Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Tzu
Its a start. Federal income taxes unfortunately are directly link to the fed's collection agency - the IRS. So there really is to issues going on here the validity of income tax in general and the format under which its conducted. In MY view any story remotely close to this terrority is strong.
Even so I never stated it was setting precendents. This is a subject that has many layers and directions.
I expressed I liked hearing a story such as this. Is that acceptable? or . . .
I'm probably getting edgy.
You are most likely ONLY justifiably making your point and I'm wondering if this place is just a mecca for people to gather and jolt out sarcastic lines to one another. If its really about feeling satisfied from setting someone straight in the cyberworld then I should practice not to fall inito the shortcoming of taking things personally. Nothing wrong with openly stating if one thinks another view is . . . bullshit, right.
This is one piece of information I havent look into and probably wont so if you know please share how many other cases are similiar?
I disagree with your analogy, however that is just my opinion. I should know better than to enter a thread about this subject, it usually ends with a negative overtone so I will part for a while. My next post will be the reply I receive from the letter.
Dippin I appologize if a strayed too far from acceptable topic parameters or pulled too great a stretch.
|
I really have no idea why you went into this whole thing about satisfaction about setting someone straight and so on.
My point about this being a jury decision on a criminal matter wasn't to simply nitpick or to question your right to start this thread.
In fact, you were not even the first one to mention the word "precedent" in this thread.
But in a discussion over the legality of taxes stemming from an acquittal in a jury decision, it is important to keep in mind simply that jury decisions like that do not set precedent. The legality of the laws he supposedly violated were not being questioned, and the jury had no power to alter them or their current interpretation. All the jury did was find him not guilty of breaking those laws.
Sure, my post was a more immediate reaction to a sentence you have since edited out of your post, but it was far from being the sole motivation.
---------- Post added at 01:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xerxys
So, so far I have learned only two things from this thread.
1) That Taxes in the US are unconstitutional, and ..
2) That Taxes in the US are excessive. <- Only point I agree with BTW.
Point one I feel people merely "think" it's unfair to pay taxes. My interest is therefore diminished ... lol
|
Regarding taxes being excessive: I think "excess" taxes are a matter of what one intends to use those taxes for. And that is where I have a major problem with existing right wing populism*: taxes are quite low in comparison to spending, and in fact insufficient to maintain the current levels of spending. And unlike what right wing populists tell us, cutting foreign aid, welfare, bail outs and earmarks is not at all sufficient to make up the difference. Tax revenues were insufficient long before Obama took office. The fact is that to avoid tax increases there would have to be deep cuts in military spending, medicare, social security and infrastructure. And those cuts in medicare and social security would have to come without cutting a single dime in their contributions.
Just to be clear: for 2009 when you add defense, medicare, social security, transportation and interest on the debt, you have more than total revenues. If the budget was limited to current tax revenues, the military alone would be responsible for almost 40% of the budget.
* Not everyone who wants less taxes is a right wing populist. But if you want and you think you can have lower taxes without cutting spending on the military, social security, and medicare, you are wrong and likely a right wing populist.