Tax dodgers taunt police from hilltop compound

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
If there was a shred of legitimacy to any of this the IRS would be a Federal department or agency recorded in the Federal Register, Congress would have written and passed the "tax code" into law, and there would be no such thing as the "Tax court"; tax cases would go to a Federal court where the normal jurisprudence, rules of procedure, evidence etc would apply.

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.

What "law professors" say who worship the IRS, and the IRS itself say about the exercise of federal privilege is self serving.

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?

Cel said:
The point is if Congress can choose to keep "modifiying" whatever it wants to what's to say they want "modify" the 2nd Amendment to the point we can't own any arms.

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.

Titan6 said:
Bart - I did not know that this was a payroll Tax issue. I thought that this was an income tax issue.

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.
 
Congress would have written and passed the "tax code" into law

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:
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.
 
I wonder if commodities traders ever follow these discussions. If so I'm sure the price of aluminum will spike soon.

tinfoilhat.jpg
 
Tax court is simply an administrative court that is there to speed up the process. There is no requirement that you use it.
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?
 
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.
 
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?

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.
 
Texas- I don't agree. Maybe some states like NY and CA try, but they should not and are often stopped.

I didn't say that they should, I said that they do. State law doesn't overrule federal law.
 
Personally, I hope the JBTs sustain disproportionate casualties.
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?
 
Did they drive on roads?

Did they send their kids to a public school?

Are they protected by a Military, Police Force, and Fire department 24/7?

Have they ever used a public library?

Have they ever used a trash service?

Have they ever used a rec center?

All of the above are made possible by your taxes. When someone doesn't pay, it's not fair to the rest of us. Be it illegal immigrants or the Brown's, not paying taxes but enjoying the benefits is cheating the system.

None of the above are paid for by the income tax, nice try.

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.

No I will not. You are just grasping here man. Give it a rest.
 
Why do you want to see men killed for this?

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
 
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
_________

"JBT" Jack Booted Thug?

From Urban Dictionary...
jack booted thug

Jack booted is a derogatory term used to describe an overly oppressive and authoritarian individual or group, often denotes violent tendencies. Thugs, thus described, are those in the service of an oppressive authoritarian, usually employing violence to achieve his/her/their master's goals.

Jack booted thugs stormed in, broke my furniture, kicked my dog, and took my still.

I have to say that you are half right. Replace "one does not agree with" with "that is unconstitutional"
 
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.
 
Texas- The Supreme Court being all finiky and whatnot... at times anyways; tends to disagree:

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top