Ron Paul (again) on Ed & Elaine Brown & the income t

[Famspear]

SteveSy:

It's not a tax protestor argument to claim the income tax has constitutional issues.

I assume that when you use the term "constitutional issues" you really are using that a code for saying that there are serious, non-frivolous legal arguments that the Federal income tax is unconstitutional. That's what I'm talking about.

When Boris Bittker wrote about constitutional issues involving the Federal income tax, he was taken seriously by legal scholars. Boris Bittker did not espouse tax protester arguments. Legal scholars are not going to take tax protesters seriously. "Frivolous" essentially means "not worthy of serious consideration." There's a good reason the courts label tax protester arguments as frivolous. In the legal world, they are the equivalent of arguing, to the scientific community, that the Moon is made of green cheese.

Yes, there are constitutional aspects of Federal income tax. But we're not talking about the things I think you mean, Steve.

[Randall]

And Randall, I never complained about how much taxes I paid, I shared the fact, but didn't complain. If you went back and put my words in context you would realize that, but of course your probally too intrested in being a douchebag to be fair.

OK, maybe you never came right out and bitched about the taxes you pay, however you said

I pay 40% of my income to the IRS

which was not exactly accurate,was it?

I never called you a TP, but if it makes you feel better to call me a douchbag, be my guess, I've been called worse.

[wserra]

Can anyone think of a United States Supreme Court decision rendered after January 1, 1998 where the Court unanimously ruled a Federal tax unconstitutional? Hint: It was not the Federal income tax.

United States v. U.S. Shoe Corp., 523 U.S. 360 (1998), finding a so-called "harbor maintenance tax" actually to be an unconstitutional export tax.

[RyanMcC]

And Randall, I never complained about how much taxes I paid, I shared the fact, but didn't complain. If you went back and put my words in context you would realize that, but of course your probally too intrested in being a douchebag to be fair.

OK, maybe you never came right out and bitched about the taxes you pay, however you said

I pay 40% of my income to the IRS

which was not exactly accurate,was it?

I never called you a TP, but if it makes you feel better to call me a douchbag, be my guess, I've been called worse.

No, it is exactally accurate.

You didn't call me a TP (Observer did) you did however ask how I could bitch about the taxes I pay and not claim EITC. 1st, I wasn't bitching I shared what I made because somebody else wanted to divert from the topic and claim i either got audited alot or didn't pay taxes. To answer your previous question I didn't claim it (1) because I didn't know I could and (2) it's a pretty small ammount of $.

But all this is irrelivant to the discussion at hand hence my frusration at lack of ability to keep on topic.

So far I have been accused of:

1) Getting audited alot
2) Not paying taxes
3) Bitching about the taxes I pay
4) Being a tax protestor

None of which are true. Boy I make a statement about some people being too jaded and needing a vacation and so many people break their necks to prove me right..

[Randall]

To answer your previous question I didn't claim it (1) because I didn't know I could and (2) it's a pretty small ammount of $.
.

How could you not know when

Heck the IRS mails me every year reminding me I forgot to claim EITC.

[Famspear]

wserra wrote:

United States v. U.S. Shoe Corp., 523 U.S. 360 (1998), finding a so-called "harbor maintenance tax" actually to be an unconstitutional export tax.

I gotta make these questions harder.

[RyanMcC]

To answer your previous question I didn't claim it (1) because I didn't know I could and (2) it's a pretty small ammount of $.
.

How could you not know when

Heck the IRS mails me every year reminding me I forgot to claim EITC.

Absoutely irrelivant to this thread.

I have a bad memory and simply don't remember to claim it.

[silversopp]

Yes they do, you're required to provide your records every year and if you don't they can and will use the DOJ to send you to prison.

Weird, the government doesn't require my records each year. All I do is fill out a government form and they leave all of my personal records alone. There's a big difference between filling out information and the government digging through all of my records (pay stubs, bank statements, etc).

The IRS can determine your income without your personal records. If you claim a deduction, as the asserter, it is up to you to be able to prove your deduction. If you cannot, the IRS does not put you in jail, they simply do not include the deduction when determining your liability.

Don't forget about the law the IRS uses requiring you to provide your records every year.

The constitution is "rigid", it was created with the ability to modify it by amendment. If what you say is true there would be no need to have the ability to amend it. 2 + 2 = 4. They wouldn't have needed an amendment banning alcohol, giving women the right to vote etc.

The amendment process is one example of how the Constitution is not rigid.

What you seem to be missing is that when disputes over what the Constitution means, there is a system that settles those disputes. There are no courts that determine the answer to 2 + 2 because the result does not change.

You mean their interpretation of the law....the law doesn't change.

The law has changed often in our short history as a natoin.

[Duke2Earl]

I guess I'll just read these forums from now on, most of you folks here are anti-social and can't have a discussion without straying off into irrelivant points or trying desperatly to pick out your next DMVP.

Fine with us seeing you seem to equate "having a discussion" with agreeing with you.

[silversopp]

I agree in the sense that the average intelligent person who is not a lawyer may tend to use the word "unconstitutional" -- incorrectly -- as a rough synonym for the concept of "unfair."

Would you agree that Ron Paul is addressing non-lawyers of average intelligent (or less)?

If Ron Paul were to say those things to a class of law students, I would have a different interpretation of those same words.

The mere fact that something is "unfair" does not necessarily make it "illegal." And the mere fact that something is "unfair" definitely does not necessarily make it "unconstitutional." The basic problem here is misuse of the legal term "unconstitutional."

The problem from my perspective is taking a word to mean it's definition in the legal sense instead of a commonly used meaning. When one definition makes little sense, and the other definition fits much more so, I tend to assume that the speaker is using the definition that fits.

The only persons truly qualified to determine whether or not something is constitutuional are judges. Everyone else is simply predicting (based on a lot of studying) what the judges will rule. If the Supreme Court experiences a rapid change in membership (say a bunch of PETA folks get appointed) what is or is not Constiutional will quickly change.

[RyanMcC]

I guess I'll just read these forums from now on, most of you folks here are anti-social and can't have a discussion without straying off into irrelivant points or trying desperatly to pick out your next DMVP.

Fine with us seeing you seem to equate "having a discussion" with agreeing with you.

If everyone agreed with me I would never have an intresting discussion. But this discussion keeps getting interrupted by people who want to incinuate I get audited alot because I use a certian theoritical arguement, or by people who jump in and call me a tax protestor ignoring I send 40% of my $ to the IRS, which I shared because someone incuinuated I don't pay taxes. Or people who think I am bitching about the taxes I pay because I pointed out that I send 40% to the IRS. It has now reverted to how stupid I am for complaining about the taxes I pay while forgetting to claim the EITC.. You people build a straw-man faster than any group I've ever seen.

[silversopp]

So when he calls either the collection of the income tax or the tax itself unconstitutional, in public, he has no business expressing his thoughts on "what the law should be" without being completely clear that that's not what the law is, because his words won't be taken that way.

Outside of the TP and legal worlds, his words will be taken that way. His opponents have never used those words against him, which would clearly pose a problem for his campaign. They don't use that against him because they know that it will not resonate with the average voter.

[wserra]

I gotta make these questions harder.

OK, try this one: what is the SCOTUS case which SCOTUS itself has cited more than any other? Don't worry about parsing the language of the question, it isn't a trick.

[webhick]

I've been following this thread in passing and thought I might post my own thoughts:

1) Getting audited alot
2) Not paying taxes
3) Bitching about the taxes I pay
4) Being a tax protestor

1) You stated "all too often" people get audited randomly. Even when I read that, it sounded a little like you've been through or have known people who have been through some audits and were bitter about it. But, you're right in that you did not say you got audited a lot. The person who accused you of being audited said something like "If you have been audited a lot". It didn't strike me as an accusation.
2) I couldn't recall (and passing through the thread one more time quickly didn't turn it up) where people accused you of not paying your taxes. I'm not saying it wasn't said, just that I didn't remember it off the top of my head and a quick check revealed nothing. Kinda figured that it had been established that you were paying your taxes because of the 40% remark.
3) I don't believe that you were bitching about the taxes you pay, either. But, the 40% comment certainly got my attention as well, due in part to a lot of tax protesters citing similar percentages as they're about to lead into rants on how unconstitutional taxes are (which kind of happened) and how it's slavery and whatnot. People here were premature in their conclusions, definitely.
4) I always thought that a TP was someone who advocates not paying taxes for a frivolous reason. You don't strike me as a TP. I don't think people here should be applying that label to people who pay their taxes as they should, but don't advocate not paying them.

Just as no one likes to be called a TP (okay, there probably are a few), no one likes to be told they're jaded (worn out, dull, and worthless) and "needs a vacation".

Fault lies on the both sides of the fence here guys. Calm down, put your winkie back in your pants, and at least try not to jump to conclusions about the other party.

[RyanMcC]

I gotta make these questions harder.

OK, try this one: what is the SCOTUS case which SCOTUS itself has cited more than any other? Don't worry about parsing the language of the question, it isn't a trick.

Supreme Court of The United States = SCOTUS?

[grixit]

I gotta make these questions harder.

OK, try this one: what is the SCOTUS case which SCOTUS itself has cited more than any other? Don't worry about parsing the language of the question, it isn't a trick.

Maqrbury vs Madison?

[Famspear]

silversopp wrote:

The problem from my perspective is taking a word to mean it's definition in the legal sense instead of a commonly used meaning. When one definition makes little sense, and the other definition fits much more so, I tend to assume that the speaker is using the definition that fits.

As I noted, some non-lawyers tend to equate "unfair" with "unconstitutional." So, when such people hear that a law is "unfair" or believe it's "unfair," they may tend to conclude that it must be literally, legally "unconstitutional." Likewise, when people hear Ron Paul or another public figure say that something is "unconstitutional," they may assume that Ron Paul means BOTH that the statute is "unfair" AND that it actually has some sort of constitutional infirmity -- some sort of problem with its validity from a constitutional perspective. Some people might not recognize that when Ron Paul throws that term "constitutional" around as he does, there is a real problem with his use of the term in that context.

The only persons truly qualified to determine whether or not something is constitutuional are judges. Everyone else is simply predicting (based on a lot of studying) what the judges will rule. If the Supreme Court experiences a rapid change in membership (say a bunch of PETA folks get appointed) what is or is not Constiutional will quickly change.

I pretty much agree. If you were to change the Court to include a majority of ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative or ulta-any other political ideology, the more likely you might be to get rapid change. People who are extreme in political views tend to view the world more predominantly through the political prism of those views, rather than taking a more balanced approach. I guess that could be true not only in politics or law, but in other fields as well.

Speaking of politics, in my view one of the elephants sitting in the corner of the room (that almost no one acknowledges) is that no one, single political ideology in the United States - liberal, conservative, whatever - is the answer. This is a paradox, perhaps; you can never solve the great political problems merely by reference to a single political ideology. Ultra Conservatives tend to want to answer all issues with a "conservative" solution, and Ultra Liberals tend to want to do the same with a "liberal" solution. Doesn't work. Politics is too complicated for that. In a free country, ideology is just one piece of the puzzle.

[Imalawman]

I gotta make these questions harder.

OK, try this one: what is the SCOTUS case which SCOTUS itself has cited more than any other? Don't worry about parsing the language of the question, it isn't a trick.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) roughly 336 times.

As a side note Marbury v. Madison has only been cited 144 times by the supremes.

[webhick]

I gotta make these questions harder.

OK, try this one: what is the SCOTUS case which SCOTUS itself has cited more than any other? Don't worry about parsing the language of the question, it isn't a trick.

Supreme Court of The United States = SCOTUS?

Ding ding ding! Wiki says yes!

I love Wiki. I can google almost anything, append "wiki" to it and end up with an informative wiki page. Wiki makes me look smart.

[RyanMcC]

I love Wiki. I can google almost anything, append "wiki" to it and end up with an informative wiki page. Wiki makes me look smart.

I know, it was either that or John Duns Scotus the Franciscan theologian, seeing how he predated the discovery of the new world I moved on to the next logical choice..