Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Taxes almost rate their own thread, but I don't intend to dwell on it.
Indeed there is no law compelling private Citizens to pay income tax. People have walked out of court unscathed because of this. It is one of the most effective defenses known, and almost always works. I don't want to get into those times when it does not, but suffice it to say it usually does.
My question is : Why don't they simply write that law ?
I must admit that the question is somewhat rhetoical. Anything deliberate, whether an action or the lack of action has a reason. There are only so many possible reasons for the inaction.
I mean they haven't even slipped this into a 2,000 page bill, or the budget, or anything.
So let's just have a quick look at the extant facts.
Legislators know alot of rich people. Some of these rich people do not want to pay taxes.
Legislators have had over fifty years to write a bill that simply sais "Everybody must pay taxes" and have not done so. Yet they churn out more legislation than any of them can read before they even vote on it. Yet they never get around to those four simple words.
What are the possible reasons ? Draw your own conclusion.
Consider this a simplification, just like you simplify a mathemetical formula so it can be solved. Yes, SMAD applies, but in this case :
Subject, Method, Analyse, Deduce.
Subject- Who are they, and what are they supposed to be doing or not doing.?
Method- They are doing what they're not supposed to, and/or not what they are.
Analyse- Who benefits from this ?
Deduce- Two plus two still adds up to four, does it not ?
Everything has a reason, it is said that accidents are caused, and I agree. That's not to say that accidents are intentional, but they do have a cause.
But we are not talking accidents here, we are talking intentional action or inaction.
Many people are very surprised when they find the lack of a law compelling people to pay income tax, one notable person is Joe Bannister, a former IRS agent who now goes around the country teaching tax protesters how to beat the IRS, and it is working.People are also winning lawsuits against the IRS for their tactics, AND not being forced to pay the tax the IRS wanted !
See now you got me started, I have to mention Wilhem E. Scmitt. He also went around, but he simply distributed pamphlets. Well he did a bit more than that, but nothing like these guys today.
One day Dr. Schmitt was surrounded by armed government agents. This unarmed guy standing on the street somehow managed to assault several of the agents, which got him thrown in prison for a very long time, over ten years.
Schmitt adapted to the situation and became a jailhouse teacher in the school there. Things were going OK, as prison could go I guess, he probably figured that he was helping the human condition by teaching and it would be the best use of his time, so to speak.
That was until someone decided it wasn't so good an idea having him teach, so they handed him a broom. I don't know his exact words, but I bet they rhymed with "suck you". He spent the last few years in solitary confinement because he simply refused.
Now there's guy I'd like to meet and buy him a beer, but I suspect he is dead. He was old, I'm not saying anyone killed him, maybe but I have no indications of that. I'm sure they're glad to see him gone though. His website is gone, and there has been nothing for years.
This much about taxes I think is germaine to this thread, but that is enough on the one subject. There is alot more to it than just taxes.
For example why do you need a license plate on your car, or more specifically THEIR license plate ? I don't care how much you are a Constitutionalist, I think we all agree that each of our vehicles need a unique identification that is recorded in a registry somewhere.
And I think we are in agreement about roads, there needs to be a supply of money to build and maintain roads. There is a sure and simple way to do this Constitutionally. Tax the gas. They already do, but gasoline is specifically what causes the need for these expenditures.
I could see in some cases residents of an area want a new road. The community should of course share in the cost, but that cost stops. Maintainence cost comes from gasoline.In other words, there would only be ad hoc property taxes.
Some would say that even if the residents held a vote, and passed by majority, the construction of a new road, forcing those who voted against it might be wrong. A form of communism. Well it is.
When a society grows to this extent, it is by force of reality that we do adopt some communistic and socialistic ways. But I agree, too much is too much. Other people do not always see it that way.
People will push their agenda on others too easily. For example, you got kids, people are going too fast on the street past your house. You want a stop sign. If you get a stop sign everybody has to stop at it. Is a stop sign really needed ?
Are there other options that do not inconvenience everyone ? Does anyone even think of that ? How about option number one, which is to make certain that your kids do not run out in the street. How about option number two, if you REALLY think people are going too fast, say 45 in a 25 residential area, call city hall and see if they can put a traffic cop around there and write a few tickets.
As much of a Constitutionalist I am, I agree that speed limits are needed. I am not sure how that works into it, but it does.
This utopian Constitutioal way of life I would envision as an ideal would only work with people cooperating and acting responsibly. Let's face it, every time someone does something stupid or bad, they pounce on the opportunity to write a few more thousand pages of law. If people hadn't made that necessary we would not be in such a deep hole.
You may have read my opinion of McVeigh. If they didn't whack him I would consider doing it myself. Not for what he did to the children and innocent in OKC, but for what he did to patriots and militia groups across the country. Now the populous of the country cast a jaundiced eye on anything of the sort. Anyone working to try to restore rights and freedoms are now suspect. Thanks alot Timmy, see you in hell, I'll save you a seat in my private room.
I don't see it. I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel so to speak, or at the top of the hole. That is not to say it does not exist, nor does it mean that it is not simply dark at this moment in history. The top of the hole is there, maybe there is just no light.
Anyone who would like to see government abate, and get some of our freedom back needs to be very cautious.
For one, in court is not the place you are likely to win. Even beating the IRS is getting harder and harder. Remember to fight them you MUST NOT FILE. That is foremost.
What we need to do is get good people on the inside of government. If we had a couple in there, and some lobby power ($$$) they would be loyal and could buy the ones who can be bought for money, to do what they were supposed to do in the first place. Get a congressional voting bloc, even if all they do is vote with Ron Paul, that would make a dent. There is enough derision in congress that a few votes could jam something up quite nicely. And since damnear everything they do is bad, simply having them do less of it would be good. Seems logical to me. That's why I like Dr. No.
Before you stop a freight train and back it up you must slow it down. We need to think in terms of ATTAINABLE goals. There is no good damn reason we can't get a good congressman in there if we try. Or even senator. That is a start, a baby step.
For example, people in Ohio, what say we try to find one guy. Young, but knowledgable about the Constitution. Not a lawyer, drug abuser (since college at least) or whoremonger. There are eleven million people in this state. We can't find one ?
Some are not ready for the public eye. Me for example. I have no felonies or drug convictions but I am not all that squeaky clean. I would do it though. Stand against congress, vote with Dr, No. It would be one small step. The giant leap comes if the idea catches on, and we gradually start displacing the MFs who are there now.
Then the senate is the target. Alot harder, but that first step teaches us how to do it. In the senate, we have one voice among 100, instead of 435. Either house can strangle a bill.
I think I said before that I take a mathematical approach to gambling. Perhaps oversimplifying, it will be, on average, 4.35 times harder to elect us a senator than a congressman, if all other things are equal. Of course they won't be. That's only the numbers, have to sway the whole state, it is a much bigger undertaking.
Anybody got any other bright ideas I am listening, very intently. Whatever you do just don't go out there and blow up a building, it doesn't work.
You know this tyranny is indeed enforced by force, but it was imposed with the stroke of a pen. Perhaps we can learn something from that.
Be well.
T
|
RE: Law Question: Common, Civil, Equity etc. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread