levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (02/17/86)
<Oh oh here it comes. Watch out boy, it'll chew you up! \ Oh oh here it comes. The LINE EATER! [Line eater]> In article <513@kontron.UUCP>, cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >[Long article speaking of civil liberties abuses related to IRS and taxes] >I've gone on a long time beating this dead horse -- but those of you >who are so sure that our civil liberties are intact have got your heads >inserted into Fantasyland. **BEGIN RHETORIC** Silly us. I cannot help but notice however that all these very alarmist postings (regardless of whether they are speaking of unprovoked abuses, which some are, or of cases where the victim was substantially guilty and/or VERY foolish, which others are) propose nothing as to what they expect the "gentle reader" to do, if he or she is concerned about these abuses. I kind of expected that there would be material on who in Congress and what politicians likely to run for Federal offices of all kinds support (or fail to oppose) this kind of abuse and who opposes it, what other legitimate (seek to achieve results within the law, including revisions to it, not like Posse Comitatus) political move- ments exist which seek to curb such abuses, and the like. As these postings stand, they seek to provoke consternation and righteous indignation in the read- ers, but do not suggest constructive action. May I observe that this kind of provokation can have quite dangerous results. Witness the bad luck of those who in a severe case of bullheadedness rather than reason defied the government in an amateur, obviously foolish manner rather than seeking skilled help. Remember that it is our GOVERNment we are dealing with, and if we blindly bonk our heads into its brick wall, we are likely to smash our heads and soften the wall not a bit. (And then, in a true reflection of our attitudes, act VERY alarmed and surprised.) However, to continue the analogy, we still have a say, however indirect it be, in the actions of the masons that are constantly rebuilding and remodeling that wall. How many of us who look at these abuses with consternation don't even bother to vote at every election that we are eligible to vote in, much less become active in a legitimate political interest body? After all, who is it that passes the legislation and then appoints the court judges who arbitrate this kind of thing, other than our elected officials? And then we lament our losses of civil rights. Silly us. **END RHETORIC** -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa, vax135}!ttrdc!levy
bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (02/21/86)
In article <750@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: >>[...]I've gone on a long time beating this dead horse -- but those of you >>who are so sure that our civil liberties are intact have got your heads >>inserted into Fantasyland. > >**BEGIN RHETORIC** >Silly us. >I cannot help but notice however that all these very alarmist postings >[...] propose nothing as to what they expect the "gentle reader" >to do, [...] >Silly us. >**END RHETORIC** >dan levy Silly you, Dan. You say let's get out and vote against these abuses. 1. Maybe that's what these "alarmist posters" want. 2. Maybe the New World colonists should have tried to work things out within the system 2 centuries ago, too, before running off half-cocked into a revolution. (Or did they?) 3. Did you ever consider that maybe these abuses actually occur? That maybe they might not be merely local temporary breakdowns of the system, but symptoms of a steadier erosion somewhere? It's certainly a lot easier to hide your head in the sand and hope they'll go away. That's an old old way of dealing with problems that haven't affected you directly (yet). Silly you. --
rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (02/26/86)
In article <624@sigma.UUCP> bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) writes: >Silly you, Dan. You say let's get out and vote against these abuses. >2. Maybe the New World colonists should have tried to work things out within > the system 2 centuries ago, too, before running off half-cocked into a > revolution. (Or did they?) Ben Franklin was in King George's court requesting the rights normally given to Englishmen when the news of the Boston Tea Party was announced. (Clever timing on the part of the prime minester). George was about to grant those rights, when the news changed his mind completely - against the colonists. Had the news arrived a little later, we might still be British subjects today. Interesting that the basis of the American revolution was the suspension of rights (required to enforce collection of taxes). Interesting also that the median tax rate during the revolution was much lower as a percentage than the median federal income tax rate of 1984. A New York City resident making $30,000 can pay a tax of over 50% when Federal, FICA (Not officially a tax, but same effect), State Income, City Income, Sales (max 7%), Property (Renters pay, but don't get credit), and Excise tax are all paid. The employee actually recieves less than 50% of the actual money spent by the employer on his behalf. Remember the employers contribution to FICA, unemployment insurance, workmans compensation, federally mandated insurances and taxes. A lottery winner actually won $1 million, and ended up with $20,000 "after taxes". One invester owned utility has to keep 5 different sets of books to satisfy federal and state mandated requirements. Some corporations spend more on the paperwork of avoiding taxes (deductions), than their total employee paid income tax. Many individuals pay more to their tax accountant than they pay in income tax. There are two known ways to raise taxes without a congressional vote. One of those can be done by a person who is not even an elected official. The other requires co-operation between non-elected parties. The group most likely to support "rights" is also the group most likely to raise taxes. Is the authority given to the IRS a sign of eroding rights? Let's put it this way, when a government gets hungry enough, it will eat anything, including human rights.