It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

IRS: Inspector Generals Investigating Possible Criminal Activity

page: 2
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

To be honest I don't know why we have an IRS.


The primary purpose of the IRS is to create a demand for Federal Reserve Notes. If people decided to only accept Constitutional money (gold and silver) for their labor, they would still need to exchange it for FRNs to pay their taxes. Without that requirement, who would want a paper debt note that will be worth less tomorrow than it is today?




posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
The middle class and poor will feel like they got a 33% raise monthly.
Which will stimulate the economy.


How would you feel like you got a 33% raise? Prices would instantly go up 33%, and now rather than being taxed on 100% of their income (in theory) the rich are only taxed on the 20% of it that they spend, while you are taxed on the 100% of it that you spend. This leads to your taxes going up even further so that rather than pay 33% more and break even, you pay 50% more and end up even further behind.

That is the precise opposite of an economic stimulus.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 02:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
To be honest I don't know why we have an IRS. Just let the states do the processing like they do already. There is no reason to constantly reproduce entire departments for 2 different governments.


I'm sure this will be a debated topic moving into 2016, the fallout from Lerner is going to last well into election season.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


National defense comes to mind.
The post Office.
The Judicial Branch.
The Legislative Branch.
The Executive Branch.
Federal Law Enforcement (Crimes occurring across state lines etc).


The federal government can pay for all of that by raising tariffs on foreign imports.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

in an increasingly interdependent world I would not count on tariff revenue. Considering the number of nations launching free trade I would suspect tariff's will eventually bottom out or go away all together.

Secondly its not a good idea to base all Federal funding on a tax that other nations pay for.
edit on 28-2-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

And the president?
If his cabinet is implicated would THAT be a legal issue?



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

in an increasingly interdependent world I would not count on tariff revenue. Considering the number of nations launching free trade I would suspect tariff's will eventually bottom out or go away all together.

Secondly its not a good idea to base all Federal funding on a tax that other nations pay for.


I don't get the impression that free trade and unmolested markets are winning the global ideological struggle.

In any case, tariffs being against free market principals, I don't think it would be bad to have neither income tax nor tariffs.

The federal government, funded directly through state revenue alone, would be the most accountable arrangement I can think of.
edit on 28-2-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

in an increasingly interdependent world I would not count on tariff revenue. Considering the number of nations launching free trade I would suspect tariff's will eventually bottom out or go away all together.

Secondly its not a good idea to base all Federal funding on a tax that other nations pay for.


I meant that foreign-made goods would be more expensive than American-made goods because all sales tax would be applied to foreign-made goods, and only foreign-made goods.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Xcathdra

And the president?
If his cabinet is implicated would THAT be a legal issue?


Of course...



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: grandmakdw
The middle class and poor will feel like they got a 33% raise monthly.
Which will stimulate the economy.


How would you feel like you got a 33% raise? Prices would instantly go up 33%, and now rather than being taxed on 100% of their income (in theory) the rich are only taxed on the 20% of it that they spend, while you are taxed on the 100% of it that you spend. This leads to your taxes going up even further so that rather than pay 33% more and break even, you pay 50% more and end up even further behind.

That is the precise opposite of an economic stimulus.


The middle class and poor will immediately see 33% more in their paycheck.

Prices will only go up 33% if the government chooses 33% as the opening set point for sales tax, a really stupid and unnecessary move. A 10% or less sales tax would raise more revenue than today's income tax. There would be no loopholes or rich people with so many writeoffs that they pay zero or nearly zero as do many corporations.

So yes, the people would have more money and it would be fairer to all in the end. Especially if we do what the Europeans do with their national sales taxes and allow the poor to file for "refunds" as a percentage of their income.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
All the liars will be exposed and prosecuted.

Lois Lerner is already in Contempt.

Kosiken already caught in many lies.

The Obama White House connections will be exposed.

The center cell of corruption and jealousy will be highlighted.



J-A-I-L is too good for them




Considering that THE PEOPLE of the USA make the USA...wouldn't this be called TREASON? And isn't the maximum sentence the death penalty? Yup...kill all the traitors who attacked the USA using the power they were given. And if Obama is implicated...so much the better.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
These new reports must be all BS.

Obama said so.

Obama Says "Not Even a Smidgen of Corruption" in IRS Scandal


BwaHaHaHa

Now what say you Obama !!!




edit on Feb-27-2015 by xuenchen because: [-_OoO_-]

Does it matter what he says? He is a liar and not worth listening to, believing and therefore...he is useless.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Treason? No..

Criminal conspiracy? Absolutely.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Treason? No..

Criminal conspiracy? Absolutely.


Oh come on...just a little treason...please? You're no fun!!!



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 02:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Treason? No..

Criminal conspiracy? Absolutely.


Oh come on...just a little treason...please? You're no fun!!!


We don't need public recognition, just personal recognition which I think we have.

And I think that is enough.



posted on Mar, 2 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Prices will only go up 33% if the government chooses 33% as the opening set point for sales tax, a really stupid and unnecessary move. A 10% or less sales tax would raise more revenue than today's income tax. There would be no loopholes or rich people with so many writeoffs that they pay zero or nearly zero as do many corporations.


We can argue the numbers back and forth over what works and what doesn't. So I'll just put it this way: Why wouldn't the government set that as the percentage for a sales tax? All indications are that the key point on a Laffer curve are above 40%, if anything 33% is low.


originally posted by: grandmakdw
So yes, the people would have more money and it would be fairer to all in the end. Especially if we do what the Europeans do with their national sales taxes and allow the poor to file for "refunds" as a percentage of their income.


The reason they do this is to make the tax progressive rather than regressive. The poor spend 100% of their income, which means 100% of what they earn is subject to a 10% tax. The wealthy spend 10% of their income which means just 1% of their income is subject to a 10% tax. The "refunds" are intended to offset that innate disparity that causes a flat tax to tax the poor at the highest rates and the wealthy at the lowest.
edit on 2-3-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

Oh come on...just a little treason...please? You're no fun!!!


When we the people start using our own definitions for "criminal" law, then we open the door for the same interpretation to come back at us from the government.

Its one thing to go after a government whose actions are in violation of the Constitution and the law. Sinking to that same level makes us no better than them. We would be removing a government using the very method we decried from the start.

This comes down to the "the devil you know beats the devil you don't" analogy. Why replace one problem with the exact same problem?



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Karma's a bitch!

I have long proposed abolishing all income taxes.
This is a real reason to go that route.
Income taxes have long been used for social engineering, which
is not supposed to the purpose of them at all.


I feel a national sales tax, with
no individual or corporate income tax at all
is the fairest way to go for everyone.

The rich will be forced to pay their fair share
because of all the luxury goods they purchase.



This will never work as presented. It will end up being a massive burden to the middle class. Really a sales tax would end up being all about social engineering.

In keeping with the thread its not about taxes anyway. Its about political intimidation and federal racketeering against selected organizations. Heads really should roll here. We should be seeing cuffed up jackasses being carted off to jail in front of cameras.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

Oh come on...just a little treason...please? You're no fun!!!


When we the people start using our own definitions for "criminal" law, then we open the door for the same interpretation to come back at us from the government.

Its one thing to go after a government whose actions are in violation of the Constitution and the law. Sinking to that same level makes us no better than them. We would be removing a government using the very method we decried from the start.

This comes down to the "the devil you know beats the devil you don't" analogy. Why replace one problem with the exact same problem?

I understand where you are coming from...but I'm past logic anymore with these criminals. They are now at dog level and progressing downward. This dog turned on her owners and bit them. Time to put her down. We are at war with our own government. They have turned on the people (IRS, NSA, Obama, etc.). And in a real war, you make points and I think her being charged with treason...or something dramatic...would send a message to the other criminals. Time to walk away from the job rather than risk jail or execution. Short of tearing everything down, THAT may help fix things.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1   >>

log in

join