U.S. Decieved Into Believing There is Such A Thing as Fair Taxation

empirical [ɛmˈpɪrɪkəl]
1. derived from or relating to experiment and observation rather than theory

philosophy [fɪˈlɒsəfɪ]
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

That said, let's do an experiment.

Don't pay your income taxes for several years. Note the consequences. Are the consequences very, very real? If so, we can assume by the empirical data that taxes are very real, regardless of whether or not they are written down, and do not exist only in terms of philosophy.

So once more - why shouldn't everyone have to pay the IRS/Tax Unions predetermined amount?

P.S. - Very sorry for the several posts I deleted or mistakenly wrote. At first, I didn't know this was actually a new post, and I then misedited by legitimate post.

reply to post by thegagefather


No let's not do any experiment that allows you to keep deflecting and ignoring law. Show us the statutes that make any individual liable for this so called "income tax". This is not a question of philosophy, it is a point of law.

I am not deflecting anything. I myself am raising a point you have yet to answer.

By your definition, and your very source of validation, tax is not in the lawbooks.

Therefore, you can go ahead with the experiment.

I realize fully that it isn't a written law. However, that doesn't mean it isn't an actual law within our state sovereignty, perpetuated by the state itself. And what the state decides is law, is law, since you can go to jail for it.

reply to post by thegagefather


This thread is not about games of philosophy. It is about law. If you don't want to play, you don't have to, but I decline to play your silly "philosophical" games, and if I were interested in doing so I would have just joined your thread, instead of starting this one.

You can't point to any statute, can you?

Edit to Add: I never defined anything to be interpreted the way you are doing so. Taxes are on the books, and the so called "Personal Income Tax" is on the books...albeit a five volume set of books, but it is certainly on the books.

I can point to the fact that you pay taxes because you have to, and that's empirical evidence.

You can point to the fact that there is no evidence, which is a lack of evidence. Not only that, but there IS written law, albeit there being a lack of statue. That form you get sent on a yearly basis, you know, the one you use to file taxes? Well, that's got the number you owe right on it, and believe it or not it comes from the fed and the state, and even the city!

Originally posted by thegagefather
I can point to the fact that you pay taxes because you have to, and that's empirical evidence.

You can point to the fact that there is no evidence, which is a lack of evidence. Not only that, but there IS written law, albeit there being a lack of statue. That form you get sent on a yearly basis, you know, the one you use to file taxes? Well, that's got the number you owe right on it, and believe it or not it comes from the fed and the state, and even the city!

As a point of law, you are incorrect, and it is not through "empirical evidence" that anyone is made liable for any act of legislation. It is through clear and identifiable language if it is in fact the statute that makes one liable.

The tax code is clear enough to make clear that only those subject to the applicable revenue laws have an obligation to file a valid tax return. It say's much about your understanding of law, and taxation, and explains why you so naively think taxation should be "fair". Ignorantia juris non excusat!

When a King says to a peasant, "Do this." The peasant "Does this." Why? Because it is law, written or not. And it is law, because it is something his governing body decides they will punish him for if he does not obey.

That is why you speak philosophy.

Originally posted by thegagefather
When a King says to a peasant, "Do this." The peasant "Does this." Why? Because it is law, written or not. And it is law, because it is something his governing body decides they will punish him for if he does not obey.

That is why you speak philosophy.

If you honestly believe the rule of law established by the Constitution for the United States of America is rooted in divine right doctrine, you're worse than ignorant, you're just plain foolish.

Did I say the peasant obeys because god says so? No.

If the King didn't have the pope backing him, he would simply ostracize the church, or in some cases, start his own.

And he was still the King.

And his word, and not the things he wrote, were still law.

If you think our current plutocracy is any different from an age-old monarchy... I would argue that you are the ignorant one.

Agree to disagree, I suppose.

Also, just because one of our doctorines doesn't blatantly say "DIVINE RIGHT! DIVINE RIGHT!" doesn't mean it isn't a power tool of motivation for the governing bodies.

"MANIFEST DESTINY! MANIFEST DESTINY!"

Also, are you ignoring the fact that almost every president we had was a Christian, and many of them claimed to be a devote one?

George W. Bush direct quote - "I believe God wants everyone to be free, and that is part of my foreign policy."

70%+ of Americans are Christian, and most of them don't even know what they're following?

How many Mormons do you think actually know one of their faith's founding principles is that men came from extraterrastrials? Not many do. Why? It's a tool for control, and not much more.

reply to post by thegagefather

Did I say the peasant obeys because god says so? No.

Divine Right Doctrine, or Divine Right of Kings

Instead of pretending you understand what is being discussed in this thread, why not try actually doing some actual research?

Agree to disagree, I suppose.

When it comes to law, there can be no "agree to disagree".

Do you have a license to backpedal the way you are doing? Try to keep up.

I specifically said that I DID NOT use the term "divine right"

Ever.

And I only used it AFTER you accused me of using it, to defend myself.

WE DID, HOWEVER, SAY MANIFEST DESTINY, WHICH IS DIVINE RIGHT TO A LAND, RATHER THAN A GOVERNING BODY, DIDN'T WE?

TELL ME WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS.

Also, I'm not the one resorting to one-sentence blows to your intellect...
And actually a lot of law is based upon "agree to disagree"
(R) and (D), a lot of times, keep from altering laws because of this.

Also, we are agreeing to disagree successfully, because both of our points are valid.

You say there is no statue saying you have to pay taxes, which is true.

I'm saying you have to pay taxes anyways, which is also true.

Originally posted by thegagefather
I specifically said that I DID NOT use the term "divine right"

Ever.

And I only used it AFTER you accused me of using it, to defend myself.

WE DID, HOWEVER, SAY MANIFEST DESTINY, WHICH IS DIVINE RIGHT TO A LAND, RATHER THAN A GOVERNING BODY, DIDN'T WE?

TELL ME WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS.

When a King says to a peasant, "Do this." The peasant "Does this." Why? Because it is law, written or not. And it is law, because it is something his governing body decides they will punish him for if he does not obey.

Are you being purposely obtuse?

reply to post by thegagefather

And actually a lot of law is based upon "agree to disagree"

No it is not.

Also, we are agreeing to disagree successfully, because both of our points are valid.

No we are not, and you have not only NOT made a single valid point, you don't even seem to know what your point is at all, other than you want everyone to pay their "fair share" of taxes.

You say there is no statue saying you have to pay taxes, which is true.

I'm saying you have to pay taxes anyways, which is also true.

Only one can be true, and the other necessarily false. Both, under law, cannot be true...unless, I have voluntarily self assessed my own liability, of course.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Indeed. None of my points are valid, and only your way of thinking can be true.

I apologize. I'll now leave you to this forum where I "don't even know what you're talking about" despite being pretty much the only person you've talked to since it's conception.

Originally posted by thegagefather
When a King says to a peasant, "Do this." The peasant "Does this." Why? Because it is law, written or not. And it is law, because it is something his governing body decides they will punish him for if he does not obey.

Let's try a little different perspective that I believe is appropriate.

The schoolyard bully demands you pay him half of your lunch money everyday or he will beat you up. He says you owe him this because his mother is the school principal and his father the chief of police and the rest of his family owns this town. He tells you it's the law.

You pay him and all is well, except you don't eat a full lunch. You later question his authority and he tells you it is a law and it is in the books. You don't find the law so you don't pay him and he beats you up. That is the consequences you pay.

Does that make him right? Does that prove it is the law because the consequences are very real? Can you find in the Tax Code where you are obligated to pay income tax? The best I could find is that its compliance is voluntary and based on your own self-assessment, same as paying your lunch money to the bully. You do not go to jail for not complying with either's demands, you simply have your money or property confiscated by the IRS bully. You can go be sent to jail for swearing to false statements.

Eron, (my reply button is not working)

Who ever mentioned it being philosophically "right?"

Is there even such a thing as "right" or "wrong" without man defining "right" and "wrong" first?

Then who cares if it's "right?" The U.S. doesn't have a guideline of morals and principles, does it?

And as Jean Paul has stated, philosophy is null in politics (despite him trying to use it to justify him not having to pay taxes, even though he knows he has to pay taxes whether he likes it or not)

Also, I think it's funny that he starred your clearly philosophical post the moment it came up.

Originally posted by thegagefather
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Indeed. None of my points are valid, and only your way of thinking can be true.

I apologize. I'll now leave you to this forum where I "don't even know what you're talking about" despite being pretty much the only person you've talked to since it's conception.

I encourage you to stay and have a discussion, but taking a discussion and dismissing at as a "agree to disagree" is not a discussion. Here, I will get you started on "income tax law":

Title 26, Section 1

The above link is clearly titled "tax imposed". What has the tax been imposed upon?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by thegagefather
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Indeed. None of my points are valid, and only your way of thinking can be true.

I apologize. I'll now leave you to this forum where I "don't even know what you're talking about" despite being pretty much the only person you've talked to since it's conception.

I encourage you to stay and have a discussion, but taking a discussion and dismissing at as a "agree to disagree" is not a discussion. Here, I will get you started on "income tax law":

Title 26, Section 1

The above link is clearly titled "tax imposed". What has the tax been imposed upon?

Who?

Well, from the form I'd say...

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
(b) Heads of households
(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
(e) Estates and trusts