Triumph of the PRA Argument

[truthseeker67]

Well guess what ...... we are not being represented today, either. Our representatives are ignoring us. So I think it a good idea to send them a message.

[truthseeker67]

I have an Avatar for you Nikki.......its the Hammer and Scythe of the USSR.

[bmielke]

Hmmmmm......the "law changes every day" to which law do you speak of? The only law there is, is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights......those do not change. And if you don't want me to call you names then don't call me an ignoramus.....I have read the definitions in the INTERNAL Revenue Code.......and according to my research they ONLY apply to Federal Government employees and Instruments of the government such as defense contractors and Alphabet soup government agencies. The 16th Amendment gave congress NO NEW TAXING POWERS. Read the definitions in the code. The definitions ONLY apply to anyone who comes under the IRC, nothing else. What is the definition of "INCOME"?

Everytime a court makes a decision the law has changed. There is more precident there then there was the day before. When the Supreme Court speaks big changes happen. Tax Law also changes.

I am no expert, there are a few here, but I am pretty sure that the IRC applies to everyone. I know I get taxes taken out and I am not a federal employee, I work for a lawfirm that employs tax lawyers so if the IRC didn't apply I am pretty sure they wouldn't take my money. Plus every day I drive over roads funded by federal tax dollars so as long as those roads exist I will unhappily give some of my income to the Government.

[truthseeker67]

Aaron Russo's "Freedom to Fascism". We are slowly becoming an oppressive nation like Russia and China. It will happen here.

[bmielke]

Well guess what ...... we are not being represented today, either. Our representatives are ignoring us. So I think it a good idea to send them a message.

Seriously?

You want another civil war? That's what your talking about here. In a little over 10 months we will be able to deal with our representatives...In an election lets put away the talk of revolution. By the way Communists love revolutions...Are you compensating for your political views when you call us Communists.

Civil Wars are not the solution...It would forever end the nation we have today.

[bmielke]

Aaron Russo's "Freedom to Fascism". We are slowly becoming an oppressive nation like Russia and China. It will happen here.

It will happen a lot quicker with a civil war.

[truthseeker67]

I didn't say anything about a revolution did I, my reply was to the point of hurting them where it counts... the pocketbook. AND I highly doubt that the next election will clean the mess up. Business as usual in Congress.

[wserra]

If you will recall, the tax issue was "taxation without representation" of the Colonials in the Parliament (Commons).

Amplifying a little on that point, since it is one which the "IT WAS A TAX REVOLT, douche bags!!!" crowd appears incapable of understanding: until shortly before shots were fired, most Colonists considered themselves Englishmen. For almost a century (since the English Bill of Rights of 1689), English law had prohibited the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament, at which commoners were represented. The protest of the Colonists was that, as Englishmen, their rights under English law were being violated - not by being taxed, but rather by being taxed but not represented. Nowhere is this clearer than in the so-called "Virginia Resolves", the House of Burgesses' response to the Stamp Act, introduced by Patrick Henry in 1765:

2. Resolved, that by two royal charters, granted by King James I, the colonists aforesaid are declared entitled to all liberties, privileges, and immunities of denizens and natural subjects to all intents and purposes as if they had been abiding and born within the Realm of England.

3. Resolved, that the taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, or the easiest method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every tax laid on the people, is the only security against a burdensome taxation, and the distinguishing characteristic of British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot exist.

Of course, as Prof notes, the Constitution itself contains a sweeping power to tax.

[truthseeker67]

Aaron Russo's "Freedom to Fascism". We are slowly becoming an oppressive nation like Russia and China. It will happen here.

It will happen a lot quicker with a civil war.

How? Qualify your reply.

[bmielke]

I didn't say anything about a revolution did I, my reply was to the point of hurting them where it counts... the pocketbook.

You should have said that because you were talking about a tax revolt. Revolt and Revolution are (in my book) interchangeable and involve gun play. A better choice of words would have been Tax Protest, then while I would believe you misguided, I wouldn't have thought you dangerous.

AND I highly doubt that the next election will clean the mess up. Business as usual in Congress.

Well the only way to change things is to donate to the party of your choice, vote for different people and if you can't find a suitable canidate run yourself. So put your money where your mouth is.

[truthseeker67]

If you will recall, the tax issue was "taxation without representation" of the Colonials in the Parliament (Commons).

Amplifying a little on that point, since it is one which the "IT WAS A TAX REVOLT, douche bags!!!" crowd appears incapable of understanding: until shortly before shots were fired, most Colonists considered themselves Englishmen. For almost a century (since the English Bill of Rights of 1689), English law had prohibited the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament, at which commoners were represented. The protest of the Colonists was that, as Englishmen, their rights under English law were being violated - not by being taxed, but rather by being taxed but not represented. Nowhere is this clearer than in the so-called "Virginia Resolves", the House of Burgesses' response to the Stamp Act, introduced by Patrick Henry in 1765:

2. Resolved, that by two royal charters, granted by King James I, the colonists aforesaid are declared entitled to all liberties, privileges, and immunities of denizens and natural subjects to all intents and purposes as if they had been abiding and born within the Realm of England.




Okay, sorry.


Okay, well I apologize for the "douchebag" comment. But it was still a tax revolt, doesn't matter how you slice it. It just makes me angry that we live in a country where we are being ignored by our representatives and being taxed into the poor house.

3. Resolved, that the taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, or the easiest method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every tax laid on the people, is the only security against a burdensome taxation, and the distinguishing characteristic of British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot exist.

Of course, as Prof notes, the Constitution itself contains a sweeping power to tax.

I didn't say anything about a revolution did I, my reply was to the point of hurting them where it counts... the pocketbook.

You should have said that because you were talking about a tax revolt. Revolt and Revolution are (in my book) interchangeable and involve gun play. A better choice of words would have been Tax Protest, then while I would believe you misguided, I wouldn't have thought you dangerous.

AND I highly doubt that the next election will clean the mess up. Business as usual in Congress.

Well the only way to change things is to donate to the party of your choice, vote for different people and if you can't find a suitable canidate run yourself. So put your money where your mouth is.

[bmielke]

Aaron Russo's "Freedom to Fascism". We are slowly becoming an oppressive nation like Russia and China. It will happen here.

It will happen a lot quicker with a civil war.

How? Qualify your reply.

Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, and many of the freedoms we hold dear. Do you honestly believe that in a revolution the same wouldn't happen today?

In two more recent examples I read about over the weekend freedom was limited.

1. After Katrina All Guns were confiscated and the lawful owners have not got them back. (In New Orleans) The NRA is fighting about it.

2. During the Rodney King riots in LA the City suspended sales of Guns and Ammo and refused to allow lawfully purchased firearms to be picked up.

Then of course there is tha patriot act. Necessary but still limiting.

[truthseeker67]

Hmmmmm......the "law changes every day" to which law do you speak of? The only law there is, is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights......those do not change. And if you don't want me to call you names then don't call me an ignoramus.....I have read the definitions in the INTERNAL Revenue Code.......and according to my research they ONLY apply to Federal Government employees and Instruments of the government such as defense contractors and Alphabet soup government agencies. The 16th Amendment gave congress NO NEW TAXING POWERS. Read the definitions in the code. The definitions ONLY apply to anyone who comes under the IRC, nothing else. What is the definition of "INCOME"?

Everytime a court makes a decision the law has changed. There is more precident there then there was the day before. When the Supreme Court speaks big changes happen. Tax Law also changes.

I am no expert, there are a few here, but I am pretty sure that the IRC applies to everyone. I know I get taxes taken out and I am not a federal employee, I work for a lawfirm that employs tax lawyers so if the IRC didn't apply I am pretty sure they wouldn't take my money. Plus every day I drive over roads funded by federal tax dollars so as long as those roads exist I will unhappily give some of my income to the Government.

If you will recall, the tax issue was "taxation without representation" of the Colonials in the Parliament (Commons).

Amplifying a little on that point, since it is one which the "IT WAS A TAX REVOLT, douche bags!!!" crowd appears incapable of understanding: until shortly before shots were fired, most Colonists considered themselves Englishmen. For almost a century (since the English Bill of Rights of 1689), English law had prohibited the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament, at which commoners were represented. The protest of the Colonists was that, as Englishmen, their rights under English law were being violated - not by being taxed, but rather by being taxed but not represented. Nowhere is this clearer than in the so-called "Virginia Resolves", the House of Burgesses' response to the Stamp Act, introduced by Patrick Henry in 1765:

2. Resolved, that by two royal charters, granted by King James I, the colonists aforesaid are declared entitled to all liberties, privileges, and immunities of denizens and natural subjects to all intents and purposes as if they had been abiding and born within the Realm of England.

3. Resolved, that the taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, or the easiest method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every tax laid on the people, is the only security against a burdensome taxation, and the distinguishing characteristic of British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot exist.

Of course, as Prof notes, the Constitution itself contains a sweeping power to tax.

Yeah, Government Employees

[bmielke]

Yeah, Government Employees

This will likely not work:

Lets try a little logic shall we?

If the govenment can't tax everyone where do they get the money to pay employees?

If they have no employees why do they exist?

If they don't exist explain for me how I drove on an Interstate this morning, that I know was funded with Federal Tax Dollars. Explain how I work five miles from an Air Force Base that I know is funded by the Federal Government, and explain where the funding comes from.

Also please explain what all those large buildings filled with people in Washington DC do all day.

[wserra]

Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, and many of the freedoms we hold dear. Do you honestly believe that in a revolution the same wouldn't happen today.

You don't need to go back to the Civil War, either in time or in positing a revolution. You only need to look at the Japanese internment cases of WWII (Korematsu and Hirabayashi) - which, of course, did not involve a civil war. We like to think that such disgraces couldn't happen today - but it was only sixty years ago, and I for one am not all that sure.

[Nikki]

TS67:

Ignoring your misinterpretation of both history and the laws as they stand today, how about if you come up up with a proposal for funding the government without an income tax.

You have three choices:

1 - come up with a non income tax source of revenue which will fully fund the operations of the government as it stands today and is less burdensome on you

2 - come up with a specific list of programs to be eliminated which will sufficiently reduce the expenditures to a level where they will not require the proceeds of an income tax (and "eliminate fraud waste, and abuse" isn't acceptable in that it's too generic)

3 - some combination of 1 and 2

If you either decline to address the issue or fail to come up with a workable solution, (which I guarantee will happen) you will be automatically entered in the troll-of-the-year contest for 2010.

[wserra]

Of course, as Prof notes, the Constitution itself contains a sweeping power to tax.

Yeah, Government Employees

Since the Constitution does not say that, the law does not say that, and you offer no proof of it, I leave it at this: no one whose opinion matters agrees with you.

[bmielke]

Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, and many of the freedoms we hold dear. Do you honestly believe that in a revolution the same wouldn't happen today.

You don't need to go back to the Civil War, either in time or in positing a revolution. You only need to look at the Japanese internment cases of WWII (Korematsu and Hirabayashi) - which, of course, did not involve a civil war. We like to think that such disgraces couldn't happen today - but it was only sixty years ago, and I for one am not all that sure.

Yeah your right, I didn't even think of that one. Of course this guy is talking about the revolutionary war when a better examply of his point would have been the whiskey rebellion of 178(9?) That was really about taxes, the Revolutionary war while the grievences were about taxes could have been resloved with out troops.

[The Operative]

Hmmmmm......the "law changes every day" to which law do you speak of? The only law there is, is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights......those do not change.

The law consists of much more than just the Constitution (which includes the Bill of Rights as the first ten amendments). You need to take a civics course.

And if you don't want me to call you names then don't call me an ignoramus.....I have read the definitions in the INTERNAL Revenue Code.......and according to my research they ONLY apply to Federal Government employees and Instruments of the government such as defense contractors and Alphabet soup government agencies.

Your "research" is wrong. The federal income tax laws apply to citizens and residents of the United States (which includes the 50 states). See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#government

The 16th Amendment gave congress NO NEW TAXING POWERS. Read the definitions in the code. The definitions ONLY apply to anyone who comes under the IRC, nothing else. What is the definition of "INCOME"?

You need to read the entire quote from the Supreme Court that made that statement. Once the entire sentence is read, it becomes clear that Congress ALWAYS had the power to tax incomes. http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#nonewpower

Aaron Russo's "Freedom to Fascism". We are slowly becoming an oppressive nation like Russia and China. It will happen here.

"Snow White" contains more facts than Aaron Russo's "Freedom to Fascism". See http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/ ... es/F2F.htm

[bmielke]

I had not heard of "Freedom to Facism" I assumed it was a book. I assumed it compared Obama with Hitler, and was recent.

Why would you ever trust a movie on income tax issues? That would be like trusting "On Deadly Ground" about Alaskan Enviromental Issues.

Thanks for the link.