michaeledward
Grandmaster
I suppose that's true if you don't consider United States Code 26 a law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html
Proposed bill to abolish income tax
- Thread starter FearlessFreep
- Start date
I suppose that's true if you don't consider United States Code 26 a law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html
Show me where you have to pay taxes on your wages earned? Title 26 is not about taxes on your wages earned. Profits earned from other means are a different story. I am specifically concerned about the taxes one has to pay on their earned wages.
EDIT: I found some stuff about wages. However, I believe the biggest arguement from Income tax protestors is whether or not it is unconstitutional. I am not in that circle of people, but I have seen video (for what it is worth) of IRS officials finding it extremely difficult to put their finger on a law that states a citizen must pay tax on their wages earned from sweat equity.
bydand
Senior Master
Oh this week has been hard for me here on MT, here I am yet again having to agree with you.
:lfao:As much as I would like to see income tax abolished from a purely selfish standpoint, I know it will never happen. The Gov't has to have income in order to function. I would like to see it overhauled to something easy and simple. Say 1% of income, flat across the board, individual and corporate. No deductions, exemptions, or breaks. 1 or 2 lines instead of volumes and volumes that the people who draft it do not even understand the whole thing. Granted it would put a lot of tax lawyers and consultants out of work, but would nullify the excuse of not knowing what was actually due.
bydand
Senior Master
This should do it
michaeledward
Grandmaster
I like to think of the words 'tax' and 'service' as synonomous.
As much as I would like to see income service abolished from a purely selfish standpoint, I know it will never happen.
This chart is an interesting one. I believe it deals only with income taxes. So, we could ask, which of these sections of the pie chart should be reduced in proportion to the reduction in the income taxes we pay?
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
I know where I would reduce expenditures.
P.S. I am sure other charts are out there, that display the same information from sources other than the 'War Protestors'. So, if don't like the chart I've chosen, show me a different one.
As much as I would like to see income service abolished from a purely selfish standpoint, I know it will never happen.
This chart is an interesting one. I believe it deals only with income taxes. So, we could ask, which of these sections of the pie chart should be reduced in proportion to the reduction in the income taxes we pay?
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
I know where I would reduce expenditures.
P.S. I am sure other charts are out there, that display the same information from sources other than the 'War Protestors'. So, if don't like the chart I've chosen, show me a different one.
Josh
Blue Belt
Interesting point. If we were to assume tax = service,( which I'm having a hard time with in general with all of the useless government spending going on)
then IMO, one thing to cut would be the military budget.
We don't need to start wars with countries that barely have the internet.
How about we get some decent public schools? Health care for every American in the "best country in the world"?
In my mind we should be using our tax dollars for the better GOOD of the citizens. We throw so much money into war instead of education. I believe that is why we are failing in so many areas as a country. We are not number 1 in ANYTHING anymore except MAYBE bombing the hell out of countries. This is all just IMO.. I don't mean to come off as a jerk.
Just my 2 cents
Gotta hand it to you, a picture? :rofl: According to that, it is rather open ended. However, I think there were supreme court rulings regarding what is considered taxable. I believe it is for this reason the IRS chooses to litigate at the state and local level or places where the courts have a history of going opposite to the supreme court rulings.
I am still on the fence with this. Because sources of income is not necessarily what it seems on the surface. Traditionally taxes are placed on profits derived from commerce and trade to fund the government, not the sweat of the brow. As far as state and local, they tax in their own ways. Income tax with regards to wages earned by an employee is definitely open to dispute.
I guess I am going to have to go on an information scavenger hunt.
But not today, I will see what I can dig up this week.Regardless, I will be paying mine. I certainly don't want them kicking my door in in the middle of the night to do a search and seizure. That could get nasty fast.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
You shouldn't. Tax monies wend their way through a labyrinthine, complex and corrupt beauracracy before they become any service in any form.
The authors of that chart engage in a common shell game when discussing the governmental budget. Although, they do have the honesty to post the real budget below, for which I give them credit. There is no real justification for not counting Social Security and Medicare in the original chart. I do agree that the military budget is bloated, but skewing the numbers to make your side look better is dishonest.
I do agree that many areas of our budget, including the military budget as well as our propensity for starting wars, need to be severely trimmed. However, the attitude that all we need to do is spend a little...more...money on each and every problem is what got us a behemoth government in the first place. Everyone has a convincing problem with a convincing pitch for cash, and once the program is in place, there is extreme inertia to ever modify or get rid of it, even if it isn't working. Anyone who tries is trying to "hurt children and old people", even if the evidence indicates that the program is useless. Thus, nothing ever really gets cut, and the government continues its continuous bloating.
I'm no hardcore libertarian, but I do think they have at least the right idea in general. Get the government out of our lives where it has no business (i.e. personal decisions about what substances to ingest or whom to have sex with) and restrict the government to their constitutionally defined duties. The attitude that the government is supposed to be our mother, nanny and nursemaid all rolled into one is one that has given us our massive, corrupt, and belligerent government.
John
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Very little of your Federal Income Tax is used in any way toward the school systems in this country. Schools are paid for with property taxes. When you pay your homeowners tax, or your rent, you are contributing the funds used for education.
When nationwide health care was suggested, by a Democratic administration, it was fought back by the Republican Congress.
Approximately half of your federal income taxes are used to staff and equip the military. So your those taxes are being used to make us the best in the world, eh?
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Actually, if you read the information presented, you will see that it is exactly opposite of what you are stating. Social Security and Medicare are not part of your Federal Income Tax. The exist outside the income tax structure.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Yes, I know that is what they say, but it is incorrect. All tax monies are pooled into a general fund, and then disbursed as a common pool to the various items on the budget, be it the military or health and human services. It isn't set up so that say "Income Tax" goes to the military, while "Cigarette Tax" goes to Medicare. They try to get around this by claiming that Social Security is a trust fund, which is true (although they don't explain it for Medicare), although the money for it still comes from the general fund. EDIT: This is why Al Gore campaigned on the "lockbox". If one existed already, he wouldn't have bothered.
Amazon
Green Belt
Granted it may not have beent the only reason, but I believe that debate was that many hold the view (and have some valid points) that a nationwide healthcare plan would significantly decrease the standard of care.
Amazon
Green Belt
Might I also ask that whenever government spending is cut in one place the assumption is that it must be spent on something else. What's wrong with giving it back to those that earned it and letting them use it to fuel the economy and create jobs - which would create more money for everyone?
(Yes folks - the amount of money out there is a flexible thing. Economics shows that the case is not that there is only a static amount of money out there and that if your neighbor has more it means there is less for you. It's not mashed potatoes at the dinner table - it's a complex system that evolves.)
I think that would be correct... When those talk about abolishing the income tax or challenge it's legitimacy, they are referring to the Federal Income Tax portion of the wage deductions, not the Social Security or Medicare deductions.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Incidently, George W. Bush also campaigned on not touching the funds from Social Security or Medicare ... ... then later told a great big lie about 'hitting a trifecta' when he renigged.
But, the social security and medicare withholding funds are NOT part of the General Fund. It was during the Vietnam war years that the accounting gimmick was implemented. The government has been borrowing against FICA contributions for years. Prior to the late sixties, FICA money was dealt with as an independent stream of funds.
When the Congress takes money from the Social Security surpluses in order to give the appearance of smaller deficit spending, they back that borrowing with Federal Treasury Notes. So, theoretically, it is the safest investment on the planet for we participants. Those treasury notes are backed by the Full Faith and Credit of the United States Government.
This allows us to borrow less money from China ... which probably is a good thing.
Works for me. :cheers:
But the thing is, everyone who votes would love to pay less taxes. But few people are willing to go without the benifits they can get from the government. So while people are quite willing to pay for reduction on taxes they themselves pay, they find various excuses why others should continue to pay taxes and pay more than they do. It is simple greed and envy. People want things like good schools without having to pay for it themselves (greed) and usually find some excuse to demonize the next highest tax bracket (envy) and argue that they should pay for it.
Giving back the money to the people would mean that there would be less goodies for the politicians to give them if it was given to everyone. And people want to pay less while getting all they can.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Again with schools ....
Schools are paid for, by about 93%, from local property taxes and perhaps, state level taxes. The Federal government contributes very little to schools, outside of unfunded mandates. When discussing the Internal Revenue Service, and Income Taxes, schools should really be an 'off the table' topic. They are almost irrelevant to the discussion.
It may be true that voters and citizens want the services of government, but if we are going to name them, lets at least attempt to be accurate about who pays for what, where.
Agriculture subsidies, National Parks, FAA,, TSA, Levees and dams, Energy, NASA, Homeland Security, Health & Human Services, Labor Department, (yes, the Education Department too), military ..... these are some of the Federal Government / Income Tax driven areas in which we expect a measure of quality.
Schools are paid for, by about 93%, from local property taxes and perhaps, state level taxes. The Federal government contributes very little to schools, outside of unfunded mandates. When discussing the Internal Revenue Service, and Income Taxes, schools should really be an 'off the table' topic. They are almost irrelevant to the discussion.
It may be true that voters and citizens want the services of government, but if we are going to name them, lets at least attempt to be accurate about who pays for what, where.
Agriculture subsidies, National Parks, FAA,, TSA, Levees and dams, Energy, NASA, Homeland Security, Health & Human Services, Labor Department, (yes, the Education Department too), military ..... these are some of the Federal Government / Income Tax driven areas in which we expect a measure of quality.
Josh
Blue Belt
I can't speak for everyone, but my point earlier has ALL to do with government accountability. I think it's all tied in. Even if you want to take education "off the table" lets look at some of these... Levees and dams (we're doing a heck'of a job there.) Energy (I won't even start in here because I could write a book on the gov waste here) Homeland Security is more or less a joke. every few months you hear of a little kid who got through the airport with a handgun or something insane like that. and yep Military (I've already stated how I feel about that.)
My point would be that taxes don't always mean direct services to the American people in general, and that is wrong. (IMO)
Every time I hear about a little kid getting through security at an airport with a gun or How much money we are spending in Iraq, I want to throw something at my TV. This is because right before that, they were talking about spending BILLIONS of dollars to invest into new NASA tech.
While I open my newspaper and I read about Jobs being shipped overseas and the homelessness rate rising is cities like Detroit.
I believe it should bother everyone that we are spending more money to defend Iraq than to rebuild New Orleans,
IMO to all of the above.
again,
just my 2 cents.
Because the principle is the same whether we are talking about state, local or federal levels. Of for that matter, just shopping around. People want more than they themselves are willing to pay for.
And that is why any doing away with the income tax is doomed.
The income tax hits the rich at a greater percentage than the majority of voters. A man much wiser than I once said, "If you rob from Peter to pay Paul....you will always get Pauls's vote."
I could have mentioned all the pork barrel projects like the types that keep Robert Byrd in office despite his past as a venomous bigot and member of the KKK. That type of thing would keep most folks from being elected dog catcher. But the idea that he is using tax money to fund a whole lot of things in his state keeps getting him elected as the democratic senator of Virginia time and time again.
Politicians play a game of convincing folks that they will fight to make sure that they (whatever group they are talking to) will pay less in taxes than others, but at the same time get a lot back from government. Some folks are very, very good at it. Tossing out income tax and replacing it with something that can't be manipulated as much (such as a federal sales tax) would limit the politicians ability to run that scam. So there is no way they are going to go forward with the idea if they can.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Certain principles can be applied to all taxes. However, the bill proposed by Representatives Paul and Miller are directed only at the Federal Level.
NASA's budget is, if I recall, 17 Billion dollars annually. And some of that is allocated for the Department of Defense. While that sounds like a lot of money, when you consider the President just submitted his 2008 Budget, for 3 Trillion dollars, it truly is a small amount; about one half of one percent.
And for so called 'Pork' spending, we've had the discussion of 'earmark explosion' under the K Street Project years before. So, while you single out Senator Byrd from West Virginia, and some baggage of his, you neglect to mention the other 534 members of congression who participate in the same behavior, and have the baggage of their own.
NASA's budget is, if I recall, 17 Billion dollars annually. And some of that is allocated for the Department of Defense. While that sounds like a lot of money, when you consider the President just submitted his 2008 Budget, for 3 Trillion dollars, it truly is a small amount; about one half of one percent.
And for so called 'Pork' spending, we've had the discussion of 'earmark explosion' under the K Street Project years before. So, while you single out Senator Byrd from West Virginia, and some baggage of his, you neglect to mention the other 534 members of congression who participate in the same behavior, and have the baggage of their own.
