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

[wserra]

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.

Both reasonable, both wrong.

[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.

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.

The problem is that there is literally nothing to discuss. There is nothing to discuss about taxes being legal, mandatory and constitutional... that is truly and completely settled and has been for over 90 years. After 30 years of experience, I can state categorically that if you get audited a lot it's your own fault. I make many multiples of what you say you make and have been audited twice in all those years. (And even though I make more I pay a lot less than 40% of my gross income to the IRS). Both audits ended quickly and painlessly once I furnished a bit more information. Something you are doing on the return is causing the audits. And if your problem is that you think you have to pay too much in taxes... well, get out there and campaign and vote for representatives that will reduce taxes. Posting in here to "discuss" it is a waste of our time and bandwidth.

The purpose of this forum is not to discuss you or anyone bitching about the fact that they pay more than they want to pay. That is a tax policy matter and there even is a forum here for that if you want.

[Imalawman]

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.

Both reasonable, both wrong.

Not according to http://www.usscplus.com/topk/list_rank.htm an official listing of the 1000 most cited Supreme court cases cited by the Supremes. What's your source?

[RyanMcC]

Something you are doing on the return is causing the audits.

And if your problem is that you think you have to pay too much in taxes... well, get out there and campaign and vote for representatives that will reduce taxes. Posting in here to "discuss" it is a waste of our time and bandwidth.

You haven't been paying attention have you? I've never been audited and I wasn't bitching about the taxes I pay..

[Duke2Earl]

Something you are doing on the return is causing the audits.

And if your problem is that you think you have to pay too much in taxes... well, get out there and campaign and vote for representatives that will reduce taxes. Posting in here to "discuss" it is a waste of our time and bandwidth.

You haven't been paying attention have you? I've never been audited and I wasn't bitching about the taxes I pay..

Ah well then I guess you have nothing to complain about.

[RyanMcC]

Something you are doing on the return is causing the audits.

And if your problem is that you think you have to pay too much in taxes... well, get out there and campaign and vote for representatives that will reduce taxes. Posting in here to "discuss" it is a waste of our time and bandwidth.

You haven't been paying attention have you? I've never been audited and I wasn't bitching about the taxes I pay..

Ah well then I guess you have nothing to complain about.

And I guess you have no reason to back down from building your strawman, pretending an arguement was being made which was never made.


You tell me the income tax is legal, mandatory, and constitutional as if you had to educate me about that.

You also tell me I'm wasting your time and bandwidth bitching about the taxes I pay, though I never did.

And you tell me I'm doing something on my tax returns to get audited, which I never have been.


And now you tell me I have nothing to complain about.. Thanks..

[Demosthenes]

What brings you to the Quatloos tax protester bulletin board, Mr. McC?

[RyanMcC]

What brings you to the Quatloos tax protester bulletin board, Mr. McC?

I've read it for years. Bill Gates once said the #1 key to his success was a working understanding and knowledge of tax laws. I respect the opinions of quite a few people here in their opinions of tax laws. However I do think quite a few people are pretty cynical when someone asks a question or even questions a position they may disagree with. It seems to turn into an exercise to determine the motives of the person asking the question. Which is why I think some people may have become somewhat jaded after arguing with so many tax protestors and may need a vacation (didn't say it to be mean, just an observation).

[Weathervane]

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.

Both reasonable, both wrong.

Smith v. Marshall ?

[Dezcad]

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.

Scooter v. Jesus Christ

(That is the only case that comes to mind when I read "parsing the language")

[Demosthenes]

What brings you to the Quatloos tax protester bulletin board, Mr. McC?

I've read it for years. Bill Gates once said the #1 key to his success was a working understanding and knowledge of tax laws. I respect the opinions of quite a few people here in their opinions of tax laws. However I do think quite a few people are pretty cynical when someone asks a question or even questions a position they may disagree with. It seems to turn into an exercise to determine the motives of the person asking the question. Which is why I think some people may have become somewhat jaded after arguing with so many tax protestors and may need a vacation (didn't say it to be mean, just an observation).

Well, this *is* a tax protester forum, a place where people gather to discuss stupid tax protester tricks, not a tax policy or tax planning group...

[Dr. Caligari]

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.

No idea, but I'll bet the SCOTUS case that gets cited the most by lower courts is Conley v. Gibson.

[RyanMcC]

Well, this *is* a tax protester forum, a place where people gather to discuss stupid tax protester tricks, not a tax policy or tax planning group...

I've learned quite a bit about the tax laws unrelated to TP stuff by reading Quatloos.

I simply posted a number of points about Ron Paul, one of which got picked apart (I should have known better anyway). I was trying to determine Ron Paul's reasoning for saying the Income Tax is collected in an unconstitutional way.

I used the (prehaps poor) theoritical example of: "What if during an audit I refused to give the agent any paperwork citing the 4th amendment? Wouldn't I be punished in some way?" -

From that it was mildly incinuated I may not be paying my taxes or that I got audited often. To address that I said how much I am paying to the IRS and said I've never been audited.

After pointing out how much I send the IRS it was infered I was bitching about the taxes I pay, and I get called a Tax Protestor.

(People keep pulling my comments out of context, or assuming untrue things).

Then once I figure I explained all that Duke jumps in and does it all over again.

Let me express my feelings in a way you will most appreciate:

[Demosthenes]

A little cheese with that whine?

Speaking of Ron Paul pandering shamelessly to the tax cheat crowd, the videos of Joe Banister speaking at the recent Paul rally are on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xQuZQp1lxs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bUFf9JLAhc

[RyanMcC]

A little cheese with that whine?

Speaking of Ron Paul pandering shamelessly to the tax cheat crowd, the videos of Joe Banister speaking at the recent Paul rally are on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xQuZQp1lxs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bUFf9JLAhc

Yes, I seem to remember posting that very video last month. In the thread entitled "Ron Paul: Whacko Magnet".

I also pointed out he was endorsed by a number of sane people as well.

Of course how a video of Banister speaking about Ron Paul is an example of Ron Paul pandering to anyone defies intellectual honesty, but my expectations are not very high at this point.

[wserra]

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.

No idea, but I'll bet the SCOTUS case that gets cited the most by lower courts is Conley v. Gibson.

Not as of three months ago. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, __ US __, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007).

In any event, the answer to my question is ...

[Drum roll]

United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 (1906).

WTF is that, you ask. Well, does the following language look familiar?

Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

It's in nearly every SCOTUS opinion.

QED.

[LPC]

(People keep pulling my comments out of context, or assuming untrue things).

You keep doing something that I consider to be a newbie mistake, which is that you keep defending yourself, which just digs you in deeper.

[LPC]

And we're nearing the magic number, so I'm locking the thread.