The American People Are Angry!

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

You've said that you need a divers license because people have let this happened, by agreeing to it in the first place.

What I'm getting at is: you've said what the problem is, but I still am not seeing a solution presented.

So either I'm extremely dense, or I have missed something that you said somewhere.

I'm not going to go too into detail since my thoughts generally aren't welcome. The problem here is people talk about "rights"- You've only got a right as long as the rest of society recognizes it. You can recognize it all day, but you don't have the power to force others to recognize it. When they don't recognize your right society simply uses it's force to throw you in prison and thus exile you from said society. Humans have always done this, maybe one day they won't, but until that day a lot of this talk is just a Utopian pipe dream.

Originally posted by aztlan73
So for the folks who scream for revolution i say dont play that game because it empowers the powers that be to remove more of our civil liberties.

They can have my "civil liberties" - I don't want them, anyhow. I've got the actual kind of liberties, the kind backed up by unalienable rights. Why would I want a pale, government issued imitation?

Anything the government gives, the government can also take away.

reply to post by eriktheawful

If I think I'm paying taxes that I don't owe....well the problem then is that for a multitude of people, our taxes have already been taking out of our paychecks, either by an outside company that does the payroll or by the business you are employed at. Most employers will balk at being told you do not want to get paid that way, and will then kindly point to the door. Which I suppose people could do, quit their jobs and hope to find someone that pays in cash only (lots of landscaping people do just that: get paid in cash).

Little sidebar. Do you know how the public was sold on the idea of paying taxes, which ultimately led to withholding?

Donald Duck.

freeyourmindonline.net...
(you'll have to scroll down a ways to get to that part ~ the VICTORY tax.)

reply to post by SubTruth

And the message is "spread the wealth" lol. The one thing most people did realize is he also meant the rest of the world included. Have any of you been keeping up on this goof balls decisions internationally? If you have to ask me for proof - you are out of touch. It is like "holy crap time". Fast and Furious looks like minor stuff compared to some of the crap this guy is doing internationally - can you believe the carbon tax idea LOL LOL LOL - I mean WTF! Well the rest of the world could give two sE#$ts about it. And Mexico is coming apart at the seams - and they - our administration ignores it borders - LOL - yo can't make this stuff up.

Remember these? The troops will come home in six months, the national debt will be cut in half at the end of my first time, all legislative bills will be on the inter net for public review - LOL - LOL - LOL. I mean at what point do we say "WTF" and do something about it.

It is all about "show me the money". I personally think our government is tired of paying for SS and health care - so why not tax the population LOL again. Think about the extra money our government would have once they get a hold of the health care business - do you get it. Example: an additional 16,000 - yes 16,000 additional IRS agents - again LOL.

I swear I am amazed at how some of you defend this goof ball and his zars - are any of you defenders America? Yes - it doesn't matter any more who is in charge - it needs to be fixed an voting doesn't get it done anymore, but for the life of me - I do not understand how some of you can say "they didn't give him a chance" "you don't like him because he is black" LOL - right! "It is all Bushes fault" really LOL - LOL. I would be ashamed, and mean ashamed to use these excuses period - be an American and call it what it is - a complete loss and failed administration. Show some guts please.

P.S. I would say our health care is screwed - and needs to be fixed - but not like this people. God help us.

reply to post by eriktheawful

If I think I'm paying taxes that I don't owe....well the problem then is that for a multitude of people, our taxes have already been taking out of our paychecks, either by an outside company that does the payroll or by the business you are employed at. Most employers will balk at being told you do not want to get paid that way, and will then kindly point to the door. Which I suppose people could do, quit their jobs and hope to find someone that pays in cash only (lots of landscaping people do just that: get paid in cash).

The Code of Federal Regulations tells your employer precisely what to do in the event they have an employee who declines to sign an "Employee Withholding Authorization Certificate" (Form W4) and supply a Social Security Number:

26 CFR 31.3402(f)(2)-1 - Withholding exemption certificates.

For form and contents of such certificates, see 31.3402(f)(5)1. The employer is required to request a withholding exemption certificate from each employee, but if the employee fails to furnish such certificate, such employee shall be considered as a single person claiming no withholding exemptions.

(Emphasis added)

Your employer is merely required to request you sign this "authorization certificate" and of course, you are under no legal compunction to "authorize" your employer to act as a fiat tax collector. If you decline to sign this Form W4 your employer is told precisely what to do, and is not to "show you the door", not to coerce, extort, or bully you in any way, and your employer has no lawful authority to assess your tax liability anyway, your employer is instructed to mark you as a "single person claiming no withholding exemptions", and of course if you have determined you are not liable for any tax, nor subject to any applicable revenue laws, it follows that you need no exemptions.

26 C.F.R. § 301.6109-1 Identifying numbers

If the person making the return, statement, or other document does not know the taxpayer identifying number of the other person, and such other person is one that is described in paragraph (b)(2)(i), (ii), (iii), (vi), (vii), or (viii) of this section, such person must request the other person's number. The request should state that the identifying number is required to be furnished under authority of law. When the person making the return, statement, or other document does not know the number of the other person, and has complied with the request provision of this paragraph (c), such person must sign an affidavit on the transmittal document forwarding such returns, statements, or other documents to the Internal Revenue Service, so stating.

Again, this is yet another request provision, and again the employer is told precisely what to do in the event that employer is unable to obtain an "identifying number".

Why employers have taken it upon themselves to become henchmen for the IRS and coerce employees into signing Form W4's and supplying Social Security Numbers is beyond me, because I assure you that any employee who understands the law and is confronted with that sort of criminality merely needs to file a verified complaint having that thug arrested, then there is the opportunity for a civil suit, and do you think the IRS will stand in that employers defense? If you do, think again.

reply to post by frazzle


Actually yes, I knew that.

Several of us at work one day, years ago, were listening to a talk radio show and they talked all about the history of federal income tax.

It was rather dull, but much more interesting than the laser system I was calibrating for a fiber optic transmitter (which was tedious, frustrating and boring too......heh).

reply to post by antonia

I'm not going to go too into detail since my thoughts generally aren't welcome. The problem here is people talk about "rights"- You've only got a right as long as the rest of society recognizes it.

Society? Never met the man. Never shook his hand, he's never bought me a beer, and I doubt that if I bumped into this clown he would recognize me. That doesn't mean I am not me. I am me, I assure you.

reply to post by eriktheawful

So how do we change all this? That is what I'm getting at.

Starve the beast. I have now showed you the CFR and their pursuance of the law regarding Forms W4, and "tax identification numbers", and earlier in this thread I linked and quoted the void for vagueness doctrine. Can you honestly tell me you understand how it was you became subject to the "applicable revenue laws"? Can you study that tax code and come back to me and honestly tell me you now understand how it was you became liable for that tax? If you can, then so be it, you must be a tax payer. If you cannot, then the law is on your side, not the tax collectors.

Scary proposition? You bet it is. Fighting for freedom isn't safe. It isn't comfortable. It isn't boring either. Going to get along is safe for as long as it is safe, and then at some point the danger becomes much like boiling water in a pot and you stuck in the pot, but going along to get along is comfortable, and generally pretty boring.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux



Interesting.

However, in reality what normally happens is the potential employee (because a W-4 is filled out prior to actual employment) tends to get told that they suddenly are no longer being sought for the job. That someone else that is "more qualified" has been found.
Or, and this is a very good example here, a large company say, Walmart, you enter employment on a probationary period for a certain amount of months. Your employment contract with them that you sign (yep, as you said, people are freely agreeing to it) will state that they reserve the right to terminate your employment with them without notice or reason.

And you are correct that they are freely agreeing to this, and many don't know that in some cases they could pursue legal action against it.

However, most lawyers cost money. Filing fees. Not to mention the fact the poor kid just trying to get a job at good ol' Wally World, just wants a job period, and most likely isn't going to have the money to "take 'em to court."

Again, you are very correct that people are just letting it happen to themselves, and you've pointed out what they could do.

But look at it realistically: how many people can afford to file a law suit in the first place when they are trying to get job to have an income?

Especially right now with the amount of people unemployed that just want a job so they can feed their families and pay their bills.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Ah!

You're saying "Stand Your Ground".

I also see how you're saying people are just letting this happen.

But, again, people want to eat, feed their families, have a roof over their heads. They want electricity to heat and cool their homes (and keep that food they bought), and cook said food.
They need transportation to and from work (their car, their motorcycle, the bus, the train, etc) especially if home is 14 miles from where they work.
They need to clothe their kids and provide for them.

The only way I could see your solution as actually working is if: it happened all at once, by everyone at the same time. And with those government employees too.

Else all you have are isolated incidents, that won't make the news, or the people that do see it, see only the rough part and don't want any part of that.

Jean, thanks for clarifying for me, and I understand better where you are coming from. I agree it would work in theory, "starve them out", but I don't know if it could be applied practically.

I would prefer it over "Git yer guns, pitch forks and torches! We're headed to the capital!" any day, as I don't think that would work out too well either.

reply to post by eriktheawful

Your employment contract with them that you sign (yep, as you said, people are freely agreeing to it) will state that they reserve the right to terminate your employment with them without notice or reason.

And if I even tried to put that on a piece of paper for one of my employees to sign, I'd be in court within days. I would incur the legal costs and they would get legal aid...and a compensation check that I would be forced to pay.

So wrong but so true.

Peace

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by frazzle

 

Actually yes, I knew that.

Several of us at work one day, years ago, were listening to a talk radio show and they talked all about the history of federal income tax.

It was rather dull, but much more interesting than the laser system I was calibrating for a fiber optic transmitter (which was tedious, frustrating and boring too......heh).

I guess my point was that people were so euphoric over the ending of the war that they were vulnerable to manipulation. It was a voluntary thing, ya know, and only temporary. Donald said so.

But people were euphoric because they were finally at peace so they weren't paying any attention to the soverignty busting treaties and laws being slipped in through the back door.

And that's reminiscent of the end of the cold war and Reagan's "peace dividend". Does anybody remember getting a share of that dividend? No, everyone was too busy slapping each other's back in euphoria to notice there was no dividend.

And today some people are feeling euphoric over "free health care".

reply to post by eriktheawful

However, in reality what normally happens is the potential employee (because a W-4 is filled out prior to actual employment)

I only ran into one instance where I was expected to sign a Form W-4 for the privilege of an interview. I did not, and when I was told that I could not have the interview I asked why they wanted such sensitive information without any guarantee of hire to begin with and if they were attempting to collect Social Security Numbers of people they would never hire for some nefarious reason. This got me an interview. I wasn't impressed with what they were offering, so I declined the job, so the issue of signing a Form W4 and supplying a Social Security Number wasn't an issue.

I'm not saying this is easy. I thought I made that clear. If you want easy, surrender. That's easy enough. Fighting for your rights and for freedom is a hell of lot harder, but I am not wrong in asserting the law is on your side.

An employer who refuses to hire an employee because of refusal to sign government contracts and supply "tax identification numbers" is guilty of coercion, extortion, simulation of legal process, and obstruction of justice. These are crimes that come with penalties of imprisonment. Following that is the civil suit. A stupid employer who believes they have the lawful authority to deny you a job simply because you declined to acquiesce to dubious fiat tax collection methods deserves to have their business handed over to you while they sit in prison. Those type of people are thugs. Sure, they'll try to tell you they don't want any problems with the IRS, but since they are told precisely what to do, then their concerns must have nothing to do with you and have something to do with other shenanigans they're up to regarding filing returns.

I just saw your post below the one I'm replying to, so obviously you are getting it, and I understand that it is much easier to go along to get along...or as Thomas Jefferson put it:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I began in this thread insisting that we are no where near the point of violent revolution, and stayed in this thread insisting we are at a point where revolution is necessary. I advocate a "velvet revolution" where people simply assert their rights and demand their government officials act according to the dictates of the rule of law, and I insist that as long as we keep forking over money that isn't theirs to begin with, no revolution, peaceful or violent, will stop this beast.

The American people should be getting angry they are getting shafted like the rest of us, sentiments and words bandied around by politicians such as "hope" and "change" sound good but "hope" won't fill your belly with food and "change" will mean just that but probably worse change than you were expecting.

When people stop falling for this drivel things will change but not until then -
I'm off to find that other rhetorical gem "yes we can" as I believe this will keep the rain off my head as the "hope and change" digests in my belly.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


The only way I can see full blown revolution or rebellion (be it armed, or sit down) happening in our country, is if things get so bad that no one can eat, pay their bills, have a home, etc.

And that has to include the very wealthy.

Most Americans like to bitch and gripe. Hey, I'm guilty of it too (WAY more than most of you folks. I was in the Navy for 10 years, and the saying is: the only happy sailor is a bitching sailor).

It's what we do.

I lived in Italy for 4 years as a teen when my dad was stationed there. You want to talk about a people that don't like to pay taxes? If one goes up or a new tax get's introduced, they pile old tires across a main free way and light them on fire.

Used to love seeing that smoke in the morning. Meant there was no school since the bus couldn't get to us.





But seriously. I don't think most people understand that if you want to change things, EVERYONE has to want to do it (or at least such a majority you might as well think of it as everyone), and those people also must agree to the consequences that can happen.

Too many of us don't understand that. But we're ready to post words like "Revolution" and "Rebellion" online.

Angry Americans? Nah. I think most of us are just irritated, annoyed and just very tired of things.

If you REALLY want to see some pissed off Americans, have another terrorist attack on our soil, or another Pearl Harbor. You'll see some Angry Americans then.

But, unfortunately, when us Americans get Angry, we tend to stop thinking or retaining our common sense either. We just want to go kick someone's butt. And I can relate to that feeling, but it tends to empower our government even more.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

I certainly support wealth distribution and no tax loopholes. Learn to work with your hands or be a high browed snot and pay all your taxes. There is a choice.....

Of course the opposite of a "high brow snot" would be a low brow ignoramus. You bet your ass there is a choice, and as long as people keep deferring to low brow ignoramuses the problems are only going to get worse.

Do you support billionares and trilliionares STEALING WEALTH with their investing/speculating tendencies?

You really think they should be allowed to take a flight to zurich and deposit millions of dollars with no questions asked and a private bank account number? Money that could be coming from drug and arms trading quickly and simply LAUNDERED there?

Do you really support tax evasion for the rich when the middle and upper middle class who at most make a half a million per year cannot afford sound tax advice to perform the same tax avoidance schemes?

Or bribe money for politicians sent to europe, carribean islands?

90% of the people are forced to pay taxes and taxes are necessary. The 10% and up are the ones who pay a lower percentage and thus cheat america. The same 10% who are involved with insider trading deals and encourage massive offshoring of corporate resources.

You depress me with your monolithic views. The government is tyranical because unusually heavy burdens are placed on those whom can least afford them and the royalty gets away with ridiculous stuff. I support public systems 100% and despise those who wish to privatise america. I am not saying homes and cars should be public though. I am not a communist.

Great words from a great man Bernard Sanders for President

reply to post by eriktheawful

But seriously. I don't think most people understand that if you want to change things, EVERYONE has to want to do it (or at least such a majority you might as well think of it as everyone), and those people also must agree to the consequences that can happen.

It only takes one high profile case where an individual is acquitted of all charges brought against him by the IRS. That one case would change everything. Of course, the federal government has a 97% conviction rate and they didn't obtain that kind of success rate going after people they have no hopes of convicting. What no one ever hears about are the people who haven't filed for x amount of years, are confronted by the IRS, confront the IRS right back with proper challenges of jurisdiction, and the IRS backs off. That ain't news, and as the old journalistic saying goes: "If it bleeds it leads". The got blood from Wesley Snipes, so Wesley Snipes was news. Wesley Snipes also made boneheaded arguments that virtually assured his conviction. That's why the IRS went after him, he practically begged them to do so, and once they did he rolled out a red carpet and served them tea and crumpets while they destroyed him.

My point is that long before "everyone" gets in on the act, there has to be an act. When I was in college I had discovered a punk rockabilly band called Blue Angel. The lead singer was this chick who sounded like a cross between Pat Benatar and Alvin the Chipmunk. I would try to play this record at parties I had but no one could stand the band, or her. Then Blue Angel declared bankruptcy and broke up. The lead singer went solo and her first hit was Girls Just Want to Have Fun, her name is Cyndi Lauper. Once she was a bona fide success, then at parties I had, because I had tried to turn people on to Blue Angel my friends were well aware I had this Blue Angel album and would insist I put it on so they could show their friends and dates how hip they were for liking Cyndi Lauper before she was big.

Everyone got into to the act once the act was popular. Strange how that works, sort of like a catch 22, but if we're ever going to have "everyone" stand up and be counted, then it has to begin with the few standing tall and being counted.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I don't support theft of any kind. It matters not to me if they are billionaires or "trillinaires" - there are no "trillionaires" at this point, but okay - or if they are low brow ignoramuses. A thief is a thief regardless of what kind of car he drives, what sort of house he lives in, and what sort of clothes he wears.

You advocate plunder and hope to justify it by asking silly questions like "do you support trillionaires stealing wealth"? This is supposed to explain why it is okay for you and your ilk to plunder that wealth, because presumably it is stolen. Of course, if it was stolen, it was stolen from someone or some people. How about trying the "trillionaire" thief for his crime of theft and then returning the money he stole to their rightful owners? Ever consider that?

Nooooooo, of course not. Instead, you want us all to believe that the theft comes from they making a profit and you being paid a wage you consider robbery.

Profit is not theft. Theft is theft. Plunder is plunder and profits are earned. Earning money is not stealing money, stealing money is stealing money.


Edit to Add: I mistakenly typed wealth instead of theft in my first sentence. Dang! Apologies to those who might have starred me thinking I declared I don't support wealth of any kind. That just wouldn't be true.

People pay excessive taxes cause the government pays a commission to the private banking mafia.

And two with global capitalism being pushed by conservatives very few tariff revenues can be collected.

Three too many wars the last two decades again started by conservatives and liberals say "yes sir" and continue along with some modifications of their own.

The only republican who has any respect from me is Ron Paul. But he is a libertarian FORCED to run with the republicans to get decent exposure. Runing for mayor or governor is much easier than running for president of a nation.