so little...
I am curious how people expect voluntary contributions to work out. Do you really think enough people would give up enough money? or would they be forced for their highways to crumble before theyre convinced??
truly curious wrote:
I am curious how people expect voluntary contributions to work out. Do you really think enough people would give up enough money?
Ever seen how much money churches collect in the offering plate?
truly curious wrote:
I am curious how people expect voluntary contributions to work out. Do you really think enough people would give up enough money?
It is a matter of supply and demand. If there are people who want to travel via highway bad enough, then they will find a way to make it happen.
When taxes are minimized is that the burden of cost for a government service shifts from being distributed among everyone to only those individuals that use the service. Why should i have to pay for highway that i dont use? Things would be a bit different this way, but I'd argue that they would be for the better from an efficiency standpoint. If there isn't the demand for something to be produced, why produce it? Of course politicians need something to boast on their resume...
Also i just dislike taxes from a philosophical standpoint. It seems unjust to be unavoidably opted in to living by legal conditions that you didn't agree to.
krispy kremlin_. wrote:
I'd guess all these "pay your fair share for the greater good" liberals would realize just how much they actually are paying and we'd quickly reassess the size and cost of the government.
Actually probably not. Liberals who want higher taxes generally fall into one of two categories:
1) the ones that don't pay any taxes or don't work in the first place, who are on the receiving end of welfare.
and 2) the rich hollywood millionaires who publicly say they want more taxes to help the poor, but then relocate their movies to avoid taxes, move money overseas to avoid taxes, and make outrageous "business expenses" claims to cut taxable income, or just outright refuse to pay them (hello al sharpton). These kind will publicly argue for higher taxes and say they "don't mind paying their fair share" while privately doing everything possible to avoid paying them, and end up paying a lower overall tax rate than their secretaries (talking about you, warren buffet).
Of everyone, Warren Buffett is probably the biggest hypocrite of all of them. He writes NY Times op-eds about how the rich should pay more taxes. Then the company that he owns a majority of (coca cola) was found last month to have underreported sales in 2007-2009, and the IRS wants 3.3 billion from Coca cola now in back taxes. Mr. Buffett, you enjoy paying your fair share right? Not so fast! That's only for the working-stiffs who make just enough money to be taxed at 40%, but not enough to pay someone a few million to find tax loopholes. The hypocrisy of the american left is never-ending. Of course it's there on the right too, but not to the same extent.
4/10 Teabaggers are funnier and less smug.
"It is a matter of supply and demand. If there are people who want to travel via highway bad enough, then they will find a way to make it happen."
Yes, and they have found a way throughout history to make it happen. By paying taxes.
" Why should i have to pay for highway that i dont use?
Maybe you don't personally use it, but maybe the trucks that deliver things you need and or like to buy do - either in your immediate vicinity, or where the goods are manufactured or grown, etc. Or maybe an ambulance taking you to the hospital to save your life might use that highway that you don't.
jamin wrote:
Rater of trollage wrote:First things first: 8/10 for the OP--I think that's my highest grade in years. Kids, *this* is how you troll. I might have gone even higher (and may still--this thread might have legs) were it not for the nudge-nudge-wink-wink of the OP's moniker.
I agree. Whoever's behind the OP must be a genius.
Is the income tax a zero sum game?
anapaix wrote:
krispy kremlin_. wrote:I'd guess all these "pay your fair share for the greater good" liberals would realize just how much they actually are paying and we'd quickly reassess the size and cost of the government.
Of everyone, Warren Buffett is probably the biggest hypocrite of all of them. He writes NY Times op-eds about how the rich should pay more taxes. Then the company that he owns a majority of (coca cola) was found last month to have underreported sales in 2007-2009, and the IRS wants 3.3 billion from Coca cola now in back taxes. Mr. Buffett, you enjoy paying your fair share right? Not so fast! That's only for the working-stiffs who make just enough money to be taxed at 40%, but not enough to pay someone a few million to find tax loopholes. The hypocrisy of the american left is never-ending. Of course it's there on the right too, but not to the same extent.
This is a joke, right? Do you know anything about the business world?
That guy doesn't pay income taxes. Epic justice porn.
jamin wrote:
truly curious wrote:
I am curious how people expect voluntary contributions to work out. Do you really think enough people would give up enough money?
Ever seen how much money churches collect in the offering plate?
Yeah, get back to me when highway construction projects involve an omnipotent supernatural being which decides the fate of your everlasting soul.
Yes Op, and there is no real law about speed limits, zoning restrictions, and you really don't have to pay for gas, just take it and drive away.
truly curious wrote:
truely millennial wrote:Ok, i like everyone else don't like taxes and i think collective voluntary contributions should be sufficient for solving practically all shared problems. However we are pretty much stuck in the current tax system as it is going to take nothing short of a revolution to reform it.
So my question is this: Can you earn little enough to not pay taxes and get away with it? Obviously if you have lots of money and assets, the IRS will come after you and it will be worth their while. But what about somebody who lives dirt cheap (relatively speaking), like say under 10 grand income annually? That of course raises other questions like where do you live for that cheap, but assuming you could pull it off surely the IRS can't afford to chase you down if you are worth so little...
I am curious how people expect voluntary contributions to work out. Do you really think enough people would give up enough money? or would they be forced for their highways to crumble before theyre convinced??
Check out Walter Block's work:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Privatization-Roads-Highways-Economic/dp/193355004Xhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUA4h8ctNWMHow things get done wrote:
"It is a matter of supply and demand. If there are people who want to travel via highway bad enough, then they will find a way to make it happen."
Yes, and they have found a way throughout history to make it happen. By paying taxes."
Yes, I realize that the majority of people are just not as extreme in their view on taxes as i am. But i guess my point is that private solutions are inherently no less feasible than public ones given that people believed that they could be. People seem to grow up with all these things that tax money funds and then think that because they are tax funded that is how it should be done. I'm just calling bull on that.
" Why should i have to pay for highway that i dont use?
Maybe you don't personally use it, but maybe the trucks that deliver things you need and or like to buy do - either in your immediate vicinity, or where the goods are manufactured or grown, etc. Or maybe an ambulance taking you to the hospital to save your life might use that highway that you don't.
Good point. However, in those cases I would prefer to see that cost of the highway reflected in the specific goods I buy and the hospital bill I receive. That you might use a public something at sometime does not warrent forcing you to pay a flat rate for it just to be there ready for you in my mind. Pay for what you use, when you use it. It is just more efficient and fair that way.
The law requiring Americans to pay income tax can be found here:
http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/NoLaw.htm
A rundown of many other wrong arguments about income tax and responses to them can be found here: