Federal Income Tax. You Pick the Rate.

I've read the information on that link before. However, he fails to explain how about 3 to 4 people per year beat the IRS in tax cases (and maybe 8 or 9 this year since most of Obama's Cabinet members don't pay their taxes). And I may not have articulated the creation of money very well, so here's a link that provides more information: End The Federal Reserve Bank - Sound Money For America!

The main idea that the Federal Reserve is no more of a federal agency that Federal Express is ridiculous. It explicitly says in the Constitution that it is the government's right alone to create the money supply. We made an unconstitutional ammendment to the Consitution, and we need to rectify our error. JFK tried it with Executive Order 111001 (or something like that) before he was killed and LBJ never pursued it further. Now Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and other people are trying to pass H.R. 855 but it will never get passed.

Lastly, yes people still desire US dollars for now, for some reason. But what happens when we print too many dollars and other countries don't want to take it anymore? Then what do we do?

SicSemperTyrannis said:

I've read the information on that link before. However, he fails to explain how about 3 to 4 people per year beat the IRS in tax cases (and maybe 8 or 9 this year since most of Obama's Cabinet members don't pay their taxes).

Click to expand...

Yes he does.

Another frequent protestor mistake is misunderstanding the result of criminal cases. Tax protestors will point out that, on rare occasions, protestors prosecuted for income tax crimes are acquitted. Protestors cite these cases as though they prove the defendants' tax protestor theories were correct.

Of course such cases prove nothing of the kind. As explained in detail here, a special rule applies to criminal tax cases: the government must prove, not only that the defendant owed taxes and failed to pay, but that the defendant knew he or she was breaking the tax laws. Therefore, if the defendant truly believed that he or she didn't owe any taxes, the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged, even if the basis of the defendant's belief was a crazy tax protestor theory. This doesn't prove that the protestor theory is correct, but only that the defendant believed it. (Or rather, that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant didn't believe it.)

Click to expand...

And I may not have articulated the creation of money very well, so here's a link that provides more information: End The Federal Reserve Bank - Sound Money For America!

Click to expand...

Its not that it wasn't articulated clearly, it's that it was just plain wrong. You can't eliminate debt simply by saying "oh, it's owed to the actual government now, not the fed."

Lastly, yes people still desire US dollars for now, for some reason. But what happens when we print too many dollars and other countries don't want to take it anymore? Then what do we do?

Click to expand...

What happens if people decide they don't want gold anymore? Then what do we do?

rivrrat said:

Flat tax, 10% or less if it must be income tax. Everyone pays their fair share and fair share is equal percentage for all. No discrimination. And none of this riding on the backs of others bull****.

Click to expand...

That many require and have to pay for professional hand holders to deal with government about our money is perverse.

What's worse is if we slip, we get torched.
If a Cabinet nominee knowingly skirts the law, he is praised and gets appointed.
Geithner should be sharing a cell with Madoff for 6 to 12 months.

We should be able to pay our taxes on a form no larger than a beer mat... and knowing Washington, the text on the Beer Mat form cannot be made any smaller than Times New Roman 14pt.

The point I was trying to make is why do we owe debt to anyone?? That was exactly the point our Founding Fathers were trying to make. That's why there was so much opposition to a central bank historically in this country. Why did Kennedy eliminate the Fed through executive order then? The Constitution specifically gave the power to coin money to the government alone, not to a central bank. Franklin said one of the primary reasons for the Revolution is that Britain made the Colonies take bank notes from the central bank of England, putting them deep into debt. We need a debt free currency, that's how we eliminate the natural debt. It's not a federal agency!!! That's ridiculous that a private corporation is in charge of our money. Of course they would want a debt-based currency, then they always have power because we always owe them something. It's a ridiculously stupid way of creating currency.

And for the record, gold has had intrinsic value and has been desired since the ancient Egyptian empire, maybe even before that. Our dollar has been around in its current state since 1971. I think I'll take my bet on gold lasting longer in value than the dollar. Just throwing that out there.

SicSemperTyrannis said:

The point I was trying to make is why do we owe debt to anyone??

Click to expand...

Because we choose to borrow.

That was exactly the point our Founding Fathers were trying to make.

Click to expand...

Link? We had debt at the founding of the country,

Why did Kennedy eliminate the Fed through executive order then?

Click to expand...

Link?

The Constitution specifically gave the power to coin money to the government alone, not to a central bank.

Click to expand...

The government does print money.

Who prints money in USA? - Blurtit

It's not a federal agency!!! That's ridiculous that a private corporation is in charge of our money.

Click to expand...

You keep on talking that the Fed is a private corporation. This is a complete misunderstanding of how the Fed works. The fed is a quasi-public institution.

Of course they would want a debt-based currency, then they always have power because we always owe them something.

Click to expand...

THE FED IS NOT OWED ANYTHING. THE TREASURY HOLDS THE DEBT.

And for the record, gold has had intrinsic value and has been desired since the ancient Egyptian empire, maybe even before that. Our dollar has been around in its current state since 1971.

Click to expand...

Lol, no.

I think I'll take my bet on gold lasting longer in value than the dollar. Just throwing that out there.

Click to expand...

If the global economy ever collapses to the point that the US dollar is worthless, gold won't do much either.

0%. Where's the poll option for no income tax?

Ok, the Fed doesn't physically print the money, but they dictate its distribution, the interest rate, and how much banks must keep as their reserves. They also tell what, when, and how much to print. It's called fractional reserve banking. The Fed is not a "quasi-public" institution. Show me a link for that one. It is entirely private. The president appoints the front man, but that's it. They are not a government entity. They have also never been audited but the IRS and they don't pay taxes. They are a PRIVATE INSTITUTION. And by the way, blurtit (like wikipedia) doesn't count. Here's a link about Dennis Kucinich, one of the many politicians that questions the constitutionality of our money system. newswithdrawal.com KUCINICH: destroy the federal reserve

And here's a link of Kennedy's executive order mandating that the issue of silver certificates backed by silver bullions is doen through the Treasury, not the Federal Reserve: John-F-Kennedy.net - JFK, The Federal Reserve And Executive Order 11110 by Cedric X ...ever wonder why JFK is on the silver dollar?

So you're telling me that gold hasn't been desired or sought after or used as currency for thousands of years? Then you have a complete and total lack of awareness of history. This continent was settled because of gold. Columbus wanted to find a trade route to East Asia to trade for spices, silk, and gold. Cortes and the other Conquistadors who conquered Latin American were lured by gold. When the three wise men brought Jesus gifts, it was frankenscense, myrrh, and gold. Gold will always have value, unless all of a sudden 6 billion people get together and decide they wouldn't want to have gold anymore. That's not very likely. Gold will continue to have value long after our fiat money is gone.

Cortes and the other Conquistadors who conquered Latin American were lured by gold.

Click to expand...

How ironic that you mention this. You do realize that Spain destroyed its own currency by mining to much gold and causing hyper inflation?

Currency is nothing more than the faith people put into. Paper, gold, cotton candy it really doesn't matter what you pick. People will put more value in money the less of it there is and vice versa. Picking gold just means that its value will change at the whim of a market. The reason we abandoned the gold standard was that even a stupid person can make better choices about money supply for our country than a completely impersonal market force.

zimmer said:

What do you consider a "fair" rate of taxation.
Flat Tax or Consumption Tax.
Same rate for all.

No graduated taxation in this poll.

Click to expand...

The government should go get a job and leave me alone.

If anything, the government owes ME money for helping it's economy.

SicSemperTyrannis said:

Ok, the Fed doesn't physically print the money, but they dictate its distribution, the interest rate, and how much banks must keep as their reserves. They also tell what, when, and how much to print. It's called fractional reserve banking. The Fed is not a "quasi-public" institution. Show me a link for that one. It is entirely private. The president appoints the front man, but that's it. They are not a government entity. They have also never been audited but the IRS and they don't pay taxes. They are a PRIVATE INSTITUTION. And by the way, blurtit (like wikipedia) doesn't count. Here's a link about Dennis Kucinich, one of the many politicians that questions the constitutionality of our money system. newswithdrawal.com KUCINICH: destroy the federal reserve

And here's a link of Kennedy's executive order mandating that the issue of silver certificates backed by silver bullions is doen through the Treasury, not the Federal Reserve: John-F-Kennedy.net - JFK, The Federal Reserve And Executive Order 11110 by Cedric X ...ever wonder why JFK is on the silver dollar?

So you're telling me that gold hasn't been desired or sought after or used as currency for thousands of years? Then you have a complete and total lack of awareness of history. This continent was settled because of gold. Columbus wanted to find a trade route to East Asia to trade for spices, silk, and gold. Cortes and the other Conquistadors who conquered Latin American were lured by gold. When the three wise men brought Jesus gifts, it was frankenscense, myrrh, and gold. Gold will always have value, unless all of a sudden 6 billion people get together and decide they wouldn't want to have gold anymore. That's not very likely. Gold will continue to have value long after our fiat money is gone.

Click to expand...

Gold is the Snuggie of investmints.

rathi said:

A flat 10% isn't enough. Even if you only payed for things explicitly required in the constitution, like the military and the census and interest payment on the debt, it still wouldn't be enough. Taxes need to reflect spending, and its impossible to cut spending to the levels needed to sustain a 10% tax rate unless you truly gutted the military.

Click to expand...

Keep the military.... gut the government. (keep your priorities straight)

rathi said:

A flat 10% isn't enough. Even if you only payed for things explicitly required in the constitution, like the military and the census and interest payment on the debt, it still wouldn't be enough. Taxes need to reflect spending, and its impossible to cut spending to the levels needed to sustain a 10% tax rate unless you truly gutted the military.

Click to expand...

NO!

That's bass ackwards.

You don't base your household budget on what you spend, you base it on what you make and live below your means.

I would be willing to pay 25% to federal and 10-15% to state if they got rid of all the other incidental taxes except for property tax, which would have to be kept below 7%.

Keep the military.... gut the government. (keep your priorities straight)

Click to expand...

You don't get it. A 10% income tax wouldn't be enough to pay for our military+interest on the debt even if you cut every single other government program in existence. You can't have a a military as strong as our current one with a 10% income tax, period.

NO!

That's bass ackwards.

You don't base your household budget on what you spend, you base it on what you make and live below your means.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean anything by the order I put it in, my point was that they need to be equal. The revenue needs to match spending, by one means or another.

rathi said:

The revenue needs to match spending, by one means or another.

Click to expand...

That's the only thing Liberals and Conservatives agree on.

Where there's disagreement is rather there should be little tax and little spending or lots of tax and lots of spending.

rathi said:

You don't get it. A 10% income tax wouldn't be enough to pay for our military+interest on the debt even if you cut every single other government program in existence. You can't have a a military as strong as our current one with a 10% income tax, period. .

Click to expand...

I don't have hard numbers on this, but dramatic reductions in tax rates usually lead to dramatic improvement in the economy, which in turn leads to more gross revenue for the government even with a smaller percentage. Worked that way when Reagan did it, and also with the JFK tax cut IIRC.

In which case, 10% might be enough...especially since, if we stop being the Global Police, we could put half our active-duty troops into the Reserves and still be extremely secure against invasion. (IMO)

You'd have to do away with all entitlments, and all Federal programs that essentially equal "robbing Peter to pay Paul", of course. That's where the bloat in the budget really is.

Of course, the gov't is about as likely to do all that as a pig is to grow wings and fly. In fact I'd have to bet on the pig.


G.

.
That's the only thing Liberals and Conservatives agree on.

Where there's disagreement is rather there should be little tax and little spending or lots of tax and lots of spending.

Click to expand...

It seems the paradigm has shifted for both groups towards increased spending and lower taxes. Its the worst of both worlds for our deficit.

Jerry said:

NO!

That's bass ackwards.

You don't base your household budget on what you spend, you base it on what you make and live below your means.

Click to expand...

There just might be a few subtle differences between an entity that is responsible for 300 million people and an entire economy, and an entity that is responsible for 4 people and a home.

Jerry said:

That's the only thing Liberals and Conservatives agree on.

Where there's disagreement is rather there should be little tax and little spending or lots of tax and lots of spending.

Click to expand...

Actually most of the disagreement is whether there should be little tax and lots of spending, or lots of tax and lots of spending.

I don't have hard numbers on this, but dramatic reductions in tax rates usually lead to dramatic improvement in the economy, which in turn leads to more gross revenue for the government even with a smaller percentage.

Click to expand...

No they don't. Iriemon has refuted this one with numbers many a time one this forum. Search for his posts in the economics forum if you want. Cutting taxes has a little correlation with economic growth, and revenues get lower when taxes are cut. In places like Sweden with very high taxes that might work, but not in a place like the U.S. with already low taxes. Furthermore, a reduction to 10% is far to drastic. The economy would have to triple to break even on revenue.

In which case, 10% might be enough...especially since, if we stop being the Global Police, we could put half our active-duty troops into the Reserves and still be extremely secure against invasion. (IMO)

Click to expand...

It would help, but still not be enough.

You'd have to do away with all entitlments, and all Federal programs that essentially equal "robbing Peter to pay Paul", of course. That's where the bloat in the budget really is.

Click to expand...

The total cost of our military+debt+other constitutionally required functions is about 40% of the budget. Social security makes up 20% of the remaining, and social security pays for itself (at least right now). That only leaves 40% of what you could theoretically cut.

Honestly this whole thread is what is wrong with our view of taxation. Everyone wants a 10% tax rate, but are unwilling to make the sacrifices needed to sustain it. Cutting taxes without cutting spending is NOT sustainable in the long term.

Kandahar said:

There just might be a few subtle differences between an entity that is responsible for 300 million people and an entire economy, and an entity that is responsible for 4 people and a home.

Click to expand...

The concept of personal responsibility is lost on you, I see.

Jerry said:

The concept of personal responsibility is lost on you, I see.

Click to expand...

No, it appears that the concept of "apples and oranges" is completely lost on you.

rathi said:

No they don't. Iriemon has refuted this one with numbers many a time one this forum. Search for his posts in the economics forum if you want. Cutting taxes has a little correlation with economic growth, and revenues get lower when taxes are cut. In places like Sweden with very high taxes that might work, but not in a place like the U.S. with already low taxes. Furthermore, a reduction to 10% is far to drastic. The economy would have to triple to break even on revenue.

Click to expand...

I will have to read the posts in question and do some research on this, before accepting the assertion or having the ammo to refute it. I know Reagan cut taxes substantially, and am reasonably certain that the economy and revenues grew substantially during the following decade; I don't have proof and figures at my fingertips just now. Will come back to that later when I do.

The total cost of our military+debt+other constitutionally required functions is about 40% of the budget. Social security makes up 20% of the remaining, and social security pays for itself (at least right now). That only leaves 40% of what you could theoretically cut.

Click to expand...

Social Security isn't paying for itself; the SS taxes go in the General fund and is spent on whatever Congress likes, if I am not much mistaken; the 'lock box' is full of IOUs. At any rate the point is moot, it's established that SS will bankrupt us at some point in the not-too-far future if not reformed or phased out. I have 20-some years to go and serious doubts I will ever collect a cent I paid in.
If we quit being the Global Cop (and understand I am not anti-military, FAR from it) we could probably cut military spending substantially without being any less secure against actual invasion. I understand the argument that, because the economy is global, we have to protect our intrests overseas; I understand that once in a while we have to strike an enemy that is bent on hitting us at home (as in 9/11). Still I think a large percentage of what we do overseas is not absolutely necessary and could be brought to an end, with some economic reform at home and a return to constitutional gov't. It's a debateable point, I know; frankly I have personally gone back-and-forth on this issue over the past several years.

Possibly you're right that a 10% flat rate would be insufficient; still I think it makes a nice target to shoot for. :mrgreen:

Honestly this whole thread is what is wrong with our view of taxation. Everyone wants a 10% tax rate, but are unwilling to make the sacrifices needed to sustain it. Cutting taxes without cutting spending is NOT sustainable in the long term.

Click to expand...

I'd be willing to do a lot of cutting. The problem is the Congress isn't, and fundamentally that a lot of voters who have been (perhaps deliberately) addicted to Federal aid and programs aren't.

G.

Kandahar said:

Actually most of the disagreement is whether there should be little tax and lots of spending, or lots of tax and lots of spending.

Click to expand...

No that's not accurate at all. Not in the least.

jallman said:

No, it appears that the concept of "apples and oranges" is completely lost on you.

Click to expand...

Well if it is then it's also lost on my avatar and the millions of people who follow his principals and end up financially independent :2wave: