alpert@nanook.DEC (ingsoc goodthink doubleplusgood @MHO/DTN 2632172) (02/17/86)
[] > I'm always amused by people who try to show how income tax is >unconstitutional. 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination? >16th amendment not valid? I personally do not find the thought that the American people have been shafted for the last 70+ years amusing at all. By the way, the 5th Amendment says nothing about "self-incrimination." Why is it that I get the feeling most people have not set their eyes on the Constitution since falling asleep in some Social Studies class long ago... >Do you really think they would say, "Okay, he's right, the government has to >give everybody back the money they've paid since 1944, with interest. And >not only that, but the government can't tax anybody's income anymore." No. However, one dares to hope that a system of taxation that does not involve theft, extortion, threat, and intimidation might someday become a reality. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence should be required reading for all -- it's very interesting to contrast what the role of the Federal Government and its powers were intended to be with what it has become. To a certain extent, we are talking about political idealogy as much as anything else. If one believes in the principles of freedom and liberty that this country was founded on, the current Federal government, taxation system, and monetary system are abominations. > Actually, I think you missed a bet here. Schiff's statements >are actually irrelevent, at least in my understanding of legal >language. The true relevent question is whether the tax code contains >the single word "shall" anywhere in reference to filing returns. As I >understand the accepted usage in legal documents, the word "shall" by >itself is sufficient to create a legal requirement... In one of my previous Schiff articles, I cited the Supreme Court decision stating that the word "shall" be translated as "may" in matters where creating a requirement conflicts with the Constitution. I don't have the specific case or quote handy at the moment, I can post if desired. > ...Also if the language of the sections of the code >creating the IRS is anything like it is for such bodies as the >Copyright Office and the FCC the powers of the IRS are indeed quite >broad as far as making rules and regulations about the income tax. I don't believe these powers would include the authority to override citizen's Constitutional protections, the IRS routinely ignores these in the course of its daily business. Thank you all for your comments and input, I apologize for not having more articles ready as promised, I hope to get some more info out this week. There is an incredible amount of material to assimilate, I can only hope to present a small fraction in this forum. I will be happy to point anyone interested in more detailed information to sources. Also, I am not trying to shove this material down anyone's throat. If anyone wants to believe that the IRS is a legally run organisation that serves the public good and that the Federal Government has the legal and moral right to rummage through your personal financial affairs, fine -- chances are those people will not be swayed unless they fall under the wheels of the system, as some have. (Many of these have become the most vocal members of the tax movement!). I've received a little more news on Schiff, he has been released and apparently will not be incarcerated during the appeal process. The court did order a psychiatric examination, however! "Fight Organized Crime -- Abolish the IRS" -seen on a bumper sticker Bob Alpert ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-chovax!alpert STANDARD DISCLAIMER: These opinions are my own.
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (02/18/86)
In article <1177@decwrl.DEC.COM> alpert@nanook.DEC (ingsoc goodthink doubleplusgood @MHO/DTN 2632172) writes: >[] > >> I'm always amused by people who try to show how income tax is >>unconstitutional. 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination? >>16th amendment not valid? > >I personally do not find the thought that the American people have >been shafted for the last 70+ years amusing at all. By the way, That's not the amusing part. And neither is the idea that the tax system needs reform - I agree. What I find amusing is these people who refuse to pay on some grounds that income taxation is unconstitutional. The point is: they may be 1000% right, but the gov't AIN'T GONNA ADMIT IT. If they did in the one case, they would have to in all cases and give everyone their money back. The amusing part is that anybody thinks that's going to happen. >the 5th Amendment says nothing about "self-incrimination." Why >is it that I get the feeling most people have not set their eyes >on the Constitution since falling asleep in some Social Studies >class long ago... Well, not having a copy of the constitution handy, I would greatly appreciate it if you would post the text to the 5th amendment (sounds like you have it memorized, or at least re-read it regularly). You're right - I haven't set eyes on it since Social Studies class a long time ago. I wasn't aware that it was a rapidly changing field where we had to keep up with the latest textual changes. I may be mistaken, but I thought it said that a person could not be compelled to testify against himself. Please post the text and your explanation of what it means. > >>Do you really think they would say, "Okay, he's right, the government has to >>give everybody back the money they've paid since 1944, with interest. And >>not only that, but the government can't tax anybody's income anymore." > >No. However, one dares to hope that a system of taxation that does not >involve theft, extortion, threat, and intimidation might someday become >a reality. But simply refusing to pay is hardly going to effect that change. When you say "tax rebel", most people think "Posse Comitatus". And when you say "Posse Comitatus", most people think "Single digit IQ neo-Nazis". Seems to me you have a bit of PR work to do if anybody is going to take you seriously. And if anybody *is* going to take you seriously, you're going to have to play down the single-digit IQ of the guy who owed $40 and died for it. I would hardly call that guy a champion of the tax reform cause, and I doubt you will find much public sympathy for him. > >The Constitution and Declaration of Independence should be required >reading for all -- it's very interesting to contrast what the role >of the Federal Government and its powers were intended to be with what >it has become. I agree - and I believe our school system does as well. As a matter of fact, it *is* required reading for all American citizens who go through the school system. However, reading and comprehension are two different things. Every once in a while someone will take the Bill of Rights, remove the recognizable title, and pass the 10 points around as a petition. The number of people who refuse to sign it because it is "commanist propyganda" is truly astounding. >To a certain extent, we are talking about political idealogy as much >as anything else. If one believes in the principles of freedom and >liberty that this country was founded on, the current Federal government, >taxation system, and monetary system are abominations. Just out of curiosity, how do you propose that the government finance its operation? Seriously - I'm not baiting you, I would truly like for my thoughts to be provoked. I agree with you that there are aspects that are horrendous, but I haven't heard any reasonable alternatives yet. > > "Fight Organized Crime -- Abolish the IRS" > -seen on a bumper sticker ...and replace it with what? > > Bob Alpert -- --MKR "I've heard you say many times that you're better than no one, And no one is better than you. If you really believe that you know you have nothing to win And nothing to lose." - B. Dylan
tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (03/06/86)
> Just out of curiosity, how do you propose that the government >finance its operation? Seriously - I'm not baiting you, I would truly >like for my thoughts to be provoked. I agree with you that there are >aspects that are horrendous, but I haven't heard any reasonable >alternatives yet. Well :-) here is my plan. All taxes should be "indirect", ie no direct taxes that the general public will notice unless they make an effort to look into what is going on. Since the masses tend to sink into complacency when not provoked, this seems to be the most politically expedient method. For example, heavy taxes on oil imports and other imported goods, taxes on liquor, cigarettes levied on the producers, etc. No direct income or sales taxes. That way, not only are the masses not stirred up by having to pay taxes directly, costs of collecting taxes should go down since there would be fewer groups to collect from and they would be easier to identify. Also taxing imports is politically expedient since it would have the support of local producers. Finally, legalization and heavy taxation of narcotics, would be useful, transferring wealth from organized crime to organized government, at the same time reducing enforcement costs, reducing drug related crime, and returning criminals to more productive activity. If all else fails, we can also print more money to finance the government, borrow money, etc., and blame the resulting inflation on the arabs :-)
ray@vger.UUCP (Ray Swartz) (03/07/86)
In article <12205@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes: >> Just out of curiosity, how do you propose that the government >>finance its operation? > > Well :-) here is my plan. All taxes should be "indirect", ie no > > For example, heavy taxes on oil imports and other imported > goods, taxes on liquor, cigarettes levied on the producers, > etc. No direct income or sales taxes. Indirect taxes have indirect impacts! Taxes on consumption are notorious for being regressive - actually forcing poorer people to pay higher taxes. An example would be a tax on toilet paper. Since we all use it, those with less money would pay a higher percentage of their income to the government. My own complaint about income taxes is not that they are immoral, illegal, etc, but that they are unfair. What's wrong with a flat tax (everyone pay 10% of their income to taxes). Also, I would like to see check offs on the tax form so that I can specify where my tax dollars could be spent - like the presidental campaign check box. Lastly, who will make these taxes? The congress can't even agree to end tabacco subsidies, increase the taxes on liquor, or perform any kind of meaningful tax reform. Indirect taxes would be a nightmare of special interests buying influence with taxpayer's money. No thanks. The current IRS code is chock full of those little goodies. At least simplicity will hurt us all equally. I wouldn't mind being gouged if everyone was gouged the same.... Ray Swartz 5
ayers@convex.UUCP (03/10/86)
>...transferring wealth from organized crime to organized government...
You mean there's a difference?
;-)
Justin Kasetedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick) (03/14/86)
>>...transferring wealth from organized crime to organized government... > >You mean there's a difference? > > >;-) > >Justin Kase I'm glad somebody noticed my subtle wit :-) -Tom tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (03/14/86)
In article <12205@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) writes: >> Just out of curiosity, how do you propose that the government >>finance its operation? Seriously - I'm not baiting you, I would truly >>like for my thoughts to be provoked. I agree with you that there are >>aspects that are horrendous, but I haven't heard any reasonable >>alternatives yet. > >Well :-) here is my plan. All taxes should be "indirect", ie no >direct taxes that the general public will notice unless they >make an effort to look into what is going on. Since the masses >tend to sink into complacency when not provoked, this seems >to be the most politically expedient method. > A little cynical, perhaps, but I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment. >For example, heavy taxes on oil imports and other imported >goods, taxes on liquor, cigarettes levied on the producers, >etc. No direct income or sales taxes. Except that taxes on producers have the effect of raising the prices, which amounts to a sales tax. Sales taxes are uneven in their bite - poor people pay X% of their income on things that they have to buy, while rich people's % is lower, effectively taxing the rich on a smaller portion of their income. >That way, not only >are the masses not stirred up by having to pay taxes directly, >costs of collecting taxes should go down since there would be >fewer groups to collect from and they would be easier to >identify. Good point. >Also taxing imports is politically expedient since >it would have the support of local producers. Finally, legalization >and heavy taxation of narcotics, would be useful, transferring >wealth from organized crime to organized government, at the >same time reducing enforcement costs, reducing drug related >crime, and returning criminals to more productive activity. I agree 100% > >If all else fails, we can also print more money to finance >the government, borrow money, etc., and blame the resulting >inflation on the arabs :-) And the commies. -- --MKR Sometimes even the President of the United States must have to stand naked. - Dylan
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (03/17/86)
In article <362@vger.UUCP> ray@vger.UUCP (Ray Swartz) writes: > >Indirect taxes have indirect impacts! Taxes on consumption are >notorious for being regressive - actually forcing poorer people >to pay higher taxes. An example would be a tax on toilet paper. >Since we all use it, those with less money would pay a higher >percentage of their income to the government. > >Ray Swartz > Wellllll, the poor could shit at work. :-) The unemployed could get Toilet Paper Stamps. :-) -- --MKR Sometimes even the President of the United States must have to stand naked. - Dylan
mbr@aoa.UUCP (03/18/86)
Path:rouhplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!bbncca!aoa!mbr In article <12205@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) writes: >Finally, legalization >and heavy taxation of narcotics, wouldrbeeuseful, transferring >wealth from organized crime to organized government ... Oh. Is thereea difference? -- Mark of the Valley of Roses ...!{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!aoa!mbr ...!{wjh12,mit-vax}!biomed!aoa!mb