AMERICA: Income taxes ILLEGAL?

Message boards : Politics : AMERICA: Income taxes ILLEGAL?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 605463 - Posted: 18 Jul 2007, 14:15:40 UTC - in response to Message 605452.  

Rush, the government has been lifting protection that drug companies have on drug ingredients for a long time. This is done because no one in thier right mind thinks that any single drug company should have exclusive rights to life-saving medications. That's a monopoly. Drug companies have used the protections to keep development costs high. Development costs they have been intentionally overstating. Shortening the amount of time a drug is protected under patent will lead to more competition, while making the companies reduce their development costs. I disagree with your statement on entry costs. It's too speculative.

Too speculative for you maybe. Economists are well aware of the relationship between entry costs and market participation.

As far as the rest, well, you're entitled to your opinion. What actually happens, given the high entry costs, and the massive R&D costs, and the high regulatory costs, is that if you take away the rights to the physical product, it never gets invented in the first place. Why would anyone bother with producing it to begin with?

In other words, you put downward pressure on creating these things. Pharmaceuticals especially, given the exposure to liability. So taking these all into account, they're all disincentives to creating new drugs and bringing them to market. Taking away more of that incentive, i.e., "stripping away some of the rights drug companies have on drug ingredients," and adding a more onerous burden is not a recipe for improving the system--it's just more of what created the problems in the first place.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 605463 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 605514 - Posted: 18 Jul 2007, 16:53:37 UTC - in response to Message 605436.  
Last modified: 18 Jul 2007, 18:55:26 UTC

Well as long as everybody who has an income or a win above the poverty limit have to pay these taxes in a just amount of percentage, and as long as these taxes are covered in the Laws, so why not? Unfortunately there are so many loop-holes especially for the rich ones and for big companies that the main part of income taxes still comes from middle class and lower.


Ok, per data from the IRS

Using data from 2004 (the latest currently available), comparing Adjusted Gross Income to percent of Total Income Tax collected:

Taxpayers in the top 1% of Adjusted Gross Income (>= $328049) paid 36.89% of the total Income Tax collected.

Taxpayers in the top 5% of Adjusted Gross Income (>= $137056) paid 57.13% of the total Income Tax collected.

Taxpayers in the top 10% of Adjusted Gross Income (>= $99112) paid 68.19% of the total Income Tax collected.

Taxpayers in the top 25% of Adjusted Gross Income (>= $60041) paid 84.86% of the total Income Tax collected.

Taxpayers in the top 50% of Adjusted Gross Income (>= $30122) paid 96.70% of the total Income Tax collected.

What can we see from this data?

The people in the lowest 50% of income in the US paid only 3.3% of the total Income Tax collected.

The people in the highest 1% of income in the US paid over 1/3 of the total Income Tax collected.

The people in the US with an AGI of about $100000 or more paid over 2/3 of the total Income Tax collected.

I submit to you that this data proves that the lower end of the middle class and the poor (i.e. those least able to pay) do not suffer an undue burden when it comes to income tax. In fact, the Poor barely even know it is there. The burden of the Income Tax falls primarily on the Rich and the upper end of the middle class (i.e. those BEST able to pay).

(edited for clarity of terms)
ID: 605514 · Report as offensive
Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 01
Posts: 21804
Credit: 2,815,091
RAC: 0
United States
Message 605709 - Posted: 19 Jul 2007, 2:06:02 UTC

Paying taxes on $570 million per year

DAVID IGNATIUS
THE WASHINGTON POST

July 18, 2007

For mysterious reasons, people can suddenly become indignant about government policies they have accepted for years as a matter of course. That sudden seismic shift seems to be happening now in public attitudes toward taxation of America's super-rich financiers.

The three leading Democratic candidates – Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards – all announced recently that they support higher taxes on what's known as “carried interest,” the form of compensation received by financial moguls that has created some of the biggest new fortunes on Wall Street.

We may be seeing a political bubble bursting: For decades, the capitalists who ran private equity, venture and hedge funds managed to convince Congress that the 20 percent carried interest profit share they took on deals wasn't ordinary income (taxed at up to 35 percent) but a capital gain (taxed at 15 percent), even though they typically were risking almost none of their own capital. This gross inequity was taken as a financial fact of nature. But no more.

Even the wealthy – at least those with a social conscience – seem to share the new concern about restoring fairness to the tax system. The most prominent critic is mega-billionaire Warren Buffett, the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway and a director of The Washington Post Co. He famously admonished his fellow moguls a month ago that they were paying a lower tax rate than the people who cleaned their offices – and offered them $1 million if they could prove otherwise.

Buffett is hardly alone in his discomfort with a system that has led to an ever-wider disparity in the distribution of income. That's what gives this movement traction: Some of the people who know Wall Street best understand how unfair the current tax system is. A good example is Robert Rubin, a former treasury secretary and, more to the point, a former head of Goldman Sachs. He recently joined those arguing that carried interest amounted to a fee paid to the money managers, and should thus be taxed as ordinary income.

A billionaire who runs one of the leading hedge funds wrote me in an e-mail last week: “Amusing what is going on in the tax charades of the money managers. How in the world anyone can uphold those egregious amounts of money paying low or no taxes is really becoming laughable. . . . The private equity guys I know admit they do not have an argument that holds water.” This financier described watching a production of “Animal Farm” and realizing that “the vastness of the inequity that is escalating geometrically is just, well, Orwellian.”

Another financier who heads a private equity fund with more than $5 billion in investments offers a similar scorching indictment of the current system. The argument that the 20 percent he automatically takes away from profitable deals should be taxed as a capital gain is “completely ridiculous,” he says. Most firms put only a tiny amount of their own capital at risk – often as little as two-tenths of 1 percent, or $2 million on a $1 billion deal. (Private equity refers to funds that use a mix of debt and private capital to buy up companies; typically they pay back the loans by cutting costs.)

The giant private equity funds are nervous enough about the pressure building for tax changes that a few months ago they created their own Washington trade group, the Private Equity Council, which is already producing studies to justify the existing tax breaks. Their Web site explains that although fund managers may be putting up little of their capital, they deserve special tax breaks because they are contributing “sweat equity.” Try telling that to the guy on the shop floor who's actually sweating – and paying taxes at a far higher rate.

A measure of just how rich the new financiers are is a list compiled annually by Alpha magazine of the top 25 hedge fund managers. The average earnings for these financial titans last year were $570 million, which was an increase of 57 percent over the 2005 average. “In total, the top 25 earners raked in more than $14 billion, equivalent to the GDP of Jordan or Uruguay,” writes Alpha. You read sentences like that and you wonder why there isn't a revolution against a global financial system that produces such disparities.

Is Alpha's readership of tycoons embarrassed by these numbers? Apparently not. A June 2007 editorial urges greater political activism by the super-rich in Washington to save their tax breaks. “The time is now,” the article warns. If current trends continue, “we may wake up one day to find fundamental changes affecting our business.” What a happy thought.
me@rescam.org
ID: 605709 · Report as offensive
AC
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 3413
Credit: 119,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 605823 - Posted: 19 Jul 2007, 9:13:43 UTC - in response to Message 605463.  

Rush, the government has been lifting protection that drug companies have on drug ingredients for a long time. This is done because no one in thier right mind thinks that any single drug company should have exclusive rights to life-saving medications. That's a monopoly. Drug companies have used the protections to keep development costs high. Development costs they have been intentionally overstating. Shortening the amount of time a drug is protected under patent will lead to more competition, while making the companies reduce their development costs. I disagree with your statement on entry costs. It's too speculative.

Too speculative for you maybe. Economists are well aware of the relationship between entry costs and market participation.

As far as the rest, well, you're entitled to your opinion. What actually happens, given the high entry costs, and the massive R&D costs, and the high regulatory costs, is that if you take away the rights to the physical product, it never gets invented in the first place. Why would anyone bother with producing it to begin with?

In other words, you put downward pressure on creating these things. Pharmaceuticals especially, given the exposure to liability. So taking these all into account, they're all disincentives to creating new drugs and bringing them to market. Taking away more of that incentive, i.e., "stripping away some of the rights drug companies have on drug ingredients," and adding a more onerous burden is not a recipe for improving the system--it's just more of what created the problems in the first place.


The original drug developer may be compensated by the generic manufacturer. Drug companies could also be exempt from paying any taxes. Fair, since they produce things that help us stay healthy. Few people would object to that I think.

ID: 605823 · Report as offensive
AC
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 3413
Credit: 119,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 605854 - Posted: 19 Jul 2007, 11:29:31 UTC - in response to Message 605241.  
Last modified: 19 Jul 2007, 12:23:45 UTC


MajorKong, I understand how taxation policy might shift if the current income tax system were to be abolished. The government would most likely be looking to other places to make up for the huge loss that would result from the lack of those taxes. Taxation may end up resembling what it was pre-16th Amendment days. And with the newer 'free trade' agreements being what they are today, it would definately pose a problem.

The reason for creating the 16th Amendment was that bankers and their political friends knew that they couldn't get the money that they wanted even with increasing the taxes with the system that was in place at the time. They knew that there were limits to how much they could push and squeeze to get what they wanted.


Yes, the 16th Amendment was 'necessary'. Something had to be done, that much is true. But was the 16th Amendment the best solution, especially using a long-term view of the situation? Probably not. But, unless something changes in a drastic way, it is what we are stuck with.

I don't disagree with the points you made about the potential spending problems. The numbers are quite frightening. And I appreciate the additional information you provided. However, I think it's possible to cut down on the huge amounts of money that's being spent on health care by other ways. A couple of very important things can be done. One of the problems is that the health care system in general isn't as efficient as it could be.


You speak of efficiency. One of the greatest inefficiencies in the health care system today is excessive Government regulation. The bureaucracy made necessary by these regulations eat up money at ALL levels.

More strict universal medical standards should be applied when it comes to diagnosis and treatment.


Hmm... While medical treatment of each individual has many similarities, there are some slight differences in each of us. A treatment that might work on some people might not work on others (and may even be harmful or fatal). As an example, lets take my case. Suppose I have a condition that requires antibiotic treatment (and I currently do, a streptococcus infection on my leg). Now then, one could impose a treatment using more common, cheaper antibiotics as part of your cost-controlling 'standards'. Now that might work on many people. It might not work on some people, due to drug resistance of the strep. With others, it might (or even likely would) be fatal, due to antibiotic allergies (this is my case). I *require* treatment with newer, VERY expensive antibiotics, if I am to be treated for it at all. The antibiotic I have to take is extremely expensive compared to other, older antibiotics. It sells *WHOLESALE* for US$8.00 a pill in lots of 1000. Retail price (getting it filled at a drug store) is considerably more. And since it is somewhat new, there *is* no 'generic equivalent'.

These cost-controlling standards you mention, while they sound good in 'theory' or on paper, would only save money by preventing some patients from getting treatment that they need. Lets leave treatment decisions to the physician, ok?

If there was more spending on finding cures for diseases, and we're talking MUCH more spending, it would get rid of the need to have to spend the money that's being spent today.


While research on finding cures for diseases, and new, better drugs is important, I submit to you that there is another huge cost-saver around. Preventative medicine. Too often, people get sick due to poor choice of lifestyle. They eat too much. They eat the wrong 'foods'. They don't get enough exercise. They smoke. The list goes on and on. Lets jack up the money we spend on this too, and reap the cost-savings on expensive medical treatments.

Also, some of the rights that drug companies have should be stripped away. It'll make a very big difference in government spending if other companies are allowed to pruduce drugs with the same ingredients at a small fraction of the cost. If they don't like it, tough.


Companies ALREADY do this in the USA. These 'discount' drugs are called 'Generic Drugs'. The Government health care programs ALREADY takes advantage of this. They REQUIRE a drug prescription be filled with a Generic equivalent is one is available, as do most private insurance policies that cover prescription drugs.

Once the patent expires on new drugs, other companies are free to produce Generic equivalents. Perhaps you are suggesting reducing the length of these patents. This may or may not be helpful. Remember 'Big Pharma' are pretty much the ONLY ones able to research new drugs. A good portion of their income on their current drugs goes to research new ones. By reducing the length of their patents, you remove some of both the financing and the incentive to research new ones. If you eliminate patents on drugs altogether, you will do nothing but guarantee that very little if any research on new drugs happens. Is there room for at least some amount of reform of this process? Certainly. But a knee-jerk, hasty reaction will be nothing but counter-productive in the long run.

Remember, I didn't say I believed in complete socialized health care. I did mention that it would be easier for many people to pay for their own insurance if the burdon of income taxes was lifted. Besides, socialized health care doesn't necessarily mean better health care. I partially disagree with you when you say that the poor already have access to health care. While it's true that in some places there are medical facilities that take care of the poor, it's not like that everywhere.


If the burden of income taxes are lifted, other taxes would have to be put into place. The burden of ALL taxes falls on private individuals either directly or indirectly. Getting rid of the income tax would only change the name of the tax burdening us all, it would not eliminate that burden.

As to access to health care by the poor. I can't speak for the other states, but most counties in the State of Texas have a 'county hospital'. Those that don't contract with a neighboring county for access to their county hospital. These county hospitals must take charity cases. Now, granted this treatment might not be convenient. You may have to wait a LONG time (hours) in the waiting area before they get to you for non-emergency cases. But guess what? You know how hard it is to get an appointment at a doctor's office, even with private insurance? My experience is a week or two. Depending on where you live, you may have to drive across the city, or even into the next county to get to your designated county hospital. Or, if you are sick enough, get someone else to drive you. But again, guess what? With private health insurance, you might have to do this as well, to get to a physician that is 'allowed' by your plan. There are places where there is no 'county hospital' available within any sort of sane distance due to it being a sparsely populated, extremely rural area. One of my favorite vacation spots is like this. But even *if* you have private insurance, you are still screwed there. The nearest health care of ANY sort is about 75 miles away, and the nearest hospital of any sort is over 100 miles away. Rich or poor, there are places in the country where there just isn't any health care available. Not even Socialized medicine would change this.


While we agree that the 16th Amendment was passed because of some necessity, I would argue that the necessity for it was not meant to actually benefit the American people, but rather for other, for more hidden reasons.

I realize that the shoe won't fit for everyone when it comes to diagnosis and treatment. There are many people that go to a doctor to find out what's wrong with them and the doctor fails to find what the problem is. Sometimes it can take a dozen or even more visits to different doctors until the condition or illness is discovered. So instead of a Medicare patient costing the government, oh let's say, $100 - $300 for one or two exams, it ends up costing much more. And that's just for the visits. Think about how much more money it's going to cost if the patient is given the wrong medications. A few months ago my mother had an operation in Europe to fix an artery that was blocked. It was a good thing that the doctors at the hospital in Europe decided to operate when they did because they said if she didn't have it she might have died. Now for months she was having pains in her upper chest and neck when she was here in the states. It was clear from the symptoms that it was most likely an artery that was causing the pain. It doesn't take a doctor to understand what these kinds of symtoms indicate. But what did the doctors here do? Well not a damn thing. They just gave her some nitro and told ger to go home while she should have been admited for advanced imaging. See where I'm going?

I totally agree with you about preventative medicine being another cost-saver. However, this is where the medical community and government is a major part of the problem. The government allows food manufacturers to sell foods that are labeled as natural when infact they aren't. Certain foods have important health benefits when they are in organic form and unprocessed. When you go to your local store to buy all those nice foods you think are good for you, you actually end up getting foods that aren't. This is because the government has allowed the food industry to sell their foods as the real deal. So when the government tells you to eat those healthy foods, they're not telling you that those foods lack the the benefits that completely natural foods have. Vitamin supplements have also been proven to be significant in the prevention of illness. But scientific research has proved that there is a difference between natural vitamins and synthetic (fake) ones. The synthetic ones lack key components that are found in the natural ones. The government has allowed vitamin manufacturers to hide this fact from unsuspecting people despite having the evidence of what the differences are. And the medical 'community', also aware of the evidence, hides the fact. When doctors prescribe vitamins, they don't inform the patient on those differences.

About 'Big Pharma' spending all the money they claim to be spending on new research for new drugs. While they do spend a portion of their profits on research for new drugs, a lot of that spending goes to the research of copycat drugs. If you want to believe some sources, it's way more.

Other taxes might end up being put into place if income taxes didn't exist yes, I understand that it might be like that. But that is a separate issue from what we're talking about here. The issue is the constitutionality/legality of the 16th Amendment itself, and what right it gives the government to impose direct taxes on salaries.

ID: 605854 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 606029 - Posted: 19 Jul 2007, 18:42:10 UTC - in response to Message 605854.  
Last modified: 19 Jul 2007, 19:07:06 UTC

While we agree that the 16th Amendment was passed because of some necessity, I would argue that the necessity for it was not meant to actually benefit the American people, but rather for other, for more hidden reasons.

I realize that the shoe won't fit for everyone when it comes to diagnosis and treatment. There are many people that go to a doctor to find out what's wrong with them and the doctor fails to find what the problem is. Sometimes it can take a dozen or even more visits to different doctors until the condition or illness is discovered. So instead of a Medicare patient costing the government, oh let's say, $100 - $300 for one or two exams, it ends up costing much more. And that's just for the visits. Think about how much more money it's going to cost if the patient is given the wrong medications. A few months ago my mother had an operation in Europe to fix an artery that was blocked. It was a good thing that the doctors at the hospital in Europe decided to operate when they did because they said if she didn't have it she might have died. Now for months she was having pains in her upper chest and neck when she was here in the states. It was clear from the symptoms that it was most likely an artery that was causing the pain. It doesn't take a doctor to understand what these kinds of symtoms indicate. But what did the doctors here do? Well not a damn thing. They just gave her some nitro and told ger to go home while she should have been admited for advanced imaging. See where I'm going?


I'm glad that things turned out this well for your Mother. Back in the days before advanced imaging and surgical techniques, 'nitro' (as you called it) was the standard treatment for Angina Pectoris. Perhaps the doctors your Mother went to in the USA were somewhat behind the times, because I know of a great many cases of late where the doctors do their best to talk such patients into having various procedures done. The placement of 'stints' into arteries to open them up is actually quite commonplace now, and not very invasive either. It is virtually 'outpatient' surgery. For worse cases, 'bypass' surgery has been the norm for years. I do not know why the US doctors in your Mother's case did not suggest one of these, as apparently the European doctors did. Perhaps there might have been some other factors in the case which neither you nor I were/are privy to which indicated to your Mother's US doctors that further procedures might not have been wise. But regardless, I would have gone for a 'second opinion' with another doctor (and likely a 3rd and 4th one as well).

I totally agree with you about preventative medicine being another cost-saver. However, this is where the medical community and government is a major part of the problem. The government allows food manufacturers to sell foods that are labeled as natural when infact they aren't.


This is a problem. Define 'Natural'. What one person might consider 'Natural', another might not. 'Natural' is a buzzword and a bad term. I do, however, agree that the Government needs to make and enforce stricter labeling standards.

Certain foods have important health benefits when they are in organic form and unprocessed.


Two more terms. 'Organic' is another buzzword, and is a bad term because it means different things to different people. 'Unprocessed', however, is rather explicit in its meaning. When foods are 'processed', much of their nutritive value can be (and almost always is) removed. People worldwide would do well to avoid 'processed' foods as much as possible.

When you go to your local store to buy all those nice foods you think are good for you, you actually end up getting foods that aren't.


'Convenience food' is total crap. It is often loaded down with ingredients that either you don't need (such as many of the weird 'thickening agents' made from seaweed and gawd-only-knows-what-else), and are actually harmful (such as various preservatives and the tons of salt). It is much better to buy raw unprocessed food in the 'produce' section. However, a big villain here is the system used to get 'produce' from the field to your store's display shelves. So much of 'produce' today is picked in the fields well before it is ripe, and chemically and/or artificially ripened while in transit across the country or the world. Since the produce was picked 'green', it did not have the chance to develop to its full nutritive value. Furthermore, it doesn't taste as nice either. People in the USA need to start eating (in season) produce that is locally grown and picked ripe, and less of the stuff that came from who-knows-how-far-away.

An alternative to fresh produce is frozen. Frozen produce is usually picked much closer to full ripeness, and since it is frozen it is much easier to ship.

This is because the government has allowed the food industry to sell their foods as the real deal. So when the government tells you to eat those healthy foods, they're not telling you that those foods lack the the benefits that completely natural foods have. Vitamin supplements have also been proven to be significant in the prevention of illness. But scientific research has proved that there is a difference between natural vitamins and synthetic (fake) ones. The synthetic ones lack key components that are found in the natural ones. The government has allowed vitamin manufacturers to hide this fact from unsuspecting people despite having the evidence of what the differences are. And the medical 'community', also aware of the evidence, hides the fact. When doctors prescribe vitamins, they don't inform the patient on those differences.


'Vitamins' have been proven to be significant is the prevention of illness. A person that is otherwise healthy (as in not having a condition such as Pernicious Anemia, as a poster in another thread mentioned) that eats a truly balanced diet of 'good' foods has no need of supplements. Sadly, a great many people worldwide, especially in the USA, do not eat this way. They consume far too much junk, and not enough healthy food. Chemically, however, there is precious little (and in most cases NO) difference between vitamins found in various healthy foods and the synthetic variety.

The difference is that, in some cases, the healthy food contains other, lesser known vitamins, cofactors, and other micro-nutrients that are not present in the supplements. Yes, with more research one might be able, one day, to make a 'complete' supplement, but it would be rather on the expensive side. However, we already know where to find everything in its complete form: eat a healthy, balanced diet. Some supplements will always be necessary for cases such as Pernicious Anemia such as I mentioned above. People with that condition have great difficulty in absorbing vitamin B-12 from what they eat. In those cases, doctors will prescribe B-12 injections. It doesn't really matter where the B-12 comes from. Synthetic is usually purer, of known concentration, and cheaper as well.

The bulk of the 'supplement' industry is not only unnecessary, but provides a crutch for a great many people to continue their unhealthy (for not only this reason but also many others) eating habits. Americans waste much more money on 'Supplements' every year than it would cost to just eat healthy in the first place.

About 'Big Pharma' spending all the money they claim to be spending on new research for new drugs. While they do spend a portion of their profits on research for new drugs, a lot of that spending goes to the research of copycat drugs. If you want to believe some sources, it's way more.


Well now... What is so wrong with drug companies researching drugs that have the same effect as drugs sold by other companies? It would seem to me that this would be a good thing. Multiple suppliers of medication to treat some condition will increase the supply, therefore helping to drive costs down through competition in the market, thereby benefiting consumers. Let them copycat each other. In the beginning, there was Viagra. Now there are at least two other medications that trigger the same chemical change to treat the same condition. Three competitors in a market where only one existed not so long ago. This is a bad thing... how?

Other taxes might end up being put into place if income taxes didn't exist yes, I understand that it might be like that. But that is a separate issue from what we're talking about here. The issue is the constitutionality/legality of the 16th Amendment itself, and what right it gives the government to impose direct taxes on salaries.


Ahh, back to the thread topic. The 16th Amendment is, by definition Constitutional. Amendments change the Constitution. The 16th Amendment explicitly changed the Constitution to give the Federal Government the right to impose a direct tax on people's incomes. Any laws passed on the subject, unless they violate some other, unrelated provision of the Constitution, are Constitutional, and it is Legal for the Government to enforce those laws.

Trying to claim that previous text in the Constitution invalidates the 16th Amendment is just as nuts as trying to claim that previous text in the Constitution invalidates the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery. If somehow Amendments are of lesser validity than the Original text, you can kiss the Bill of Rights (the 1st through the 10th Amendments) goodbye as well. You can't make the argument that Amendments are of lesser validity without it applying to ALL of the Amendments.

The Federal Income Tax is Constitutional and Legal. In the absence of a Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified, it must be considered as properly ratified. SCOTUS has had many, many opportunities to rule on this question about the 16th Amendment in the 9 decades since it was ratified. SCOTUS has YET to strike it down. I would say that that is a pretty good indication that they will not do so, ever.

The only way the 16th Amendment is EVER going to be overturned is if it is repealed by another Amendment. In my opinion, that has about as much likelihood of happening as a Giant Redwood tree has of uprooting itself and walking into Downtown Los Angeles. The Federal Government has little interest in depriving itself of one of its biggest revenue streams, and the various State Governments have little interest in depriving themselves of many (if not all) of the 'Federal Funds' they receive. An Income Tax repeal Amendment has a very long, extremely uphill road to travel.

Perhaps some reform of the Income Tax Code would be of benefit, and might, maybe, stand a chance of being adopted. Perhaps some reform could correct what I (and many others) consider as being the worst excesses of the Income Tax. But outright repeal? In my opinion, not a chance. I would (and do) support replacing the Income Tax with another tax system. I am in favor of taxing Consumption at the Federal Level instead of Production. That makes much more economic sense to me. But I know that that has precious little chance of being enacted. Furthermore, any attempt to do so might backfire and leave us with BOTH. I hate the Income Tax as much as likely anyone else in the nation. However I am realistic enough to know that there is little chance of escaping it.

Any possible replacement for the Income Tax will have to provide a comparable amount of revenue to the Federal Government. The Tax Burden on the taxpaying individuals will not change. Also, don't go with the fiction of 'lets tax businesses, not individuals'. Any taxes businesses pay comes out of the pockets of consumers anyway, as businesses raise their prices. Any change from the Income Tax to something else won't change the American People's tax burden, only the method that Uncle Sam uses to reach into your wallet.

In conclusion, I will say that being one of these 'Tax Protesters' and refusing to pay the Income Tax while encouraging others to do the same will only result in the Protester being impoverished when the IRS seizes their assets, the Protester being thrown in prison for violating the law, and, in the event that the Protester resists violently when the IRS / Police / Federal Marshalls come to get them and their stuff, being put in the morgue.
ID: 606029 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 606245 - Posted: 20 Jul 2007, 0:17:52 UTC - in response to Message 605823.  

Rush, the government has been lifting protection that drug companies have on drug ingredients for a long time. This is done because no one in thier right mind thinks that any single drug company should have exclusive rights to life-saving medications. That's a monopoly. Drug companies have used the protections to keep development costs high. Development costs they have been intentionally overstating. Shortening the amount of time a drug is protected under patent will lead to more competition, while making the companies reduce their development costs. I disagree with your statement on entry costs. It's too speculative.

Too speculative for you maybe. Economists are well aware of the relationship between entry costs and market participation.

As far as the rest, well, you're entitled to your opinion. What actually happens, given the high entry costs, and the massive R&D costs, and the high regulatory costs, is that if you take away the rights to the physical product, it never gets invented in the first place. Why would anyone bother with producing it to begin with?

In other words, you put downward pressure on creating these things. Pharmaceuticals especially, given the exposure to liability. So taking these all into account, they're all disincentives to creating new drugs and bringing them to market. Taking away more of that incentive, i.e., "stripping away some of the rights drug companies have on drug ingredients," and adding a more onerous burden is not a recipe for improving the system--it's just more of what created the problems in the first place.


The original drug developer may be compensated by the generic manufacturer. Drug companies could also be exempt from paying any taxes. Fair, since they produce things that help us stay healthy. Few people would object to that I think.

Oh clearly, that's all it would take. Thank god the lemmings won't object.
Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 606245 · Report as offensive
Profile thorin belvrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 06
Posts: 6418
Credit: 8,893
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 606383 - Posted: 20 Jul 2007, 8:22:53 UTC - in response to Message 606245.  

Rush, the government has been lifting protection that drug companies have on drug ingredients for a long time. This is done because no one in thier right mind thinks that any single drug company should have exclusive rights to life-saving medications. That's a monopoly. Drug companies have used the protections to keep development costs high. Development costs they have been intentionally overstating. Shortening the amount of time a drug is protected under patent will lead to more competition, while making the companies reduce their development costs. I disagree with your statement on entry costs. It's too speculative.

Too speculative for you maybe. Economists are well aware of the relationship between entry costs and market participation.

As far as the rest, well, you're entitled to your opinion. What actually happens, given the high entry costs, and the massive R&D costs, and the high regulatory costs, is that if you take away the rights to the physical product, it never gets invented in the first place. Why would anyone bother with producing it to begin with?

In other words, you put downward pressure on creating these things. Pharmaceuticals especially, given the exposure to liability. So taking these all into account, they're all disincentives to creating new drugs and bringing them to market. Taking away more of that incentive, i.e., "stripping away some of the rights drug companies have on drug ingredients," and adding a more onerous burden is not a recipe for improving the system--it's just more of what created the problems in the first place.


The original drug developer may be compensated by the generic manufacturer. Drug companies could also be exempt from paying any taxes. Fair, since they produce things that help us stay healthy. Few people would object to that I think.

Oh clearly, that's all it would take. Thank god the lemmings won't object.

The bad thing is that Pharmaceutical companies and even more and more Hospitals, MDs, and medical staff don't follow the Hippocratic Oath (everything to the benefit of the sick) but do more and more just for the benefit of their bank accounts.
Account frozen...
ID: 606383 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99 (part ii)
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Jul 07
Posts: 291
Credit: 18,010
RAC: 0
Message 606384 - Posted: 20 Jul 2007, 8:26:55 UTC - in response to Message 606029.  

While we agree that the 16th Amendment was passed because of some necessity, I would argue that the necessity for it was not meant to actually benefit the American people, but rather for other, for more hidden reasons.

I realize that the shoe won't fit for everyone when it comes to diagnosis and treatment. There are many people that go to a doctor to find out what's wrong with them and the doctor fails to find what the problem is. Sometimes it can take a dozen or even more visits to different doctors until the condition or illness is discovered. So instead of a Medicare patient costing the government, oh let's say, $100 - $300 for one or two exams, it ends up costing much more. And that's just for the visits. Think about how much more money it's going to cost if the patient is given the wrong medications. A few months ago my mother had an operation in Europe to fix an artery that was blocked. It was a good thing that the doctors at the hospital in Europe decided to operate when they did because they said if she didn't have it she might have died. Now for months she was having pains in her upper chest and neck when she was here in the states. It was clear from the symptoms that it was most likely an artery that was causing the pain. It doesn't take a doctor to understand what these kinds of symtoms indicate. But what did the doctors here do? Well not a damn thing. They just gave her some nitro and told ger to go home while she should have been admited for advanced imaging. See where I'm going?


I'm glad that things turned out this well for your Mother. Back in the days before advanced imaging and surgical techniques, 'nitro' (as you called it) was the standard treatment for Angina Pectoris. Perhaps the doctors your Mother went to in the USA were somewhat behind the times, because I know of a great many cases of late where the doctors do their best to talk such patients into having various procedures done. The placement of 'stints' into arteries to open them up is actually quite commonplace now, and not very invasive either. It is virtually 'outpatient' surgery. For worse cases, 'bypass' surgery has been the norm for years. I do not know why the US doctors in your Mother's case did not suggest one of these, as apparently the European doctors did. Perhaps there might have been some other factors in the case which neither you nor I were/are privy to which indicated to your Mother's US doctors that further procedures might not have been wise. But regardless, I would have gone for a 'second opinion' with another doctor (and likely a 3rd and 4th one as well).

Would all those opinions be something you would have to pay for or would the health insurance cover that? I know here in the UK you can go ask to see as many other doctors as you would wish.

I totally agree with you about preventative medicine being another cost-saver. However, this is where the medical community and government is a major part of the problem. The government allows food manufacturers to sell foods that are labeled as natural when infact they aren't.


This is a problem. Define 'Natural'. What one person might consider 'Natural', another might not. 'Natural' is a buzzword and a bad term. I do, however, agree that the Government needs to make and enforce stricter labeling standards.

Yes..that is certainly a step in the right direction. Over here they are bringing a traffic light system so you can easily see which foods are high in fat and salt. However, one of the major supermarkets here (Tesco) is refusing to follow the guidelines and wants to use it's own less clear system of labelling.

Certain foods have important health benefits when they are in organic form and unprocessed.


Two more terms. 'Organic' is another buzzword, and is a bad term because it means different things to different people. 'Unprocessed', however, is rather explicit in its meaning. When foods are 'processed', much of their nutritive value can be (and almost always is) removed. People worldwide would do well to avoid 'processed' foods as much as possible.

Agree there. However I thought there were standards as to what foods can be labelled organic?

When you go to your local store to buy all those nice foods you think are good for you, you actually end up getting foods that aren't.


'Convenience food' is total crap. It is often loaded down with ingredients that either you don't need (such as many of the weird 'thickening agents' made from seaweed and gawd-only-knows-what-else), and are actually harmful (such as various preservatives and the tons of salt). It is much better to buy raw unprocessed food in the 'produce' section. However, a big villain here is the system used to get 'produce' from the field to your store's display shelves. So much of 'produce' today is picked in the fields well before it is ripe, and chemically and/or artificially ripened while in transit across the country or the world. Since the produce was picked 'green', it did not have the chance to develop to its full nutritive value. Furthermore, it doesn't taste as nice either. People in the USA need to start eating (in season) produce that is locally grown and picked ripe, and less of the stuff that came from who-knows-how-far-away.

An alternative to fresh produce is frozen. Frozen produce is usually picked much closer to full ripeness, and since it is frozen it is much easier to ship.

:) There is a strong movement here to eat fresher locally produced foods. The National Health is also running campaigns to get people to eat healthier in an attempt to tackle childhood obesity. Working with children in schools before bad eating habits are set.

This is because the government has allowed the food industry to sell their foods as the real deal. So when the government tells you to eat those healthy foods, they're not telling you that those foods lack the the benefits that completely natural foods have. Vitamin supplements have also been proven to be significant in the prevention of illness. But scientific research has proved that there is a difference between natural vitamins and synthetic (fake) ones. The synthetic ones lack key components that are found in the natural ones. The government has allowed vitamin manufacturers to hide this fact from unsuspecting people despite having the evidence of what the differences are. And the medical 'community', also aware of the evidence, hides the fact. When doctors prescribe vitamins, they don't inform the patient on those differences.


'Vitamins' have been proven to be significant is the prevention of illness. A person that is otherwise healthy (as in not having a condition such as Pernicious Anemia, as a poster in another thread mentioned) that eats a truly balanced diet of 'good' foods has no need of supplements. Sadly, a great many people worldwide, especially in the USA, do not eat this way. They consume far too much junk, and not enough healthy food. Chemically, however, there is precious little (and in most cases NO) difference between vitamins found in various healthy foods and the synthetic variety.

The difference is that, in some cases, the healthy food contains other, lesser known vitamins, cofactors, and other micro-nutrients that are not present in the supplements. Yes, with more research one might be able, one day, to make a 'complete' supplement, but it would be rather on the expensive side. However, we already know where to find everything in its complete form: eat a healthy, balanced diet. Some supplements will always be necessary for cases such as Pernicious Anemia such as I mentioned above. People with that condition have great difficulty in absorbing vitamin B-12 from what they eat. In those cases, doctors will prescribe B-12 injections. It doesn't really matter where the B-12 comes from. Synthetic is usually purer, of known concentration, and cheaper as well.

The bulk of the 'supplement' industry is not only unnecessary, but provides a crutch for a great many people to continue their unhealthy (for not only this reason but also many others) eating habits. Americans waste much more money on 'Supplements' every year than it would cost to just eat healthy in the first place.

Absolutely..i would also like to add that studies have shown that a lot of vitamins taken on their own are not absorbed into the body properly. You need to take in a variety of vitamins, fats and minerals to get the best benefit. eg..Iron needs vitamin C to be absorbed properly.. and some vitamins need fat to dissolve in ( i can't remember which ones off the top of my head)

About 'Big Pharma' spending all the money they claim to be spending on new research for new drugs. While they do spend a portion of their profits on research for new drugs, a lot of that spending goes to the research of copycat drugs. If you want to believe some sources, it's way more.


Well now... What is so wrong with drug companies researching drugs that have the same effect as drugs sold by other companies? It would seem to me that this would be a good thing. Multiple suppliers of medication to treat some condition will increase the supply, therefore helping to drive costs down through competition in the market, thereby benefiting consumers. Let them copycat each other. In the beginning, there was Viagra. Now there are at least two other medications that trigger the same chemical change to treat the same condition. Three competitors in a market where only one existed not so long ago. This is a bad thing... how?

It seems sensible to me...but often large drug companies block the making of generic medicines or have been known to pay bonuses to doctors to ensure that they prescribe their more expensive version of the drug. (I believe that this practice has been stopped in the UK..but i would have to check that).

Other taxes might end up being put into place if income taxes didn't exist yes, I understand that it might be like that. But that is a separate issue from what we're talking about here. The issue is the constitutionality/legality of the 16th Amendment itself, and what right it gives the government to impose direct taxes on salaries.


Ahh, back to the thread topic. The 16th Amendment is, by definition Constitutional. Amendments change the Constitution. The 16th Amendment explicitly changed the Constitution to give the Federal Government the right to impose a direct tax on people's incomes. Any laws passed on the subject, unless they violate some other, unrelated provision of the Constitution, are Constitutional, and it is Legal for the Government to enforce those laws.

Trying to claim that previous text in the Constitution invalidates the 16th Amendment is just as nuts as trying to claim that previous text in the Constitution invalidates the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery. If somehow Amendments are of lesser validity than the Original text, you can kiss the Bill of Rights (the 1st through the 10th Amendments) goodbye as well. You can't make the argument that Amendments are of lesser validity without it applying to ALL of the Amendments.

The Federal Income Tax is Constitutional and Legal. In the absence of a Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified, it must be considered as properly ratified. SCOTUS has had many, many opportunities to rule on this question about the 16th Amendment in the 9 decades since it was ratified. SCOTUS has YET to strike it down. I would say that that is a pretty good indication that they will not do so, ever.

The only way the 16th Amendment is EVER going to be overturned is if it is repealed by another Amendment. In my opinion, that has about as much likelihood of happening as a Giant Redwood tree has of uprooting itself and walking into Downtown Los Angeles. The Federal Government has little interest in depriving itself of one of its biggest revenue streams, and the various State Governments have little interest in depriving themselves of many (if not all) of the 'Federal Funds' they receive. An Income Tax repeal Amendment has a very long, extremely uphill road to travel.

Perhaps some reform of the Income Tax Code would be of benefit, and might, maybe, stand a chance of being adopted. Perhaps some reform could correct what I (and many others) consider as being the worst excesses of the Income Tax. But outright repeal? In my opinion, not a chance. I would (and do) support replacing the Income Tax with another tax system. I am in favor of taxing Consumption at the Federal Level instead of Production. That makes much more economic sense to me. But I know that that has precious little chance of being enacted. Furthermore, any attempt to do so might backfire and leave us with BOTH. I hate the Income Tax as much as likely anyone else in the nation. However I am realistic enough to know that there is little chance of escaping it.

Any possible replacement for the Income Tax will have to provide a comparable amount of revenue to the Federal Government. The Tax Burden on the taxpaying individuals will not change. Also, don't go with the fiction of 'lets tax businesses, not individuals'. Any taxes businesses pay comes out of the pockets of consumers anyway, as businesses raise their prices. Any change from the Income Tax to something else won't change the American People's tax burden, only the method that Uncle Sam uses to reach into your wallet.

In conclusion, I will say that being one of these 'Tax Protesters' and refusing to pay the Income Tax while encouraging others to do the same will only result in the Protester being impoverished when the IRS seizes their assets, the Protester being thrown in prison for violating the law, and, in the event that the Protester resists violently when the IRS / Police / Federal Marshalls come to get them and their stuff, being put in the morgue.

I can't really comment on this as I do not know the US constitution. You certainly seem to have a scarier tax law than we do though!
Account frozen...
ID: 606384 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 606400 - Posted: 20 Jul 2007, 9:49:30 UTC - in response to Message 606384.  


Would all those opinions be something you would have to pay for or would the health insurance cover that? I know here in the UK you can go ask to see as many other doctors as you would wish.


As far as '2nd opinions' go, that would depend on your specific coverage (for both private and government). If your coverage doesn't cover it, it should.

Yes..that is certainly a step in the right direction. Over here they are bringing a traffic light system so you can easily see which foods are high in fat and salt. However, one of the major supermarkets here (Tesco) is refusing to follow the guidelines and wants to use it's own less clear system of labelling.


I'm not so sure that 'making it easier' is the right way to go. When labeling is 'made easy', information is left off. Much better to educate the public on proper nutrition, in my opinion. I always read the label before I buy something. I understand what it all means. Everyone should understand this, it isn't rocket science (which I understand as well), ya know. Consumers need to make 'informed decisions'.


Agree there. However I thought there were standards as to what foods can be labelled organic?


The problem is that labeling standards are too loose.


:) There is a strong movement here to eat fresher locally produced foods. The National Health is also running campaigns to get people to eat healthier in an attempt to tackle childhood obesity. Working with children in schools before bad eating habits are set.


Exactly. I would suggest avoiding highly-processed, high-salt, high-sugar, and high-fat foods. Furthermore, avoid 'high-fructose corn sweetener' like the plague! Fructose (fruit sugar) is many times sweeter than either glucose/dextrose or sucrose (table sugar). Furthermore, it does not turn off the 'hunger switch' in the brain. You gotta stop children from developing the habit of eating junk in order to make headway in this problem.


Absolutely..i would also like to add that studies have shown that a lot of vitamins taken on their own are not absorbed into the body properly. You need to take in a variety of vitamins, fats and minerals to get the best benefit. eg..Iron needs vitamin C to be absorbed properly.. and some vitamins need fat to dissolve in ( i can't remember which ones off the top of my head)


Yep. The main Fat-soluble vitamins are A, D, and E. The B-vitamins and vitamin C are water-soluble. This is one reason why people need at least some fat in their diets.


It seems sensible to me...but often large drug companies block the making of generic medicines or have been known to pay bonuses to doctors to ensure that they prescribe their more expensive version of the drug. (I believe that this practice has been stopped in the UK..but i would have to check that).


Once their patent on a medication expires, the drug companies ain't got squat to say about other companies making 'generic equivalents'. Of course, they all try to claim that 'generics' aren't as good, but as long as the maker of the generic is a reputable company, that turns out not to be the case.

Also, the drug companies try to stop doctors from prescribing generics, and in many cases the doctors don't. However, in most cases, the pharmacy goes ahead and fills the prescription with generics anyway, if a generic is available. Under Medicare/Medicaid and most private insurance policies that cover drugs, the pharmacy is required to do so (as a cost-savings measure).


I can't really comment on this as I do not know the US constitution. You certainly seem to have a scarier tax law than we do though!


Scary does not even begin to describe it. The US Income Tax code is Title 26 of both CFR and USC. According to the Government Printing Office, Title 26 USC (United States Code, the laws actually passed by Congress) has 3387 printed pages. Title 26 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations, the regulations that the executive branch <in this case, the IRS> makes to fulfill the law) has 13458 printed pages for I believe the 2006 versions.

While he has a slightly different number for the length of Title 26 USC (no doubt due to a different year's version), U.S. Representative J.C. Watts, Jr. (R-OK) makes an interesting point.

"The heart of IRS abuse lies in the existing tax code. Most of the folks who work for the IRS are good people just trying to do their job, but they are caught in a bad, overextended tax system. At 3,458 pages, twice the length of the Bible, it's impossible for the average taxpayer to know, understand, and accurately apply its provisions. The length is twice that of the Bible! Even tax experts cannot do so reliably."

And bear in mind that he is only referring to Title 26, USC... The actual text of the law. Title 26 CFR (the regulations) are many, many times longer.

Combining this with the virtually unchecked powers of enforcement that the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) has, I would definitely say that 'scary' is an understatement.
ID: 606400 · Report as offensive
AC
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 3413
Credit: 119,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 606651 - Posted: 20 Jul 2007, 20:28:30 UTC - in response to Message 606029.  
Last modified: 20 Jul 2007, 21:16:06 UTC

I'm glad that things turned out this well for your Mother. Back in the days before advanced imaging and surgical techniques, 'nitro' (as you called it) was the standard treatment for Angina Pectoris. Perhaps the doctors your Mother went to in the USA were somewhat behind the times, because I know of a great many cases of late where the doctors do their best to talk such patients into having various procedures done. The placement of 'stints' into arteries to open them up is actually quite commonplace now, and not very invasive either. It is virtually 'outpatient' surgery. For worse cases, 'bypass' surgery has been the norm for years. I do not know why the US doctors in your Mother's case did not suggest one of these, as apparently the European doctors did. Perhaps there might have been some other factors in the case which neither you nor I were/are privy to which indicated to your Mother's US doctors that further procedures might not have been wise. But regardless, I would have gone for a 'second opinion' with another doctor (and likely a 3rd and 4th one as well).


Well thanks, she's truly much better than before. I can tell you it was one very terrible experience my family and I had to go through. I hope the treatment for you leg works out well for you.

The facilities where she was treated here in the states where fairly modern. The only thing the nitro pills did was give her some relief from the pain. It wasn't a proper solution for her condition. Bottom line, they should have kept her in the hospital when they knew that it was severe and frequent pain. When she went to the emergency room in Europe the doctors knew that a bypass was the best thing that could be done and a surgical team was immediately assembled. She had a second opinion here but it appears that the doctor didn't want to doubt what the first doctor decided. I hear that this is another problem that a lot of people have when it comes to a second opinion.

This is a problem. Define 'Natural'. What one person might consider 'Natural', another might not. 'Natural' is a buzzword and a bad term. I do, however, agree that the Government needs to make and enforce stricter labeling standards.


By natural I'd say that the original composition of the food remains untouched by genetic alteration or pesticides.

Two more terms. 'Organic' is another buzzword, and is a bad term because it means different things to different people. 'Unprocessed', however, is rather explicit in its meaning. When foods are 'processed', much of their nutritive value can be (and almost always is) removed. People worldwide would do well to avoid 'processed' foods as much as possible.


I thought organic meant foods that aren't genetically modified or sprayed by pesticides. Unprocessed too. One reason for the 'organic' label might that it's meant to distinquish the food from natural. While an apple at the local store is grown in a certain way that isn't natural and pesticides are used, it's still an apple. Not completely natural but not artificial either. It would be funny if produce at the super market were labled as fake or synthetic. So we have an organic label intsead.

'Convenience food' is total crap. It is often loaded down with ingredients that either you don't need (such as many of the weird 'thickening agents' made from seaweed and gawd-only-knows-what-else), and are actually harmful (such as various preservatives and the tons of salt). It is much better to buy raw unprocessed food in the 'produce' section. However, a big villain here is the system used to get 'produce' from the field to your store's display shelves. So much of 'produce' today is picked in the fields well before it is ripe, and chemically and/or artificially ripened while in transit across the country or the world. Since the produce was picked 'green', it did not have the chance to develop to its full nutritive value. Furthermore, it doesn't taste as nice either. People in the USA need to start eating (in season) produce that is locally grown and picked ripe, and less of the stuff that came from who-knows-how-far-away.

An alternative to fresh produce is frozen. Frozen produce is usually picked much closer to full ripeness, and since it is frozen it is much easier to ship.


lol. Well I've never heard of seaweed being used as a thickening agent but I'll take your word for that. The frozen produce option could be a good thing. As long as it's not modified to a point where it loses natural nutritional value. By frozen I presume you mean frozen from the time the food is picked to when it gets to stores.

'Vitamins' have been proven to be significant is the prevention of illness. A person that is otherwise healthy (as in not having a condition such as Pernicious Anemia, as a poster in another thread mentioned) that eats a truly balanced diet of 'good' foods has no need of supplements. Sadly, a great many people worldwide, especially in the USA, do not eat this way. They consume far too much junk, and not enough healthy food. Chemically, however, there is precious little (and in most cases NO) difference between vitamins found in various healthy foods and the synthetic variety.

The difference is that, in some cases, the healthy food contains other, lesser known vitamins, cofactors, and other micro-nutrients that are not present in the supplements. Yes, with more research one might be able, one day, to make a 'complete' supplement, but it would be rather on the expensive side. However, we already know where to find everything in its complete form: eat a healthy, balanced diet. Some supplements will always be necessary for cases such as Pernicious Anemia such as I mentioned above. People with that condition have great difficulty in absorbing vitamin B-12 from what they eat. In those cases, doctors will prescribe B-12 injections. It doesn't really matter where the B-12 comes from. Synthetic is usually purer, of known concentration, and cheaper as well.

The bulk of the 'supplement' industry is not only unnecessary, but provides a crutch for a great many people to continue their unhealthy (for not only this reason but also many others) eating habits. Americans waste much more money on 'Supplements' every year than it would cost to just eat healthy in the first place.


I disagree about there not being a difference between natural and synthetic vitamins. Not all synthetic vitamins contain the same molecular structure as their natural counterparts.


Well now... What is so wrong with drug companies researching drugs that have the same effect as drugs sold by other companies? It would seem to me that this would be a good thing. Multiple suppliers of medication to treat some condition will increase the supply, therefore helping to drive costs down through competition in the market, thereby benefiting consumers. Let them copycat each other. In the beginning, there was Viagra. Now there are at least two other medications that trigger the same chemical change to treat the same condition. Three competitors in a market where only one existed not so long ago. This is a bad thing... how?


Nothing. There's nothing wrong with them researching other drugs. The problem is that the drug industry includes the costs of research for copycat drugs as a reason for the need to have long-lasting patents on drugs they develope themselves.

Ahh, back to the thread topic. The 16th Amendment is, by definition Constitutional. Amendments change the Constitution. The 16th Amendment explicitly changed the Constitution to give the Federal Government the right to impose a direct tax on people's incomes. Any laws passed on the subject, unless they violate some other, unrelated provision of the Constitution, are Constitutional, and it is Legal for the Government to enforce those laws.

Trying to claim that previous text in the Constitution invalidates the 16th Amendment is just as nuts as trying to claim that previous text in the Constitution invalidates the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery. If somehow Amendments are of lesser validity than the Original text, you can kiss the Bill of Rights (the 1st through the 10th Amendments) goodbye as well. You can't make the argument that Amendments are of lesser validity without it applying to ALL of the Amendments.

The Federal Income Tax is Constitutional and Legal. In the absence of a Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified, it must be considered as properly ratified. SCOTUS has had many, many opportunities to rule on this question about the 16th Amendment in the 9 decades since it was ratified. SCOTUS has YET to strike it down. I would say that that is a pretty good indication that they will not do so, ever.

The only way the 16th Amendment is EVER going to be overturned is if it is repealed by another Amendment. In my opinion, that has about as much likelihood of happening as a Giant Redwood tree has of uprooting itself and walking into Downtown Los Angeles. The Federal Government has little interest in depriving itself of one of its biggest revenue streams, and the various State Governments have little interest in depriving themselves of many (if not all) of the 'Federal Funds' they receive. An Income Tax repeal Amendment has a very long, extremely uphill road to travel.

Perhaps some reform of the Income Tax Code would be of benefit, and might, maybe, stand a chance of being adopted. Perhaps some reform could correct what I (and many others) consider as being the worst excesses of the Income Tax. But outright repeal? In my opinion, not a chance. I would (and do) support replacing the Income Tax with another tax system. I am in favor of taxing Consumption at the Federal Level instead of Production. That makes much more economic sense to me. But I know that that has precious little chance of being enacted. Furthermore, any attempt to do so might backfire and leave us with BOTH. I hate the Income Tax as much as likely anyone else in the nation. However I am realistic enough to know that there is little chance of escaping it.

Any possible replacement for the Income Tax will have to provide a comparable amount of revenue to the Federal Government. The Tax Burden on the taxpaying individuals will not change. Also, don't go with the fiction of 'lets tax businesses, not individuals'. Any taxes businesses pay comes out of the pockets of consumers anyway, as businesses raise their prices. Any change from the Income Tax to something else won't change the American People's tax burden, only the method that Uncle Sam uses to reach into your wallet.

In conclusion, I will say that being one of these 'Tax Protesters' and refusing to pay the Income Tax while encouraging others to do the same will only result in the Protester being impoverished when the IRS seizes their assets, the Protester being thrown in prison for violating the law, and, in the event that the Protester resists violently when the IRS / Police / Federal Marshalls come to get them and their stuff, being put in the morgue.


The 16th Amendment is in conflict with Article One, Section 9. If this is what the Founders meant by amendments, then a future Congress also has the right to introduce amendments that do away with any other Sections of the Articles of the Constitution. Those who would argue today that the 16th Amendment is legal and/or constitutional based on the fact that it was passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court, would have no ground to stand on if they were to object to future congressional amendments doing away with parts of the Constitution that protect our liberties.

There is one more thing that's curious. The government essentially forces American citizens to do work when they order them to file thier taxes. Is it now okay for a citizen to be forced to work?

ID: 606651 · Report as offensive
AC
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 3413
Credit: 119,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 606671 - Posted: 20 Jul 2007, 21:08:16 UTC - in response to Message 606384.  


I can't really comment on this as I do not know the US constitution. You certainly seem to have a scarier tax law than we do though!


Just think of the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) as an agency run by demons. :D

ID: 606671 · Report as offensive
AC
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 3413
Credit: 119,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 606705 - Posted: 20 Jul 2007, 22:22:40 UTC - in response to Message 606245.  


Oh clearly, that's all it would take. Thank god the lemmings won't object.


Remember Rushsan, wise man say, lemming hold key to cosmic wisdom.

ID: 606705 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 606737 - Posted: 20 Jul 2007, 23:25:11 UTC - in response to Message 606705.  

Remember Rushsan, wise man say, lemming hold key to cosmic wisdom.


"HI!"

A little Japanese lingo there for those of you in Rio Linda...

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 606737 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 606757 - Posted: 21 Jul 2007, 0:26:49 UTC - in response to Message 606651.  
Last modified: 21 Jul 2007, 0:28:35 UTC

This is a problem. Define 'Natural'. What one person might consider 'Natural', another might not. 'Natural' is a buzzword and a bad term. I do, however, agree that the Government needs to make and enforce stricter labeling standards.


By natural I'd say that the original composition of the food remains untouched by genetic alteration or pesticides.

Two more terms. 'Organic' is another buzzword, and is a bad term because it means different things to different people. 'Unprocessed', however, is rather explicit in its meaning. When foods are 'processed', much of their nutritive value can be (and almost always is) removed. People worldwide would do well to avoid 'processed' foods as much as possible.


I thought organic meant foods that aren't genetically modified or sprayed by pesticides. Unprocessed too. One reason for the 'organic' label might that it's meant to distinquish the food from natural. While an apple at the local store is grown in a certain way that isn't natural and pesticides are used, it's still an apple. Not completely natural but not artificial either. It would be funny if produce at the super market were labled as fake or synthetic. So we have an organic label intsead.


Ok, you say 'natural' is non-GM and non-pesticide-use foods. You say 'organic' is 'natural' + unprocessed. I have seen boxed breakfast-cereals (it was a type of multiple-grain flakes) labeled 'organic' in the store. The cereal was definitely processed. Even rolled-oats (aka oatmeal) are processed, albeit to a much smaller degree. There needs to be EXACT definitions as to what terms such as 'natural' and 'organic' mean. Until there is, confusion reigns, and that is one of my main points on the subject. What one person might call 'organic', another person might not even apply the term 'natural' to.

'Convenience food' is total crap. It is often loaded down with ingredients that either you don't need (such as many of the weird 'thickening agents' made from seaweed and gawd-only-knows-what-else), and are actually harmful (such as various preservatives and the tons of salt). It is much better to buy raw unprocessed food in the 'produce' section. However, a big villain here is the system used to get 'produce' from the field to your store's display shelves. So much of 'produce' today is picked in the fields well before it is ripe, and chemically and/or artificially ripened while in transit across the country or the world. Since the produce was picked 'green', it did not have the chance to develop to its full nutritive value. Furthermore, it doesn't taste as nice either. People in the USA need to start eating (in season) produce that is locally grown and picked ripe, and less of the stuff that came from who-knows-how-far-away.

An alternative to fresh produce is frozen. Frozen produce is usually picked much closer to full ripeness, and since it is frozen it is much easier to ship.


lol. Well I've never heard of seaweed being used as a thickening agent but I'll take your word for that. The frozen produce option could be a good thing. As long as it's not modified to a point where it loses natural nutritional value. By frozen I presume you mean frozen from the time the food is picked to when it gets to stores.


Yes, frozen as soon as possible (< an hour or so) after being picked.

'Vitamins' have been proven to be significant is the prevention of illness. A person that is otherwise healthy (as in not having a condition such as Pernicious Anemia, as a poster in another thread mentioned) that eats a truly balanced diet of 'good' foods has no need of supplements. Sadly, a great many people worldwide, especially in the USA, do not eat this way. They consume far too much junk, and not enough healthy food. Chemically, however, there is precious little (and in most cases NO) difference between vitamins found in various healthy foods and the synthetic variety.

The difference is that, in some cases, the healthy food contains other, lesser known vitamins, cofactors, and other micro-nutrients that are not present in the supplements. Yes, with more research one might be able, one day, to make a 'complete' supplement, but it would be rather on the expensive side. However, we already know where to find everything in its complete form: eat a healthy, balanced diet. Some supplements will always be necessary for cases such as Pernicious Anemia such as I mentioned above. People with that condition have great difficulty in absorbing vitamin B-12 from what they eat. In those cases, doctors will prescribe B-12 injections. It doesn't really matter where the B-12 comes from. Synthetic is usually purer, of known concentration, and cheaper as well.

The bulk of the 'supplement' industry is not only unnecessary, but provides a crutch for a great many people to continue their unhealthy (for not only this reason but also many others) eating habits. Americans waste much more money on 'Supplements' every year than it would cost to just eat healthy in the first place.


I disagree about there not being a difference between natural and synthetic vitamins. Not all synthetic vitamins contain the same molecular structure as their natural counterparts.


Often, the vitamin's structure as found in foods is not the same as the structure used in the body. As long as the structure found in nature and the structure in the synthetic vitamin both metabolize into the structure needed in the body, ceteris paribus, both are of equal utility.


Well now... What is so wrong with drug companies researching drugs that have the same effect as drugs sold by other companies? It would seem to me that this would be a good thing. Multiple suppliers of medication to treat some condition will increase the supply, therefore helping to drive costs down through competition in the market, thereby benefiting consumers. Let them copycat each other. In the beginning, there was Viagra. Now there are at least two other medications that trigger the same chemical change to treat the same condition. Three competitors in a market where only one existed not so long ago. This is a bad thing... how?


Nothing. There's nothing wrong with them researching other drugs. The problem is that the drug industry includes the costs of research for copycat drugs as a reason for the need to have long-lasting patents on drugs they develope themselves.


The drug companies wish long lasting patents so they can have the money to research other drugs. Both totally new drugs and 'copycat' drugs benefit the consumers of health care. The totally new drugs treat new conditions, or treat in better ways conditions treatable by older drugs. The 'copycat' drugs help to increase the supply and decrease the price of older drugs still under patent.

If you mess with the patent system as applied to 'big pharma', you are likely to find yourself in a position of having FAR FEWER new drugs being researched. It literally costs well on the high side of a billion dollars to research a new drug and bring it to the market. Money doesn't grow on trees, and drug companies have to research many drugs to find one that works. This research must be made 'worthwhile' to the drug companies, or they won't do it. No one else, not the government nor major universities is set up to research drugs on any sort of a large scale. Currently, its 'big pharma', or nobody.


The 16th Amendment is in conflict with Article One, Section 9. If this is what the Founders meant by amendments, then a future Congress also has the right to introduce amendments that do away with any other Sections of the Articles of the Constitution. Those who would argue today that the 16th Amendment is legal and/or constitutional based on the fact that it was passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court, would have no ground to stand on if they were to object to future congressional amendments doing away with parts of the Constitution that protect our liberties.

There is one more thing that's curious. The government essentially forces American citizens to do work when they order them to file thier taxes. Is it now okay for a citizen to be forced to work?



An Amendment overrides what the Constitution says, and changes it. Of course, Congress has the right to propose (and the States have the right to ratify) Amendments that totally change what the Original Constitution said. They have already done so in most of the Amendments beginning with #11. For instance, Article III, section 2 was modified by the 11th Amendment, Article II, Section 1 was partially superseded by the 12th Amendment, Article IV, Section 2 by the 13th Amendment, and so on. Only the 15th, 18th, 19th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 27th added totally new material. All the others from the 11th onwards modified either the Original Constitution or previously ratified Amendments.

When ratified, Amendments supersede relevant material in both the Original Constitution and all previously ratified Amendments. Yes, there is ALWAYS a danger than a newly ratified Amendment can take away some of our freedoms. This is why I am glad that the US Constitution has only been Amended 27 times in its existence. The Texas Constitution, a document of somewhat shorter longevity, gets several Amendments every couple of years. It is a total mess.

As to your contention that the Income Tax equates to Slave Labor, well... Nobody *forces* you to get a job. Even if you have a job, if you make less than a certain amount per year, the IRS does not even require you to file a return. You can make considerably more than this, and not OWE any income taxes at all, and if any money was withheld from your paycheck you get it all back in a refund. In fact, in many cases, you can file for Earned Income Tax Credits, and actually receive money back over and above any refund for which you may also qualify.

Nothing about the IRS forces you to go out and get a job. However, your personal needs and wants (and those of your family) may require you to do so. In that case, however, you are not a slave to the Government, but only to yourself. Just because Uncle Sam wants a cut of your income so that Uncle Sam can go about its business does not make you Uncle Sam's slave. Your taxes are just another bill you gotta pay.
ID: 606757 · Report as offensive
Profile John Galt

Send message
Joined: 29 Aug 99
Posts: 8
Credit: 2,123,702
RAC: 0
United States
Message 608056 - Posted: 24 Jul 2007, 10:26:09 UTC - in response to Message 604516.  

This theory has been tested in court several times. The IRS always wins, and the consequences for those that attempt to not pay taxes are fairly severe.

Excuse me but the IRS DOESN'T always win. In just the past two weeks alone please see: http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-JudgeDismissesFailureToFileChargeBecauseNoLawRequiresIt-Henri.htm

also especially please see: http://newsbusters.org/node/14077 and http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3491021441790647089&hl=en

Personally, I never had to go to court. I stopped filing back in 1982 and when they showed up on my property with their guns and badges and IRS windbreakers in 1991 they quoted Title 26, IRS Code Sections 6001, 6011 and 6012 as being their authority to talk to me. I asked them if they had read those sections, did they know what they said? And they said: "Well, ummm, ahhh, ummm, ahhh, ahhhh..." so I pulled out my copy of the code and we read them together and discussed them for a few minutes and then they left and I have not heard from them since. They still know were I live, I haven't moved, I have all the normal utilities in my name, I have a bank account and a duly registered vehicle and all the other normal things but they've never been back. Oh well, to you that all just hearsay so it really doesn't matter but go ahead and check out what the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Section 31.3402(p)-1 has to say about it on the Government Printing Office's own site: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12feb20041500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/26cfr31.3402(p)-1.pdf
Please make sure you read it very carefully and note where starts off with the word "Voluntary" and then goes on and says things like "may" and "if the employee desires" or "IF accepted by the employer" and finally "However, either the employer or employee may terminate..."
I have read the entire IRS Code. Cover to cover. Several times. Until you can say the same, please accept that it's just possible that anynoe who has not read it may not really, in the cold, hard light of day, be qualified to have an opinion. Just as a footnote, I have been a professional in the legal field and the field of legal studies for the past 26 years. I can give you citation after citation straight, word for word, from the Internal Revenue Code but you would only think I was twisting or rephrasing or make some other excuse.
Do YOUR OWN Due Diligence examination and if it takes less than 2 to 3 years of diligent, concerted time and effort on your part you haven't even scratched the surface. For serious inquiry I personally recomend your own copy of the Code available from http://ria.thomson.com/estore/detail.aspx?ID=IR108&SITE=/taxresearch/federal and when it arrives go first to Chapter 24 - Collection of Income Tax at Source, Subchapter A - Witholding From Wages, Section 3401 - Definitions and check out Paragraph (c) for the definition of "Employee" for starters and then expand where you will from there.
If I have made spelling errors or syntactic errors I apologize, it's 2:52am and I'm tired and should have gone home hours ago but I just couldn't let this sit.
Also, please check out President Reagan's Grace Commission Report http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm which states, in reference to income taxes, and I quote: "100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government." You'll find it yourself in bold print just a tad more than 1/3 the way down the site page. Yup, read it and weep, not a single penny of the income tax collected goes to the functioning of the government. It pays the interest on the Federal Debt and not even all that... Sorry. Before people make categorical statement please do your own Due Diligence else someone who has comes along and...
Another foot note, sometimes the IRS DOES win. It's a crap shoot, but mostly, if you will read the court transcripts of say, Irwin Shiff's trial for instance, a crap shoot because you don't know if you are going to have real access to an honest judge or if it's going to be a kangaroo court wherein the judge dissalowes EVERY piece of evidence, the Code itself, the Constitution itself, little things like that, every piece of evidence the defendant presents to justify his belief. You get quotes from the judge like "I will NOT ALLOW the LAW in MY COURTROOM" or "The Law is what I SAY the law is!" Yup, real honest to Dog quotes from the bench. Oh well... it's on the record for all to see. and now it's 3:15am and I must be up and getting ready for the day in 4 hours. It's just that bald, categorical statements bug me.
It's NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART and don't EVER rely on ANYONE ELSE'S word or opinion as YOUR reason for taking the leap to butt heads with them. It's your neck and no one elses on the line. I cannot stress enough, YOU MUST RELY ON YOUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE research, not ANYONE ELSE'S... but DO open your mind and do some of that research, you might just surprise yourself.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." - Widely attributed to Herbert Spencer.
Peace and CRUNCH UNITS - GO SETI!


ID: 608056 · Report as offensive
AC
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 3413
Credit: 119,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 608121 - Posted: 24 Jul 2007, 15:14:52 UTC
Last modified: 24 Jul 2007, 15:17:39 UTC

The key here is to know the law and IRS code VERY WELL. So when the IRS comes to your door, you'll know how to defend yourself against those punk hos.
ID: 608121 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 608256 - Posted: 25 Jul 2007, 0:07:26 UTC - in response to Message 608056.  
Last modified: 25 Jul 2007, 0:13:13 UTC

Excuse me but the IRS DOESN'T always win. In just the past two weeks alone please see: http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-JudgeDismissesFailureToFileChargeBecauseNoLawRequiresIt-Henri.htm


Pardon, but a person can put all sorts of nonsense and untruths on a web page. Please provide a link to the actual court case and judge's decision on the court's website. In the absence of that, I call BS.

http://newsbusters.org/node/14077


Again, provide links to the actual court case and judge's decision on the court's official website.

On this subject, one's wages are explicitly defined as part of 'gross income' by 26 USC Section 1. The Supreme Court, in the case Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920) defined income as follows
Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.


Furthermore, in the case Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 246 (1955), the Supreme Court defined income even more broadly as:
all accessions to wealth


Both include wages. Every time the Supreme Court has defined income, the definition has included wages.

Oh well, to you that all just hearsay so it really doesn't matter but go ahead and check out what the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Section 31.3402(p)-1 has to say about it on the Government Printing Office's own site: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12feb20041500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/26cfr31.3402(p)-1.pdf
Please make sure you read it very carefully and note where starts off with the word "Voluntary" and then goes on and says things like "may" and "if the employee desires" or "IF accepted by the employer" and finally "However, either the employer or employee may terminate..."


In this regulation, (source is the CFR, not the USC) the term 'voluntary' refers to 'alternate arrangements' for calculating the amount of the withholding of income tax. The word 'voluntary' does NOT refer to tax withholding itself, which is mandatory. Start reading Title 26 CFR Section 31.3401, and you will see what I mean.

I have read the entire IRS Code. Cover to cover. Several times.


Thats nice. Glad you have the free time available to read that much. Title 26 USC (the Law) is around 3500 pages. Title 26 CFR (the Regulations implementing the Law) is over 13000 pages. Happy reading.

For serious inquiry I personally recomend your own copy of the Code


The GPO wants a bit over US$1100.00 for both Title 26 USC and Title 26 CFR. Oh, and you would need to keep them current as Congress tinkers with Title 26 USC and the IRS with Title 26 CFR every year. US$1100.00 a year for this for an individual that is not a Lawyer or Accountant that handles tax cases does not make economic sense. If you have the available free time for this inquiry, you might consider either making use of either your local public library's copy (if they have one, libraries in large cities and universities usually do), or reading it online from a government website.

Also, please check out President Reagan's Grace Commission Report http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm which states, in reference to income taxes, and I quote: "100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.


I am not sure if this was 100% correct then, nor am I sure if this is still the case 20+ years later. Furthermore, since the source is not on an official government webserver, there is no guarantee that the text presented is accurate and unedited. However, even if it is correct, this is surely not that much of a problem.

A Transfer payment is
a payment of money from a government to an individual for which no good or service is required in return. In economics, government transfer payments can be considered a negative tax, since in the case of a tax, people pay the government without getting any good or service in direct exchange.

Examples of transfer payments include welfare, unemployment insurance, social security payments, publicly-funded pensions and public support for students, including scholarships and financial aid and death benefits for parents.


While these transfer payments are hardly "Article I Section 8" expenditures, many people today class them as "services which taxpayers expect from their Government." Thankfully, the Federal Government has other sources of revenue to help cover its more proper, Constitutional expenditures outlined in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution.

Another foot note, sometimes the IRS DOES win.


I would rephrase that as 'Usually the IRS wins'. Sometimes, the IRS loses a criminal case (to impose Jail Time) against someone who didn't properly pay their tax. However, in no case does this mean that that person does not still OWE the tax (plus penalties and interest).

don't EVER rely on ANYONE ELSE'S word or opinion as YOUR reason for taking the leap to butt heads with them. It's your neck and no one elses on the line. I cannot stress enough, YOU MUST RELY ON YOUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE research, not ANYONE ELSE'S


By all means, people NEED to do their OWN research into this subject over a period of YEARS, and this involves much study of the relevant Laws (Title 26 USC), the relevant government regulations (Title 26 CFR), and the appropriate, applicable court decisions (especially those of the US Supreme Court) before they decide to risk their assets and their freedom in following one (or more) of these half-baked, dubious 'theories' that they don't 'have to pay the Income Tax'.
ID: 608256 · Report as offensive
Profile Rush
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 3131
Credit: 302,569
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 608274 - Posted: 25 Jul 2007, 1:13:52 UTC - in response to Message 608056.  

Personally, I never had to go to court. I stopped filing back in 1982 and when they showed up on my property with their guns and badges and IRS windbreakers in 1991 they quoted Title 26, IRS Code Sections 6001, 6011 and 6012 as being their authority to talk to me. I asked them if they had read those sections, did they know what they said? And they said: "Well, ummm, ahhh, ummm, ahhh, ahhhh..." so I pulled out my copy of the code and we read them together and discussed them for a few minutes and then they left and I have not heard from them since.

Wait, let me get this straight. Barring all the points made by MK, you're telling me that police or IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agents showed up at your house with a valid warrant to arrest you in your own home, and you talked them out of it? Based solely on your interpretations of the code? And the bought that and walked away?

Forgive my skepticism.

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...
ID: 608274 · Report as offensive
AC
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 3413
Credit: 119,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 608406 - Posted: 25 Jul 2007, 11:10:02 UTC

Again, the CNBC interview with former IRS Special Agent Joseph Banister and Rep. Ron Paul.
ID: 608406 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

Message boards : Politics : AMERICA: Income taxes ILLEGAL?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.