I don't know if this has been posted yet? (probably) This is Aaron Russo's video on google-very very good.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=
Update on Ed Brown IRS case...
- Thread starter hammer4nc
- Start date
- Status
scurtis_34471
Member
Support the Fair Tax!
This kind of crap is exactly why we should all get behind the Fair Tax. The tax code is byzantine and the IRS should be abolished. Replace it all with a simple sales tax. Imagine no income tax, no medicare tax, no social security tax, no estate tax and no capital gains tax. Instead, you would have a 23% sales tax on new goods and services. You pay taxes on what you spend, not what you earn. That means you can save and invest for retirement on your terms, not the government's. It also means that everyone pays taxes, including people who make their money illegally.
This kind of crap is exactly why we should all get behind the Fair Tax. The tax code is byzantine and the IRS should be abolished. Replace it all with a simple sales tax. Imagine no income tax, no medicare tax, no social security tax, no estate tax and no capital gains tax. Instead, you would have a 23% sales tax on new goods and services. You pay taxes on what you spend, not what you earn. That means you can save and invest for retirement on your terms, not the government's. It also means that everyone pays taxes, including people who make their money illegally.
Thin Black Line
Member
Sounds good, but the average person would hear "23%" and think they
were paying more than they did under the old system.
ojibweindian
Member
I used to get worked up over this, and other stories of grave abuse of citizens by the imperial Fed. But, no longer.
To be honest, I'd say that roughly 75% of the country don't even know who Ed Brown is, and would most likely side with the gov if they did know the score. Most of the rest are either too stupid to know or learn, or too apathetic to do anything about it.
Let's face it; while this is a terrible thing, too few really care.
Like I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I'd read about this and become incensed. Now, I don't care. The American people get what is asked for, and they've asked for huge government and entitlement programs to keep them fat, happy, and "safe".
I'll just channel my activities to planning and preparing for the worst, as I believe the republic that was started more than 250 years ago is dead, as well as the freedom it brought us.
To be honest, I'd say that roughly 75% of the country don't even know who Ed Brown is, and would most likely side with the gov if they did know the score. Most of the rest are either too stupid to know or learn, or too apathetic to do anything about it.
Let's face it; while this is a terrible thing, too few really care.
Like I mentioned at the beginning of this post, I'd read about this and become incensed. Now, I don't care. The American people get what is asked for, and they've asked for huge government and entitlement programs to keep them fat, happy, and "safe".
I'll just channel my activities to planning and preparing for the worst, as I believe the republic that was started more than 250 years ago is dead, as well as the freedom it brought us.
I do not think it is dead, but it is seriously wounded.
The problem is that people who you might expect to be freedom lovers, like most of the posters here, actually turn out to be advocates of increased government power.
There are a lot of people who will sell their birthright for "free" health care and increased social security benefits. I would guess that maybe 90% of US citizens accept the idea of massive reduction in liberty in exchange for some government largess. Once you buy into that, it is hard to get back out.
How many of us expect government benefits like:
- health care
- social security
- unemployment "insurance"
- student loans
- veterans benefits
- government backed mortgages
etc., etc., etc.
Is it any wonder we accept "Papiere , bitte", without a second thought?
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Thin Black Line
When you take out the embedded taxes we pay now in each new product we buy, it is a wash.
For those who don't make much money, or live on a small fixed income, there is effectively no tax. This is accomplished by every head of household - regardless of how much (s)he earns, makes, steals, inherits, or receives on Social Security - will receive a "prebate" from the government each year equivalent to the tax one would normally pay from purchases at the cut-off point referred to as the poverty level.
Suppose the poverty level is 15k, and a single head of household person would normally spend 5k on taxable items. That "prebate" would be around $1,150.00. (NOTE) These numbers are just guesses off the to of my head used only to demonstrate how the system would work, and there are different adjustments for married couples, number of dependents, etc. But if you are at or below that poverty level, you would receive that amount. So would a billionaire. Every head of household would receive it, gaged only upon marital status and number of dependents(It may include certain adjustments for the blind and such, but I can't recall. I've loaned out the book).
Back to the topic of the thread, it is just this sort of thing something like a national excise(sales) tax like the Fair Tax would remedy. With this type of tax, you actually have a choice of how much tax you pay by how much you buy(used items are exempt). And, there is no question as to the constitutionality of such a tax.
I'm on the side of the Browns on this issue. There is so much wrong with the current system, and so little control over it that it must go. The way it works now is more like how it works in a Fascist, National-Socialist system, enforced with tyranny. It's nothing like how the Constitution provides.
So, vote for candidates who will support a tax system like the Fair Tax and for strict adherence to the Constitution. That is the best way I know to set this country back on the Constitution and to unfetter and preserve our rights, privileges, and freedoms without spilling blood. In the mean time, do all you can to unfetter and preserve the rights we have - along with their attendant powers - just in case we do have to spill blood one day.
Woody
There is no "difference" between gun control and gun rights. Gun control seeks to put bounds upon, and the possible elimination of, our inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Don't be led astray with the inference that it is "gun" control or "gun" rights. The rights in discussion are rights of the people. Human rights! Guns are inanimate objects; tools of freedom and self defense, primarily. Dehumanizing the discourse tends to lessen the impact of discussion from what it would be - were it directed at the right being infringed - and attempts to remove it from the strict scrutiny of the Constitution. B.E.Wood
When you take out the embedded taxes we pay now in each new product we buy, it is a wash.
For those who don't make much money, or live on a small fixed income, there is effectively no tax. This is accomplished by every head of household - regardless of how much (s)he earns, makes, steals, inherits, or receives on Social Security - will receive a "prebate" from the government each year equivalent to the tax one would normally pay from purchases at the cut-off point referred to as the poverty level.
Suppose the poverty level is 15k, and a single head of household person would normally spend 5k on taxable items. That "prebate" would be around $1,150.00. (NOTE) These numbers are just guesses off the to of my head used only to demonstrate how the system would work, and there are different adjustments for married couples, number of dependents, etc. But if you are at or below that poverty level, you would receive that amount. So would a billionaire. Every head of household would receive it, gaged only upon marital status and number of dependents(It may include certain adjustments for the blind and such, but I can't recall. I've loaned out the book).
Back to the topic of the thread, it is just this sort of thing something like a national excise(sales) tax like the Fair Tax would remedy. With this type of tax, you actually have a choice of how much tax you pay by how much you buy(used items are exempt). And, there is no question as to the constitutionality of such a tax.
I'm on the side of the Browns on this issue. There is so much wrong with the current system, and so little control over it that it must go. The way it works now is more like how it works in a Fascist, National-Socialist system, enforced with tyranny. It's nothing like how the Constitution provides.
So, vote for candidates who will support a tax system like the Fair Tax and for strict adherence to the Constitution. That is the best way I know to set this country back on the Constitution and to unfetter and preserve our rights, privileges, and freedoms without spilling blood. In the mean time, do all you can to unfetter and preserve the rights we have - along with their attendant powers - just in case we do have to spill blood one day.
Woody
There is no "difference" between gun control and gun rights. Gun control seeks to put bounds upon, and the possible elimination of, our inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Don't be led astray with the inference that it is "gun" control or "gun" rights. The rights in discussion are rights of the people. Human rights! Guns are inanimate objects; tools of freedom and self defense, primarily. Dehumanizing the discourse tends to lessen the impact of discussion from what it would be - were it directed at the right being infringed - and attempts to remove it from the strict scrutiny of the Constitution. B.E.Wood
fourays2
Member
IRS is not just for revenue raising, it's also for keeping people under control. therefore it will never be abolished.
Get back to basics
I'm not going to lavish my post with any fancy quotes or sayings.
I will only say this: I love my country and the forefathers that founded it. I love my government even with all its frailties. This country was founded on individualism toward a common respect toward each other and the land they owned and lived on. Family and ownership of land was respected and held sacred. Overtime these principles have been undermined and even eroded. Today, family and land ownership is no longer held sacred; very unAmerican indeed. Our government of today does not govern; it only serves to meddle in its peoples lives, affairs and business such as the Income Tax system and eminent domain etc., and to further serve to undermine those principles that our forefathers intended. We are a free people from the rest of the world (not for long) but unfortunately not free from our very own government. The government of today has only worked toward the enslavement of its own people instead of the enrichment of their lives. We live in a governmental era that only cares about its people to the extent of which it can control its people. We are dying fast as a free people but the numbers of Patriots that are few keep us afloat. I do not own a gun nor do I belong to the NRA, but I believe every American is entitled to own a gun (this is sacred to the law of the land). Frankly, I for one feel safer knowing that the general populace owns its own guns more than I do knowing my own government owns its own guns. Furthermore, I do not smoke, but I believe every American is entitled to smoke should they chose even in my presents. I do not fear dying from cancer because of it; its because I know I will only die of cancer if I believe it causes me cancer. Likewise, the cigarette smoker who dies from cancer probably didn't die from the smoke at all but in fact died from the very guilt which was bestowed on him/her by his or her peers. We will get real respect from others if we GIVE real respect to others unconditionally.
This is some of what the real world should look like - anything else is Gumbyism.
I'm not going to lavish my post with any fancy quotes or sayings.
I will only say this: I love my country and the forefathers that founded it. I love my government even with all its frailties. This country was founded on individualism toward a common respect toward each other and the land they owned and lived on. Family and ownership of land was respected and held sacred. Overtime these principles have been undermined and even eroded. Today, family and land ownership is no longer held sacred; very unAmerican indeed. Our government of today does not govern; it only serves to meddle in its peoples lives, affairs and business such as the Income Tax system and eminent domain etc., and to further serve to undermine those principles that our forefathers intended. We are a free people from the rest of the world (not for long) but unfortunately not free from our very own government. The government of today has only worked toward the enslavement of its own people instead of the enrichment of their lives. We live in a governmental era that only cares about its people to the extent of which it can control its people. We are dying fast as a free people but the numbers of Patriots that are few keep us afloat. I do not own a gun nor do I belong to the NRA, but I believe every American is entitled to own a gun (this is sacred to the law of the land). Frankly, I for one feel safer knowing that the general populace owns its own guns more than I do knowing my own government owns its own guns. Furthermore, I do not smoke, but I believe every American is entitled to smoke should they chose even in my presents. I do not fear dying from cancer because of it; its because I know I will only die of cancer if I believe it causes me cancer. Likewise, the cigarette smoker who dies from cancer probably didn't die from the smoke at all but in fact died from the very guilt which was bestowed on him/her by his or her peers. We will get real respect from others if we GIVE real respect to others unconditionally.
This is some of what the real world should look like - anything else is Gumbyism.
Thin Black Line
Member
Try 99%. If he hasn't been mentioned on FM NPR and AM pseudo-con talk radio, then most people don't have a clue.
ksnecktieman
Member
Sorry, peeps, I must say that I think sales tax sucks as a way to equalize everything... An example,,,, Mom, and Dad, working for minimun wage to support three kids,, combined income under 25 thousand??? John doe got lucky, and patented a widget, income for a single guy 1 million bucks... Mom and dad, have to spend every penny of their 25k income to support themselves, and the kids, so all of it is taxed. While John Doe has to spend seven thousand to pay for neccessities? He has 993 thousand dollars of untaxed income?
#1 abolish all corporation taxes.
#2 abolish all tax deductions (including interest on home loans).
#3 Pay taxes on all you earn, no exceptions, no deductions, no tax credits, no deductible donations. No IRA deferments, or 401Ks.
#4 12, 18, 24 percent? It will lessen the burden on the people that need it, and increase the burden on the people that can afford it.
But,,, it can not happen, because the poor or needy can not make laws, the politicians are in the "upper crust".
Sorry, I was thinking about utopia, and we all know it does not, will not, and can not exist.
#1 abolish all corporation taxes.
#2 abolish all tax deductions (including interest on home loans).
#3 Pay taxes on all you earn, no exceptions, no deductions, no tax credits, no deductible donations. No IRA deferments, or 401Ks.
#4 12, 18, 24 percent? It will lessen the burden on the people that need it, and increase the burden on the people that can afford it.
But,,, it can not happen, because the poor or needy can not make laws, the politicians are in the "upper crust".
Sorry, I was thinking about utopia, and we all know it does not, will not, and can not exist.
crazed_ss
Member
Can I ask what's wrong with being fat, happy, and safe?
Not everyone wants to live in a log cabin in the middle of the forest and have to live off the land to survive. It's 2007, not 1797. I'd much rather be fat, happy, and safe than starving, depressed, and in danger.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
ksnecktieman said:
I think you missed the part where the struggling "minimum wage" mom and dad would effectively pay no tax by receiving a prebate each year equal to what they would pay in taxes up to the poverty level. Everyone(head of household) gets the prebate regardless of how much they make. If the single millionaire spends all his money, he is taxed $230,000.00, minus the prebate -lets say its only $1,150.00 because he is single - which means he paid in $228,850.00 in taxes.
The "minimum wage" mom and dad fall below the poverty level with their 25k income. Lets say they have two kids and the poverty level is 32K for them. Their prebate - if half of poverty level is determined to be spent on taxable items - would be $3,680.00. They receive that at the beginning of the year. Over the course of the year they spend half their 25K on taxable items and pay $2,875.00 in tax. Since they received $3,680.00 at the beginning of the year, they netted a gain of $805.00.
That doesn't bother me a whole lot! Me with a wife and two kids will receive the $3,680.00 as well. If I make 65K a year, spend half on taxable items, that comes to $7,475.00, minus the $3,680.00 I received at the beginning of the year, means I only paid $3795.00 in sales tax.
If I'm frugal and spend only 40% on taxable items, I end up only paying $2,300.00 in taxes.
The good part is that all those gazillionaires that always seem to be able to avoid income taxes will end up paying the sales tax. People making money "under the table" (drug dealers, income tax evaders, etc) will pay the tax. Illegal aliens will pay the tax WITHOUT RECEIVING THE PREBATE which kinda gives me the warm fuzzies. There won't be much "advantage" to making money under the table under this system.
I'd love to see 80% of the people working for the IRS out looking for jobs, too. It would put them on the tax payer side of the equation in stead of on the government payroll.
Woody
"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union, founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood
ksnecktieman, a rather important part of fairtax is that everybody gets a monthly payment for poverty level spending for their family size.
So the million dollar inventer gets a pittance(while probably buying a mansion and a number of hot cars), while the family of 5 with 25k of income get's the equivalent of EIC, so they actually end out ahead.
So the million dollar inventer gets a pittance(while probably buying a mansion and a number of hot cars), while the family of 5 with 25k of income get's the equivalent of EIC, so they actually end out ahead.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
crazed ss said:
What makes you think living off the land means you are starving, depressed, and in danger? I've never met an emaciated, depressed, and fearful Amish person, or mountain man, or old sea dog. Some people like that life style. Don't knock it until you've tried it.
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood
crazed_ss
Member
Fair enough.. and some people also like being fat, happy, and safe with their gaz-guzzling SUV, pretty wife, new condo, and processed food. Different strokes for different folks. The thing is I always hear people on this boarding whining about how Americans have lost their way since people want to live life in comfort.
Personally, I like comfort a lot. Maybe it's because I was in the Marines and the entire time was miserable.. barracks, PT, field ops, etc. These days, Im so grateful to have a warm place, fast car, and money in my pocket.
Have to agree with the above. He can save the money, but he'll inevitably spend it(and if he doesn't one of he descendents will), and then he'll pay the tax. This system does encourage more saving than the previous, but money just sits in the bank or under the matress. It's the cars, booze, guns, fancy houses and butlers that you enjoy. And so you're theory only works if he lives worse than that 25k couple you mentioned. One of the tax shelter ideas I believe works along the lines of starting a trust or something, and manipulating your donations, and having the whatever cover some things, in such a way as to make the IRS happy(no doubt it works differently, or more complicated, but whatever). That wouldn't work here, since the trust or whatever would pay the sales tax too.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
crazed ss said:
I'm with ya. But, I'll not sacrifice freedom and my rights to have those things, and it isn't necessary to sacrifice freedom and our rights to have those things. Keeping criminals locked up(violent ones for ever if not executed) and killing terrorists before they get here will accomplish most of that. Stop supporting the lazy will help, dump frivolous law suits, dump bogus government programs....And remove all the law infringing and abridging our rights.
Woody
"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union, founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood
Nothing at all. In fact, it's preferable.
But when you're fat, happy, and safe to the detriment of the flesh off someone else's back...
ETA:
Somehow, this isn't accounting for the large number of fat, safe people who drive gas-guzzling SUVs, have pretty wives, and new things and also take anti-depressants.
And what of the single guy who doesn't spend a thing, instead saving his money, and not spending much more above sustainance level? We can't be having that! Think of all the money he'd have; we've got to take some of that and give the tax money to those who need it!
You forgot the smiley face...
A person who doesn't spend the money, is most likely to invest it in some fashion instead.
This is the equivalent of spending it on improving infrastructure and business capital. IE it goest towards that new factory, research lab, whatever. In exchange, he get a bit of the profits produced by that infrastructure as payment for him deferring his wants. He can then later sell that bit of infrastructure to others for it's current value.
On The Lighter Side
Click here: Take Me Back To The Sixties
http://moreoldfortyfives.com/TakeMeBackToTheSixties.htm
This is for those too young to know right from wrong.
This is for those who think fun began in the year 2000.
This is for those old enough who still remember right from wrong.
Finally, this is for those that lived in this country when it HAD a Constitution.
Click here: Take Me Back To The Sixties
http://moreoldfortyfives.com/TakeMeBackToTheSixties.htm
This is for those too young to know right from wrong.
This is for those who think fun began in the year 2000.
This is for those old enough who still remember right from wrong.
Finally, this is for those that lived in this country when it HAD a Constitution.
ksnecktieman
Member
OK, Radical Rant here,, If you do not want to hear radical, go to the next post...
All of our lives we have been taught to take from the rich, and give to the poor. THAT IS WRONG. I will feel sorry for the family of five living on two minimum wage incomes. But it is not my responsibilty, or yours, to provide for those three kids. If it was me that invented the widget, and I had to support your kids, that is not fair. IF we allow that to happen, each of those three kids will have four or five of their own, and my sons, or grandsons will have to support them.
We have, at present, a "self perpetuating" welfare class. Call it a rebate, or welfare, or a "prebate", call it an "earned income credit", if you wish, What it amounts to is taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
We have 280? million citizens? IF everyone has to pay 100$ to keep our government solvent, That should be what we are required to pay. IF the government spends too much, and the "average joe", decides it is too much, then our government will fall. That is the way it should be.
All of our lives we have been taught to take from the rich, and give to the poor. THAT IS WRONG. I will feel sorry for the family of five living on two minimum wage incomes. But it is not my responsibilty, or yours, to provide for those three kids. If it was me that invented the widget, and I had to support your kids, that is not fair. IF we allow that to happen, each of those three kids will have four or five of their own, and my sons, or grandsons will have to support them.
We have, at present, a "self perpetuating" welfare class. Call it a rebate, or welfare, or a "prebate", call it an "earned income credit", if you wish, What it amounts to is taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
We have 280? million citizens? IF everyone has to pay 100$ to keep our government solvent, That should be what we are required to pay. IF the government spends too much, and the "average joe", decides it is too much, then our government will fall. That is the way it should be.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Gotta have somethin' to pacify the liberals! I agree, necktie man! The only redeeming quality of the "prebate" is that essentially everyone gets it. But you are right, it is still a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. No, it's worse than that. It's a transfer of wealth from Joe Average to to the poor!
Anything new from the standoff?
Woody
If you want security, buy a gun. If you want longevity, learn how to use it. If you want freedom, carry it. There is nothing worth more than freedom you win for yourself. There is nothing more valuable than the tools of the right that make it possible. B.E.Wood
Playing devil's advocate here, I would not say that it is necessarily or absolutely wrong. There are a lot of extenuating circumstances, and if those riches are gotten illigitimately or dishonestly from the poor, then the poor are most certainly justified to take it back from the rich.
- Status
