How small is your small government?

[BigBallinStalin]

There is no law requiring individuals to pay an income tax to the government, it is voluntary. If it is voluntary, why can't it be directed? Our politicians are supposed to recognize the needs and means of their constituents and direct the means towards the needs to the best of their ability. While a large portion of the population maintains their ongoing failure in this role is due to incompetence, I hold a more sinister view. What happens is what was intended. If we are voluntarily forfeiting a large portion of our market power then we should be purchasing some market influence, but we have given up on the market influence and just expect everything to be cool.

What are you talking about?

The federal tax laws are contained in the Internal Revenue Code, which was passed by the United States Congress. The Internal Revenue Code is also known as Title 26 of the United States Code, which is the compilation of all the laws passed by Congress.

The Internal Revenue Code is the law that requires people to pay taxes.

The most important statutory provision with regard to income taxes is the very first: section one of the tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 1. Section one imposes the income tax. If you are unmarried, the relevant provision is § 1(c), which states:

26 U.S.C. § 1
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . who is not a married individual a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/ ... tNoLaw.htm

Even if you ignored the above, how can you explain that an exchange is magically voluntary when the group paying for whatever cannot choose what they want? If they couldn't get what they wanted in the exchange, then they wouldn't make the exchange, yet somehow the 'voluntary' exchange still occurs... That makes no sense--unless we remember that the exchange is involuntary since the threat of force is involved and that the exchange (income tax) is required by law...

[_sabotage_]

Issuing more currency and providing it to other sectors doesn't address the problem, it's true. The US is faced with a impossible problem: we've been getting our resources for nothing, other countries are aware of this and only through the threat of force are we able to prevent a devastating collapse. Issuing more currency according to the current trickle down model will not solve the US's problems. On the other hand, stimulating production will prevent the utter collapse of the US. If we can provide for ourselves, we will not face grave lack of resources when others decide that our "American Dream" is just a fantasy. Were we to produce things, we will have a real bargaining tool, but instead we cling ever more feebly to our traditional illusion. Wealth can be generated, but we choose to get it by fraud.

Speaking of fraud:

Steve Miller, former Director of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), admitted at a Congressional hearing that the taxes collected by the IRS are not mandatory – but voluntary.
When questioned at the House Ways and Means Committee (WMC) hearing last week, Miller told House Representative Devin Nunes that “America’s tax system is ‘voluntary’”. When Nunes remarked for clarification that the US tax code is a “voluntary system”, Miller said, “Agreed.”

I guess you know better than the former director of the IRS.

On the other hand, I do agree with you in that it should be voluntary in that the individual can freely allot their taxes to their desired arena and towards their specific benefit.

I've said before, I think money is part of the problem. Until we can actually arrive at the point of kicking it out of the way, we should be allowed the freedom of consideration, which is a basic contractual requirement.

[thegreekdog]

Steve Miller, former Director of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), admitted at a Congressional hearing that the taxes collected by the IRS are not mandatory – but voluntary.
When questioned at the House Ways and Means Committee (WMC) hearing last week, Miller told House Representative Devin Nunes that “America’s tax system is ‘voluntary’”. When Nunes remarked for clarification that the US tax code is a “voluntary system”, Miller said, “Agreed.”

I guess you know better than the former director of the IRS.

Taxes are voluntary. You can pay them or go to jail.

[Phatscotty]

Far be it from me to require defending.

I was getting a little confused about how letting the rich decide where the vast majority of public money is spent relates to what you were saying earlier about democracy, but then you said that this new system of yours is 'overt' so I guess we're all square on that front. Top work!

How were the bailouts detrimental to you? How would you have been better off if the banks were left to collapse?

See all that money that I had saved up, that my family and friends saved up, became greatly reduced in value when the FED issued roughly 17 trillion in new currency to the failed banks. The full effects of the reduction in value have not yet been felt. But the growing disillusion with the US government grows more pronounced by the day. Had the US invested the money in infrastructure, funding new business, improving health care, improving energy independence, or in any way attempted to improve the lives of its citizens, the ones who both paid the taxes and are liable to the issue of debt, then I would be less appalled. Had the collapse happened, then the monopoly money that they continually print would be greatly devalued and my actual assets would reflect their true value.

In the last 5 years, the US has dumped over a trillion into infrastructure; remember 'shovel ready jobs' and there was a huge increase in bridge inspections after the 35W collapse (even though it was some dummy's fault and not the structure itself, never let a crisis go to waste) and here in Minnesota we are rebuilding all kinds of bridges, and I'm sure it;s the same all over the country. As per funding new business, there has been all kinds of new spending to encourage biz to hire vets, and also jobs bill 1 and jobs bill 2, even stimulus was aimed at 'helping' business. Businesses even got a 1 year exemption from Obamacare. The US also dumped a trillion, and it's looking like another trillion will be needed, to 'improve' healthcare. Hundreds of billions were spent on solar energy and wind energy companies, as well as some spent to close down/over regulate coal energy and oil energy (complete gulf shutdown of oil rigs when there was only a problem with 1 rig, also, Solyndra is just one of many solar companies that were actually a black hole slush fund). Even the department of education got a 100% increase in funding in a 2 year period, only to get same to worse results. All this was supposed to improve lives.

You should still be appalled, not because we didn't spend trillions on all that stuff, but because we DID spend trillions on all that stuff and don't have anything to show for it except another 7 trillion in debt (unless you count the 6 people that enrolled in Obamacare)

[Phatscotty]

I was getting a little confused about how letting the rich decide where the vast majority of public money is spent relates to that democracy malarkey you were talking about earlier, but then you said that this new system of yours is 'overt' so I guess we're all square on that front. Top work!

How were the bailouts detrimental to you? How would you have been better off if the banks were left to collapse?

Far be it from me to defend sabotage here, but it seems to me that bailing out a company for a failure encourages further failure, no? Failure with repurcussions forces folks to fix problems. Failure without repurcussions not only encourages further failure, but takes money from some people and gives it to the people who failed.

As a simpler example, bailing out home owners who paid too much for their homes encourages them to pay too much again in the anticipation of receiving a bail out. Of course, as you put it, the financial ruin of "the banks" would put the entire world in a worse financial crisis (I guess... the same people who predicted that no bailout meant disaster also failed to predict the "Great Recession" in the first place... and they also tend to be people who benefit, indirectly, from a bank bailout).

In any event, I look forward to the next round of bank bailouts and auto manufacturer bailouts in the name of protecting the economy. It will also be interesting to see what happens when younger people realize they will be paying for the lifestyles of the older generation in the near future.

Moral hazard - In economic theory, a moral hazard is a situation where a party will have a tendency to take risks because the costs that could incur will not be felt by the party taking the risk. In other words, it is a tendency to be more willing to take a risk, knowing that the potential costs or burdens of taking such risk will be borne, in whole or in part, by others. A moral hazard may occur where the actions of one party may change to the detriment of another after a financial transaction has taken place.

Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not take the full consequences and responsibilities of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to hold some responsibility for the consequences of those actions.

[thegreekdog]

I was getting a little confused about how letting the rich decide where the vast majority of public money is spent relates to that democracy malarkey you were talking about earlier, but then you said that this new system of yours is 'overt' so I guess we're all square on that front. Top work!

How were the bailouts detrimental to you? How would you have been better off if the banks were left to collapse?

Far be it from me to defend sabotage here, but it seems to me that bailing out a company for a failure encourages further failure, no? Failure with repurcussions forces folks to fix problems. Failure without repurcussions not only encourages further failure, but takes money from some people and gives it to the people who failed.

As a simpler example, bailing out home owners who paid too much for their homes encourages them to pay too much again in the anticipation of receiving a bail out. Of course, as you put it, the financial ruin of "the banks" would put the entire world in a worse financial crisis (I guess... the same people who predicted that no bailout meant disaster also failed to predict the "Great Recession" in the first place... and they also tend to be people who benefit, indirectly, from a bank bailout).

In any event, I look forward to the next round of bank bailouts and auto manufacturer bailouts in the name of protecting the economy. It will also be interesting to see what happens when younger people realize they will be paying for the lifestyles of the older generation in the near future.

Moral hazard - In economic theory, a moral hazard is a situation where a party will have a tendency to take risks because the costs that could incur will not be felt by the party taking the risk. In other words, it is a tendency to be more willing to take a risk, knowing that the potential costs or burdens of taking such risk will be borne, in whole or in part, by others. A moral hazard may occur where the actions of one party may change to the detriment of another after a financial transaction has taken place.

Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not take the full consequences and responsibilities of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to hold some responsibility for the consequences of those actions.

Thanks. That's what I was going for.

[_sabotage_]

Far be it from me to require defending.

I was getting a little confused about how letting the rich decide where the vast majority of public money is spent relates to what you were saying earlier about democracy, but then you said that this new system of yours is 'overt' so I guess we're all square on that front. Top work!

How were the bailouts detrimental to you? How would you have been better off if the banks were left to collapse?

See all that money that I had saved up, that my family and friends saved up, became greatly reduced in value when the FED issued roughly 17 trillion in new currency to the failed banks. The full effects of the reduction in value have not yet been felt. But the growing disillusion with the US government grows more pronounced by the day. Had the US invested the money in infrastructure, funding new business, improving health care, improving energy independence, or in any way attempted to improve the lives of its citizens, the ones who both paid the taxes and are liable to the issue of debt, then I would be less appalled. Had the collapse happened, then the monopoly money that they continually print would be greatly devalued and my actual assets would reflect their true value.

In the last 5 years, the US has dumped over a trillion into infrastructure; remember 'shovel ready jobs' and there was a huge increase in bridge inspections after the 35W collapse (even though it was some dummy's fault and not the structure itself, never let a crisis go to waste) and here in Minnesota we are rebuilding all kinds of bridges, and I'm sure it;s the same all over the country. As per funding new business, there has been all kinds of new spending to encourage biz to hire vets, and also jobs bill 1 and jobs bill 2, even stimulus was aimed at 'helping' business. Businesses even got a 1 year exemption from Obamacare. The US also dumped a trillion, and it's looking like another trillion will be needed, to 'improve' healthcare. Hundreds of billions were spent on solar energy and wind energy companies, as well as some spent to close down/over regulate coal energy and oil energy (complete gulf shutdown of oil rigs when there was only a problem with 1 rig, also, Solyndra is just one of many solar companies that were actually a black hole slush fund). Even the department of education got a 100% increase in funding in a 2 year period, only to get same to worse results. All this was supposed to improve lives.

You should still be appalled, not because we didn't spend trillions on all that stuff, but because we DID spend trillions on all that stuff and don't have anything to show for it except another 7 trillion in debt (unless you count the 6 people that enrolled in Obamacare)

Trillions of dollars of monopoly money that the US can't and won't pay back. Just be thankful that there are still a few resources that can be stolen or defrauded out of neighbouring countries.

The US needed to take a hit to get us back on track, to reflect international resources and to break our obsessive military intervention. When the chance for the economy to fall was ripe, we let it fester and now we stink internationally.

We are fucked over a barrel. The Fed denied Germany it's gold, and we've been outed tapping Merkels phone by Merkel. It's not like they didn't know, so why are 40 nations all speaking out now as they dump the dollar as a reserve currency? Yeah, we spent money on infrastructure. Some lucky producer got a contract for 5 million coffin like boxes and another for 1.2b rounds, and Obama's position on it is that he is just keeping up with the population. The US is utterly fucked.

On the bright side, maybe the elite will jump this sinking ship and we can get back to being a country.

And TGD, you're a tax attorney, do you really think I would expect you to say "my job is completely redundant". As the jury asked the judge, if the guy broke the law and he says there is none, just show it and we'll find him guilty.

The federal income tax was requested during WWII and people just kept paying out of habit.

[Metsfanmax]

And TGD, you're a tax attorney, do you really think I would expect you to say "my job is completely redundant". As the jury asked the judge, if the guy broke the law and he says there is none, just show it and we'll find him guilty.

The federal income tax was requested during WWII and people just kept paying out of habit.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/ ... tNoLaw.htm

[BigBallinStalin]

And TGD, you're a tax attorney, do you really think I would expect you to say "my job is completely redundant". As the jury asked the judge, if the guy broke the law and he says there is none, just show it and we'll find him guilty.

The federal income tax was requested during WWII and people just kept paying out of habit.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/ ... tNoLaw.htm

That doesn't work on him.

[_sabotage_]

Guess these IRS agents and lawyers don't know as much as you.

[thegreekdog]

And TGD, you're a tax attorney, do you really think I would expect you to say "my job is completely redundant". As the jury asked the judge, if the guy broke the law and he says there is none, just show it and we'll find him guilty.

Great point. Clearly I'm biased. It's a good thing all my clients don't think tax is voluntary. But I recommend that you send a strongly worded letter to the Fortune 500.

[_sabotage_]

Either:

That roster of IRS agents in the in the video are lying, or you are lying/ignorant. The agents quit because of it, you get payed to uphold it. Nothing personal, but when your mother is a lawyer, you start to look at results rather than fancy wordplay.

[thegreekdog]

Either:

That roster of IRS agents in the in the video are lying, or you are lying/ignorant. The agents quit because of it, you get payed to uphold it. Nothing personal, but when your mother is a lawyer, you start to look at results rather than fancy wordplay.

I told you that taxes are voluntary - you pay them or you go to jail. I'm not lying about that certainly.

Again, please send letters to the Fortune 500. You can find their addresses pretty easily. And feel free to carbon copy me; I would like to see their responses.

In all seriousness, I think you're confusing the voluntary nature of the income tax with the layperson use of the term "voluntary." You should check around a bit and think about whether if tax was voluntary (i.e. you can not pay without repurcussions) why people who are much more intelligent and savvy than you or me, continue to pay taxes.

[_sabotage_]

http://www.livefreenow.org/about-us/$30 ... eward.html

They are offering a $300,000 dollar reward if you can prove its a law. Best of luck.

[Metsfanmax]

I find the parallel interesting between this thread and the Obamacare thread.

In this thread, sabotage argues that the income tax is voluntary despite government agents coming to collect if you refuse to pay.

In that thread, sabotage argues that Obamacare is mandatory because government agents come to collect if you refuse to purchase health insurance.

[_sabotage_]

I don't argue that it is voluntary, the IRS does. I argue it's fraudulent.

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't argue that it is voluntary, the IRS does. I argue it's fraudulent.

There is no law requiring individuals to pay an income tax to the government, it is voluntary.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=198221&start=90#p4337336


So, that wasn't you typing; that was the IRS?

[_sabotage_]

If there is no law then it is voluntary, if the IRS imposes a law that does not exist, it is fraudulent of them.

Whenever the IRS says it's voluntary, they do so knowing that it cannot be mandatory, because there is a law preventing self incrimination. If a true return were mandatory, then it would be forcing many people to give up their 5th amendment. So they say it is voluntary and then enforce it. Which is fraud.

[BigBallinStalin]

If there is no law then it is voluntary, if the IRS imposes a law that does not exist, it is fraudulent of them.

Whenever the IRS says it's voluntary, they do so knowing that it cannot be mandatory, because there is a law preventing self incrimination. If a true return were mandatory, then it would be forcing many people to give up their 5th amendment. So they say it is voluntary and then enforce it. Which is fraud.

Even if there isn't a law--which there is--then you can still make a rule, e.g. "if you don't pay your taxes, you'll be thrown in jail."

The rest doesn't follow nor make much sense.

[_sabotage_]

You see it is voluntary because people with the most taxes to pay are those who are most intent on maintaining the system that is enriching them.

The US has declared an economic attack as an act of war.

The economy is based on GDP.

GDP is based on how much things cost and how many people buy those things.

Curing cancer would lower GDP. Curing cancer is therefore an act of war. Bypassing the US dollar in bilateral trade is an act of war. When another country creates its own industries that the US had been earning from either through the petrodollar or lose of consumption, is an act of war.

Voting against a war causes a loss of GDP, and is an act of war. Exposing the truth about 9/11 causes a decrease in terrorist spending, act of war. Stopping a blockade to a starving nation impedes on the US's strategic negotiation tools and is an act of war.

Your tax dollars support the actions against these acts of war. Your efforts support a system which benefits very few Americans who will leave us at the helm of a sinking ship and enables them to extract resources from other nations leaving billions worse off. As long as you recognize this and are happy with it, the more power to you, for your fall will be as epic as your rise. And it is voluntary.

But we know the wolf's about, the world knows it and historically the wolf gets killed when the shepherd catches him messing with the sheep. The elite have two options: run back to their den, or defeat the masses. I suspect that it will be a bit of both followed by a false saviour.

I would recommend spending some of your important taxpayer hours working towards your own food, water, clothing and shelter security and ridding yourself of the system ASAP. Not to take a hit in lifestyle, but to improve it; not to lose financial security, but to attain it. If you want to says its to guard against climate change, to decrease your operating costs, to improve domestic production, to decrease the size of the government, to clean your hands of the bloodshed, to encourage free markets, to diversify your portfolio or to provide yourself with a healthy living environment, is up to you.

[thegreekdog]

It's voluntary because people report their own taxes. Like I said, do a little reading (and not the conspiracy theory kind).

[crispybits]

Sabotage has kind of a point here (tho it can get lost amongst the other bits)

I had a link somewhere about how the American government since WWII has acted in a remarkably similar way to a mafia boss, with underlings (allies) to do their bidding, and "making examples" of countries who don't toe the line with what America wants. I can't find it though. If I do I'll post it, but for now I do know that it was reported in some sources (including reputable ones) that one of the major reasons for Gulf War 2 wasnt weapons of mass destruction (shock horror) or getting more puppet states in the middle east (though that's a beneficial consequence to the US), but that Saddam was in talks with several other countries, including several major oil producing countries, about forming a new trade alliance that would trade oil in euros instead of US dollars. Currently the global oil trade is conducted for the most part in USD and a shift of a significant portion of that trade to EUR would have hit America hard financially.

In a way that makes it a valid national security issue, and other nations with much invested in the global American-led economy also didnt want to see this kind of collapse happen hence they got some help, but it raises some severe questions about sovereignty of smaller nations and US foreign policy.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's an interesting hypothesis, but I'd need to see evidence of the US attempting to thwart other similar plans--militarily and diplomatically. E.g. Russia and China are working on a similar deal--is the US beleaguering them about it?

[crispybits]

There's a big trade pact being negotiated between the EU and the US at the moment which would remove trade tariffs and bring a lot of the rules of commerce on both sides of the atlantic in line with each other. Reportedly Obama has told Cameron to squelch the euro-skeptic portions of his party a bit and that if Britain leaves the EU the US will not be offering them any sort of separate deal.

With regards Russia and China, specifically China (tho the two would probably band together if the US got aggressive towards either one) they're too big for military action to be economically viable, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some branch(es) of the US government are doing all they can to prevent such a deal.

(Any factual claims made in my last two posts are conditional on me actually doing research if anyone spots any errors. It's late, I'm tired, and my motivation to google and fact-check my memory right now is at an all time low - I present them in good faith but take them with a pinch of salt)