7000 Citizens Violently Threatened By The State Of Indiana

reply to post by mnemeth1

In the days before the government turned into a mafia protection racket, a solid portion of the government's revenue came from charity donations.

That is to say, people donated to government freely because they felt it provided good services that they enjoyed.

No they didn't.

Americans have been directly taxed since 1765. This was the Stamp Act that was one trigger for the War of Independence. Americans didn't have any objection to the tax itself, they objected to being taxed without having any say about it or to see any benefit from it - two completely different things. In other words it was imposed in a non-democratic manner, without the consent of the governed.

After the war under the Articles of Confederations the States voluntarily donated to the Federal Government. Not the PEOPLE, the STATES. The States taxed the people to raise those funds. You are deluded to think that voluntary fund raising had any important part to play in the funding of Government initiatives once the initial establishment of the settlements were assured.

When the Constitution was adopted in 1789, the Federal Government was given permission to raise its own funds through taxation. This was one of the acknowledged major weakness in the Articles and one of the major problems the Constitutional Convention was tasked to repair. Any such appropriation must arise in the House of Representatives, thus it is the people, through their House, that gives democratic consent to the taxation. This is the only way that taxes are or ever have been considered 'voluntary' - when they are imposed by the majority rule consent of the people.

U.S. Tax System History

Yes, people in the minority, may feel aggrieved by being 'forced' to submit to majority will. However the majority are much more aggrieved by being 'forced' to pay more than their share to make up for the dissidents.

Democracy is mob rule.

No it isn't.

Democracy is rule by consent of the governed. It is the complete opposite of mob rule.

Mob rule inherently violates the rights of the individual.

That may well be and your 'proposal' for a "no-state" anarchy is inherently mob-rule. Petty local war lords don't have much respect for the rights of the individual.

The American democratic system has insurance against the rights of the minority being violated. It is a high maintenance insurance true, but it is there and works better than any other system ever devised.

What insurance does your anarchy provide? Who stops the neighborhood bully from kicking you off "your" property and raping your daughter? Who says its "your" property anyway?

reply to post by rnaa


Dude, just stop lying.

Please.

I mean everything in that post was a complete distortion of the truth in some way.

reply to post by mnemeth1

There are criminal penalties for tax evasion

That is not the topic of the thread.

Change the topic if you want, you can not change the truth.

reply to post by jdub297


Do you even have the capacity for being a civilized human being? I'm tired of your uncivilized garbage. When you said "do you even read your own posts" means you are an uncivilized ass. Do you want a debate or a fist-fight, because you are looking for a fight when you throw rude remarks at me. And "uncivilized" is a name I'm calling you, but it is true. Have some @#$%ing manners. I'll read or re-read whatever I want and when ever I want to. Got it? And I don't need some schmuck from the IRS telling me what I need to re-read. I can tell you I won't be reading a 1040 even once this year, let alone re-reading one.

You were also uncivilized when you said the OP told a "lie" which of course is also calling him a liar. Lets get real, shall we? A lie must be something you know to be false. The OP believed it to be true. Your definition of lie is plain wrong. And that does not make you a liar it just makes you wrong. The idea that someone is a liar because they have misinformation is ridiculous.

Perhaps you can focus on points that actually matter. What does not matter in this debate is petty name-calling and people's motivations for their posting.

What does matter is that wage garnishment forces someone to give up money at gun point. If John owes Jane $100, and the government says "John give me $20 of your money and just pay John $80 instead, then it is true that both both A) Uncle Sam steals $20 of John's money and then B) John steals $20 from Jane. Its ridiculous to claim that two people stealing is fine because two thefts can cancel one out. Its your logic that if wrong, not mine. My logic is solid, and the fact that you've twice failed to refute it says something about its strength.

It wasn't even legal to transfer debts from one person to another until the bankers started taking over, let alone something you could do without permission which of course will never be legal.

Paying taxes in the USA is unethical, not just because of what the money is used for in the USA, but also the methods it is collected. I avoid it like the plague.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by truthquest]

reply to post by truthquest

If John owes Jane $100, and the government says "John give me $20 of your money and just pay John $80 instead, then it is true that both both A) Uncle Sam steals $20 of John's money and then B) John steals $20 from Jane. Its ridiculous to claim that two people stealing is fine because two thefts can cancel one out. Its your logic that if wrong, not mine. My logic is solid, and the fact that you've twice failed to refute it says something about its strength.

You conception of "Stealing" is deluded.

the Debtor is the one "stealing" from the idiot who believed they would pay them back. You challenge the underlying agreement to pay back what was borrowed.

Who is the thief?

deny ignornance

jw

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

There are criminal penalties for tax evasion

That is not the topic of the thread.

Change the topic if you want, you can not change the truth.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Since you are arguing that tax collection doesn't involve violent threats, I think the fact that thousands of people are imprisoned for not paying their taxes every year pretty much shows your argument is ridiculous.

Of course, the threat of arrest is exactly what the OP article says motivated people to stuff themselves into an overcrowded government building to pay their taxes.

reply to post by mnemeth1

thousands of people are imprisoned for not paying their taxes

thousands of people are imprisoned for not paying their taxes every year pretty

No, they are not.

This is a blatant lie.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by jdub297]

reply to post by truthquest

Do you even have the capacity for being a civilized human being? I'm tired of your uncivilized garbage. When you said "do you even read your own posts" means you are an uncivilized ass.

Your words speaks for themselves. The "examples"
you create are laughable fantasies.

I am sure you enjoy will enjoy your fantasy world until reality catches up with you.

reply to post by dfens

I think you made a reference to the cost effectiveness of arrest comparative to taxes to be paid. Agent's of the Matrix aren't interested in cost-benefit analysis, they stomp out non-complience with the program.

reply to post by mnemeth1

pb]I think the fact that thousands of people are imprisoned for not paying their taxes every year pretty much shows your argument is ridiculous.

You think are wrong.

Your "fact" is ridiculous, as is this thread.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by jdub297]

reply to post by mnemeth1

I mean everything in that post was a complete distortion of the truth in some way.

Perhaps you would care to expand on that thought?

Nothing in my post is a lie, and nothing is a distortion. I provided a link to my source for the historical facts. Provide a credible source for your counter "facts".

It is your understanding of how the world works is what is distorted. Its sorta like you are looking at the world through one of those carnival mirrors that makes you look all wavy or tall and skinny with little stubby legs or something.

reply to post by truthquest

What does matter is that wage garnishment forces someone to give up money at gun point. If John owes Jane $100, and the government says "John give me $20 of your money and just pay John $80 instead, then it is true that both both A) Uncle Sam steals $20 of John's money and then B) John steals $20 from Jane. Its ridiculous to claim that two people stealing is fine because two thefts can cancel one out. Its your logic that if wrong, not mine. My logic is solid, and the fact that you've twice failed to refute it says something about its strength.

Your scenario is confused from start to finish, but I'm going to try to sort it out. I'm going to 'assume' you are talking about income tax withholding here because that is the only scenario where your .

OK, so John owes Jane $100 as income she earned working for John. So Jane is going to owe Uncle Sam 20% of that $100 when it comes time to settle her tax account at the end of the year.

Jane has two options:

1. she can arrange with John that her full income should be paid to her and then put that $20 into a savings account, or buy shares, or buy drugs with it. Then at the end of the year, she can pay Uncle Sam from her savings account, by selling her shares, or by getting a loan from her drug dealer.
   
2. she can arrange with John to 'withhold' the $20 and pay it in advance to Uncle Sam. That way she doesn't have to worry where to get the money at the end of the year, and Uncle Sam get the benefit of the early cash flow. If she has played her cards right, she has actually loaned Uncle Sam more than her payable tax and at the end of the year she gets a nice little refund bonus.
   

Nowhere, at any time, is anybody stealing anything from either John or Jane. There is certainly no question of theft under option 1. Under option 2 Uncle Sam is NOT 'stealing' $20 from John and John is NOT 'stealing' $20 from Jane.

Jane is explicitly giving John permission to hold back $20 from her earned income and apply it to her tax account. That is not theft by anyone's definition.

Perhaps jdub297 can expand on how to arrange option 1. Something to do with number of allowances you claim on your W-4 perhaps?

reply to post by rnaa

Nothing in my post is a lie, and nothing is a distortion. I provided a link to my source for the historical facts. Provide a credible source for your counter "facts".

Here are the lies and distortions:

After the war under the Articles of Confederations the States voluntarily donated to the Federal Government. Not the PEOPLE, the STATES.

SEC. 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

~Constitution of Virgina; Bill of Rights, June 12 1776~

IV. That all power being originally inherent in, and consequently derived from, the people; therefore all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants, and at all times accountable to them.

~Constitution of Pennsylvania; A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, September 28, 1776~

We, therefore, the representatives of the people, from whom all power originates, and for whose benefit all government is intended, by virtue of the power delegated to us, do ordain and declare, and it IS hereby ordained and declared, that the following rules and regulations be adopted for the future government of this State:

~Constitution of Georgia; February 5, 1777~

WE, the members of the Congress of New Hampshire, chosen and appointed by the free suffrages of the people of said colony, and authorized and empowered by them to meet together, and use such means and pursue such measures as we should judge best for the public good; and in particular to establish some form of government, provided that measure should be recommended by the Continental Congress:

~Constitution of New Hampshire; January 5, 1776~

WHEREAS all the constitutional authority ever possessed by the kings of Great Britain over these colonies,(2) or their other dominions, was, by compact, derived from the people, and held of them, for the common interest of the whole society; allegiance and protection are, in the nature of things, reciprocal ties; each equally depending upon the other, and liable to be dissolved by the others being refused or withdrawn.

~Constitution of New Jersey; 1776~

I. That all political power is vested in and derived from the people only.

~Constitution of North Carolina; Declaration of Rights, December 18, 1776~

WHEREAS, all government ought to be instituted and supported, for the security and protection of the community, as such, and to enable the individuals who compose it, to enjoy their natural rights, and the other blessings which the Author of existence has bestowed upon man; and whenever those great ends of government are not obtained, the people have a right, by common consent, to change it, and take such measures as to them may appear necessary to promote their safety and happiness.

~Constitution of Vermont; July 8, 1777~

Connecticut did not adopt a Constitution until 1818, and where they did have a Charter of the Colony of Connecticut, established in 1662, before that they had the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, (1639). which was officially superseded by the Charter of the Colony of Connecticut, the Fundamental Orders, however, were the rules used by the local government even after 1662. Here is, in part, what the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut states:

For as much as it hath pleased Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connectecotte and the lands thereunto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require;

The State of Delawares Constitution did not express the inherent political power of the people as clearly as other states did, but in this context, what is stated is easily understood to mean the same:

The Constitution, or System of Government, agreed to and resolved upon by the Representatives in full Convention of the Delaware State, formerly styled "The Government of the Counties of New Castle, Kent, and Sussex, upon Delaware," the said Representatives being chosen by the Freemen of the said State for that express Purpose.

The Constitution for the State of Maine was not established until 1820, but in keeping with the general attitude and strong beliefs of the people of The United States of America, the Preamble to that Constitution spells out quite clearly what a state is in regards to the people:

Objects of government. We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment, do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State, by the style and title of the State of Maine and do ordain and establish the following Constitution for the government of the same

Take note that it begins by using the term objects, not subjects.

I. That all government of right originates from the people, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole.

~Constitution of Maryland; November 11, 1776~

The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government is to secure the existence of the body-politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying, in safety and tranquillity, their natural rights and the blessings of life; and whenever these great objects are not obtained the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity, and happiness.

~Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780~

Whereas the many tyrannical and oppressive usurpations of the King and Parliament of Great Britain on the rights and liberties of the people of the American colonies had reduced them to the necessity of introducing a government by congresses and committees, as temporary expedients, and to exist no longer than the grievances of the people should remain without redress; And whereas the congress of the colony of New York did, on the thirty-first day of May now last past, resolve as follows, viz:

~Constitution of New York, April 20, 1777~

It is clear by these Constitutions that the states are the people, and thus, at best, you have offered up a distortion of truth by stating "not the PEOPLE, the STATES." So, when you continue with:

he States taxed the people to raise those funds.

This is nothing more than an equivocation.

You are deluded to think that voluntary fund raising had any important part to play in the funding of Government initiatives once the initial establishment of the settlements were assured.

This is not what Wikipedia claims:

Congress had been denied any powers of taxation: it could only request money from the states. The states did not generally comply with the requests in full, leaving both Congress and the Continental Army chronically short of money.

Meaning the O.P. is not alone in his "delusion". To support that, there is this article:

The Congress was responsible for conducting foreign affairs, declaring war or peace, maintaining an army and navy and a variety of other lesser functions. But the Articles denied Congress the power to collect taxes, regulate interstate commerce and enforce laws.

Even further support is found here:

Congress was severely limited in its powers. It could not raise money by collecting taxes; it had no control over foreign commerce; it could pass laws but could not force the states to comply with them. Thus, the government was dependent on the willingness of the various states to carry out its measures, and often the states refused to cooperate.

Yet more support here:

The greatest weakness of the federal government under the Articles of Confederation was its inability to regulate trade and levy taxes. Sometimes the states refused to give the government the money it needed, and they engaged in tariff wars with one another, almost paralyzing interstate commerce.

My, my, my, it would seem you are surrounded by "deluded" people and their grasp of history.

Another distortion of truth would be:

When the Constitution was adopted in 1789...

In truth, The Constitution for the United States of America was adopted on September 17, 1787. Sources to verify that date can be found here, here, and here. You can call this quibbling if you choose, it is, however, a distortion of the truth.

Your final and most egregious lie will have to be addressed in the following post...

reply to post by rnaa

This is the only way that taxes are or ever have been considered 'voluntary' - when they are imposed by the majority rule consent of the people.

This is just patently false. There are two classifications of taxation recognized by The Constitution, and they are direct taxes, and indirect taxes.

Direct taxes are spoken to in two different clauses in the Constitution:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included in this Union...

~Constitution for the United States of America; Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, (In part.)~

No Capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census of enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.

~Article I, Section 9, Clause 4~

A capitation tax is a direct tax, or imposition upon the person, and while Congress has never imposed a capitation tax, such a tax can not in anyway be construed as "voluntary". In the past, Congress did impose a direct tax on property, and this also cannot in any way be construed as "voluntary".

The other form of taxation is indirect taxes:

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

~Article I, Section 8, Clause 1~

Duty defined:

5. A tax charged by a government, especially on imports.

Impost defined:

1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a tax, esp a customs duty

Excise defined:

excise n. a tax upon manufacture, sale, or for a business license or charter, as distinguished from a tax on real property, income or estates. Sometimes it is redundantly called an excise tax.

A tax imposed on the performance of an act, the engaging in an occupation, or the enjoyment of a privilege. A tax on the manufacture, sale, or use of goods or on the carrying on of an occupation or activity, or a tax on the transfer of property. In current usage the term has been extended to include various license fees and practically every internal revenue tax except the Income Tax (e.g., federal alcohol and tobacco excise taxes).

The second part of this definition, actually offered before the first I posted, should be noted for the distinction it makes about "income taxation", where "practically every internal revenue tax except the Income Tax..." This distinction is an odd one, as it seems to imply that in general the "income tax" is not an indirect tax but a direct tax, but when specified it is an indirect tax upon some specific activity. This assertion seems to ignore the fact that all internal revenue taxes are uniform in nature and thus should be viewed as an indirect tax.

By the definitions provided, it should also be clear that all indirect taxes pertain to some sort of activity, whether that be the importation of certain goods, or the performance of some other activity. What should be clear about any duty, impost, or excise is that these taxes are undeniably voluntary as every person has the choice to not engage in that specific activity and thereby avoid, or defeat the tax, as opposed to any capitation tax.

There was much hoopla made a short while ago of Harry Reid's claim that all taxes in the U.S. are voluntary, but Reid was correct, and not in the sense you hope to frame it, but in the sense that Congress, at this time, has not imposed any direct taxes upon the people. All internal revenue taxes, including the "income tax" are indirect taxes, which makes them voluntary by nature.

They are not voluntary because the people elected members to Congress voluntarily, they are voluntary because they are taxes laid upon a specific activity that people have the choice to not engage in, and when they do engage in those specific activities they are doing so with the knowledge that a tax has been imposed upon that activity and thus, when paying the tax, they are doing so voluntarily.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by daddio

 

From reading your other posts, you have no idea of what "law" really is. A statute, ordinance, regulation, code and such are NOT LAWS.

Please send me a transcript of the next court appearance in which you offer this argument in a court of "law."

I can't wait.



[edit on 30-8-2010 by jdub297]

I will never go to court, because there is no "court of law" the only courts you refer to are courts of equity. I will demand they prove up there claim, and I will reject their offer to contract. It's that simple, have done it many times. It has taken 6-7 times sending in the letters but eventually they give up because I am persistent in rejecting them. It is a game of cat and mouse. They will never win that game.

If you don't understand that, I pity you.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by daddio]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

It is clear by these Constitutions that the states are the people, and thus, at best, you have offered up a distortion of truth by stating "not the PEOPLE, the STATES."

Sure. In exactly the same way that the US Constitution begins with the words "We the People of the United States" thus making crystal clear that the National Government is also "We the People. The authors of the U.S. Constitution didn't lose their democratic ideals when they were nominated to represent their states interests at the Constitutional Convention. They brought them with them.

So, when you continue with:

The States taxed the people to raise those funds.

This is nothing more than an equivocation.

Absolutely not. Both levels of Government are "the People". The distinction is only that "the People" assign certain government tasks to one level and other government tasks to another level. Under the Articles of Confederation, the National Government had no powers of taxation and had to rely on the State Governments to voluntarily fund the tasks assigned to the National Government. Like paying the national debt for the War of Independence. There was nothing to 'compel' the State Governments to provide those funds. This (and the inability to settle disputes between the States) was a major failure of the Articles and led directly to the States calling the Constitutional Convention to fix it.

You are deluded to think that voluntary fund raising had any important part to play in the funding of Government initiatives once the initial establishment of the settlements were assured.

This is not what Wikipedia claims:

Congress had been denied any powers of taxation: it could only request money from the states. The states did not generally comply with the requests in full, leaving both Congress and the Continental Army chronically short of money.

On the contrary, Wikipedia is agreeing with me completely. Under the Articles of Confederation, the State Governments 'donated' to the National Government, sometimes. The "sometimes" part was the burr in the saddle that resulted in the call for the Constitutional Convention.

This is the part that you are failing to understand: when the State Governments did 'donate' funds to the National Government, the State Governments levied taxes to raise those funds, in exactly the same way as Governments have levied taxes for ever.

To support that, there is this article: ...
Even further support is found here: ...
Yet more support here:...

All three of those citations enforce EXACTLY the point I made in my post and describe the major failing of the AofC, and the major reason for the Constitutional Convention.

Under the AofC, the National Government had no power to raise funds on its own. It had to rely on the State Governments for funds. When the State Governments voluntarily chose to donate funds to the National Government, they raised those funds in the same way that all Governments everywhere have always raised funds: they imposed taxes.

Why is this hard for you to understand? The fact that, under the AofC, State Governments donations to the National Government were voluntary, doesn't make the taxes imposed by the State Governments magically become 'non-taxes' or voluntary donations by 'the people' as if they held a bake sale or something.

In an open democratic society, 'the people' understand that they need to contribute funds to the welfare of the whole society, for roads, for defense, for administration, for education, for charity, for whatever. I am sure you understand that. Taxes are voluntary NOT because you have the option of refusing to pay, but because that is the implicit agreement in a democratic society.

Any penalties applied to you for failure to pay your taxes are not violations of your 'right' to refuse to contribute, but are penalties for your violation of everyone else's 'right' to an equitable sharing of the burden of society.

In truth, The Constitution for the United States of America was adopted on September 17, 1787. Sources to verify that date can be found here, here, and here. You can call this quibbling if you choose, it is, however, a distortion of the truth.

OK, I'll score one for you. I used the wrong word. 'adopted' is traditionally used for the approval of the final draft by the Constitutional Convention which was 1787. I used 'adopted' to mean 'put into effect' which was 1789. A technical failure on may part, perhaps; a usage understandable by most thoughtful readers, probably; a distortion of truth, of course not; a quibble, for sure.

The Constitutional Convention 'adopted' the Constitution on 17 September, 1787.

On 21 June 1788, it was 'ratified' by New Hampshire, the 9th State to do so, thus reaching the sufficient number of states to put the Constitution into operation.

On 13 September 1788, the Continental Congress agreed that the new Constitution would replace the Articles of Confederation.

On 4 March 1789, the new Government began operation on 4 March 1789.

That is the point in time when the National Government gained the consent of the people to levy taxes, and that is the point I was making in my post. There was no distortion of the facts, merely a different use of the word adopted.

The Articles of Confederation applied from 1777 (though it was not fully ratified until 1781) until midnight 3 March 1789. Congress (that is, the Confederation Congress which was the embodiment of the National Government under the Articles of Confederation), had no power to raise taxes during that period.

It took less than 10 years for the founding fathers to see the failure of the Articles of Confederation and to call for the Constitutional Convention to fix the problem.

I think arguing the constitutionality of taxation has its merits if one is trying to wage a legal defense of the matter.

However, its clear that constitutional or not, they are morally wrong.

Morals don't revolve around pieces of paper or legalities.

The constitution could say the federal government has the power to rape and pillage the masses at will. Just because such an action is legal does not make it moral or just.

That one should not take by force some product or property of another is inherent in the very nature of humanity itself regardless of the laws that may make such action legal.

In other words, constitution shomonstitution

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

This is the only way that taxes are or ever have been considered 'voluntary' - when they are imposed by the majority rule consent of the people.

This is just patently false. There are two classifications of taxation recognized by The Constitution, and they are direct taxes, and indirect taxes...

Your argument is 100% diversionary.
In a democratic society, 'the people' institute governments to administer the needs of the society as a whole, and those governments can raise taxes because 'the people' give consent for those taxes.
In our democratic society 'the people' has put controls in place to ensure that their consent is regularly renewed and not exploited beyond the genuine needs of the society.
Your attempt to 'make me wrong' on this, because 'the people' have placed limits on that consent by restricting what taxes can be applied in what circumstances is absurd and I reject it out of hand.
And by the way your assertion that the Constitution mentions two classifications of taxation has been incorrect since 1913. The 16th amendment essentially makes income tax a third classification. See below.

The other form of taxation is indirect taxes:

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

~Article I, Section 8, Clause 1~

The discussion is about taxation. 'The people' have given our government consent to levy taxes. A1S8 clause 1 that you quote above is exactly that consent: The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.
'The people' have also placed limitations on how those taxes, duties, imposts, and excises may be imposed, and that the exercise of that consent be regularly audited (through the election cycle). That doesn't change the fact that 'the people' have VOLUNTARILY agreed that their government should have the power to impose those taxes, duties, imposts, and excises.

The second part of this definition, actually offered before the first I posted, should be noted for the distinction it makes about "income taxation", where "practically every internal revenue tax except the Income Tax..." This distinction is an odd one, as it seems to imply that in general the "income tax" is not an indirect tax but a direct tax, but when specified it is an indirect tax upon some specific activity. This assertion seems to ignore the fact that all internal revenue taxes are uniform in nature and thus should be viewed as an indirect tax.

The distinction odd because Income is odd. A tax applied to income from rents, dividends, interest, and the like is a direct tax. See Pollack v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co (1895) , but a tax applied to normal 'wage' income is indirect.
When the Constitution was written it was not understood or considered much of a problem that someone could derive all their personal income from rents, dividends, and interest. 100 years later and major portions of the economy were invisible to the tax base due to the rise of the industrial revolution and the robber barons. When the Pollock case pointed out this anomaly, 'the People' gave consent to the government to tax any genuine income, however it was generated and without regard to census or enumeration. (See the 16th Amendment)

So, income tax is BOTH an indirect tax and a direct tax, at the same time. I would say that in effect the 16th amendment makes it a third class mentioned in the constitution.

...All internal revenue taxes, including the "income tax" are indirect taxes, which makes them voluntary by nature.

The Classifications Direct and Indirect (and Income) don't have anything to do with voluntary or not voluntary. They have to do with how 'the People' have limited the governments ability to apply taxes.

They are not voluntary because the people elected members to Congress voluntarily,

That much is at least true. They are voluntary because as a democratic society we have given consent to the government to raise funds through taxation via the Constitution.

they are voluntary because they are taxes laid upon a specific activity that people have the choice to not engage in, and when they do engage in those specific activities they are doing so with the knowledge that a tax has been imposed upon that activity and thus, when paying the tax, they are doing so voluntarily.

That is also true. But it has nothing to do with 'the people' having voluntarily given consent to the government to impose taxes in the first place, only with respect to WHICH indirect taxes an individual wishes to pay.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by truthquest

 

If John owes Jane $100, and the government says "John give me $20 of your money and just pay John $80 instead, then it is true that both both A) Uncle Sam steals $20 of John's money and then B) John steals $20 from Jane. Its ridiculous to claim that two people stealing is fine because two thefts can cancel one out. Its your logic that if wrong, not mine. My logic is solid, and the fact that you've twice failed to refute it says something about its strength.

You conception of "Stealing" is deluded.

the Debtor is the one "stealing" from the idiot who believed they would pay them back. You challenge the underlying agreement to pay back what was borrowed.

My conception of stealing is "taking without asking". Thats it. That is my entire conception of stealing. If I were you I suppose my definition would be "taking without asking, unless your name happens to be Uncle Sam because he can do whatever he wants and its okay". Is that the "non-delusional" definition? If not, you are welcome to offer a better one.

The scenario is:
1. John enters agreement to pay Jane $100.
2. Uncle Sam tells Jane to pay $20, and Jane refuses.
3. Uncle Sam tells John to pay him $20 and just short Jane $20 of money.
4. John says no.
5. Uncle Sam says yes you will, or bad things will happen to you.
6. John changes his mind upon the extortionist threat by the government and then pays Uncle Sam $20. This if the first theft.
7. John tells Jane since he is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome she will be shorted $20 when her paycheck arrives and if she doesn't like it that is too bad. This is the second theft.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by truthquest

 

OK, so John owes Jane $100 as income she earned working for John. So Jane is going to owe Uncle Sam 20% of that $100 when it comes time to settle her tax account at the end of the year.

Jane has two options:

1. she can arrange with John that her full income should be paid to her and then put that $20 into a savings account, or buy shares, or buy drugs with it. Then at the end of the year, she can pay Uncle Sam from her savings account, by selling her shares, or by getting a loan from her drug dealer.
   
2. she can arrange with John to 'withhold' the $20 and pay it in advance to Uncle Sam. That way she doesn't have to worry where to get the money at the end of the year, and Uncle Sam get the benefit of the early cash flow. If she has played her cards right, she has actually loaned Uncle Sam more than her payable tax and at the end of the year she gets a nice little refund bonus.
   

Or there is a third option. Jane can say: John, what goes on between me and the IRS is none of your business. Pay me everything you owe me. You worry about you. And I'll worry about me.

Jane is explicitly giving John permission to hold back $20 from her earned income and apply it to her tax account. That is not theft by anyone's definition.

No, in my scenario that is not the case. In my scenario, neither John nor Jane want anything to do with the IRS and most certainly have not made any such agreement by choice.

US law makes it exceptionally clear that John is not participating in the wage garnishments by choice.

From edocket.access.gpo.gov...:

§ 422.445 May we bring a civil action against your employer for failure to comply with our administrative wage garnishment order? (a) We may bring a civil action against your employer for any amount that the employer fails to withhold from your disposable pay in accordance with
§ 422.435(d), (e) and (f). Your employer may also be liable for attorney fees, costs of the lawsuit and (in the court’s discretion) punitive damages. (b) We will not file a civil action against your employer before we terminate collection action against you, unless earlier filing is necessary to avoid expiration of any applicable statute of limitations period. For purposes of this section, ‘‘terminate collection action’’ means that we have terminated collection action in accordance with the
Federal Claims Collection Standards (31 CFR 903.3) or other applicable
standards. In any event, we will consider that collection action has been
terminated if we have not received any payments to satisfy the debt for a period of one year.

There is nothing voluntary on anyone's part when wage garnishments happen so far as US federal law is concerned.

[edit on 1-9-2010 by truthquest]