Income and Trade

[Paulie]

You are playing games.

You keep claiming because YOU don't like the law it is not just. You keep claiming if we would all just vote them out, it would change.

And there in is the rub. WE do not vote them out because WE do not agree with you. Ohh wait I forgot your defense on that is we are all just lemmings afraid to vote them out.

Ya that is a good defense alright.

The Government has every right to tax anything they want, The People gave them that power and we continue to agree with it by NOT voting them out and changing it.

You like being taxed to pay for spending that you YOURSELF claim is unconstitutional?

I'd say if the answer to that is yes, than you are an idiot. Otherwise, it's well known that a large portion of conservatives do not agree with the current unconstitutional spending that goes on. The fact that our income tax is levied to PAY for said spending, would assume that anyone against the spending would automatically have to be against the tax, because without that spending that you complain about, that tax would not be necessary...and in fact did not exist before that spending existed. Because why? It wasn't necessary.

Try and keep up RGS.

This paradox that you seem to be stuck in is the one you have refused to speak about. This is now the third time I've called you out on it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You like being taxed to pay for spending that you YOURSELF claim is unconstitutional?

I'd say if the answer to that is yes, than you are an idiot. Otherwise, it's well known that a large portion of conservatives do not agree with the current unconstitutional spending that goes on. The fact that our income tax is levied to PAY for said spending, would assume that anyone against the spending would automatically have to be against the tax, because without that spending that you complain about, that tax would not be necessary...and in fact did not exist before that spending existed. Because why? It wasn't necessary.

Try and keep up RGS.

This paradox that you seem to be stuck in is the one you have refused to speak about. This is now the third time I've called you out on it.

You are the one with a problem. You cut spending FIRST before you cut taxes. Otherwise the Government can not function.

 

[Paulie]

You are the one with a problem. You cut spending FIRST before you cut taxes. Otherwise the Government can not function.

So the government can only function if it's taking your money from you to give to someone else who won't work for it themselves?

You sure you're a conservative???

 

[indago]

I had posted:

RetiredGySgt posted: "The Constitution does not limit what the Government can tax at all."

I, then, posted: "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS NEVER GRANTED THE POWER TO LAY A DIRECT TAX UPON THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATES."

RetiredGySgt, then, posted: "Wrong, it is clear in section 8 Article I and it is even more clearin Amendment 16. The ONLY limit on the Government is that any tax or duty or revenue scheme must be UNIFORM through out the several States."

The Supreme Court of the United States wrote that the sixteenth amendment federal income tax was an excise tax, in the indirect tax category, and was not a direct tax, and that the sixteenth amendment conferred no new taxing powers upon the government. There was no dissent in this opinion.

These were Supreme Court Justices, the Chief Justice writing the opinion, all learned men writing opinions recorded for posterity, history, and all the world to see.

I don't see the name RetiredGySgt anywhere as having published anything remotely connected to a thesis on law, or politics for that matter, except for some droppings now and then on a message board in cyberspace.

I'll put my money on those who wrote the opinion of the Court.

RetiredGySgt blurted: "Sure thing genius, go ahead don't pay your taxes cause it isn't legal. Make a big stink about it and see what happens." He also likes to engage in namecalling, calling those who don't agree with him "loons".

There was nothing in what I had posted about "don't pay your taxes"; just noting what the Justices had to say about the categories of taxation granted to government, and pointing out the errors in RetardedGySgt thinking.

I guess that's what happens when you spend most of your life running around with your head up some officers ass: You become completely toadified, and engage in hallucinatory rant.


-

 

[indago]

Ravir had posted:

All he needs to do is incorporate himself then he is free to pay himself, his wife, and his children a salary, which is a write-off for the business. Of course, their salaries then become personal income.

Why should he relegate himself to artificial person status and sacrifice his status as natural person?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I had posted:

RetiredGySgt blurted: "Sure thing genius, go ahead don't pay your taxes cause it isn't legal. Make a big stink about it and see what happens." He also likes to engage in namecalling, calling those who don't agree with him "loons".

There was nothing in what I had posted about "don't pay your taxes"; just noting what the Justices had to say about the categories of taxation granted to government, and pointing out the errors in RetardedGySgt thinking.

I guess that's what happens when you spend most of your life running around with your head up some officers ass: You become completely toadified, and engage in hallucinatory rant.


-

Your wrong as usual. The simple fact remains the Government LEGALLY does collect INCOME tax and every time it is challenged, guess who wins? IN COURT. Go ahead genius provide us the Supreme Court decision that says the IRS is illegal. Come on , can not be to hard, you keep claiming that is the truth. Yet year after year this "illegal" Agency collects "illegal" taxes at the behest of the Government, sanctioned, supported and paid for BY the Government and upheld as legal in every court.

 

[indago]

The Retarded One has blissfully blurted:

Go ahead genius provide us the Supreme Court decision that says the IRS is illegal.

Maybe you could point out for all of us here just where it is written in any of my posts that "the IRS is illegal".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Retarded One has blissfully blurted:

Maybe you could point out for all of us here just where it is written in any of my posts that "the IRS is illegal".

Then you admit income tax is legal, thanks. we can move on.

 

[indago]

Retard Rote:

Then you admit income tax is legal, thanks. we can move on.

Maybe you could point out for all of us here just where it is written in any of my posts that an income tax is not legal.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Retard Rote:

Maybe you could point out for all of us here just where it is written in any of my posts that an income tax is not legal.

You are a laugh riot. Keep it up. I don't get to laugh much lately.

 

[indago]

Well, here it is, a couple of days gone by and no credible response from Ol' Retard, other than: "You are a laugh riot. Keep it up. I don't get to laugh much lately."

And didn't I just know, somehow, that this is what would happen. It is becoming a regular item. So predictable. Ol' Retard thrives on making bold and sweeping generalizations, but when called upon the carpet to examine into his halllucinatory ranting, the foundation crumbles, along with his veracity; and, we find that his equivocations are just that; he is just blowing smoke and now eating crow; and enjoying his favorite dish: SMOKED CROW

STILL LAUGHING, RETARD?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your the dumb shit that advices people to ignore the law. Then pretends you did no such thing. So ya I am still laughing when you are stupid enough to once again post your tripe.

 

[indago]

Ol' Retard Rote:

Your the dumb shit that advices people to ignore the law. Then pretends you did no such thing.

So, show all of us here where I "advices people to ignore the law", and what law did I "advices people" to ignore?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RetiredGySgt wrote:

Federal government was NEVER granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.

I guess you did not post this?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Paulitics posted:

No, you milked yourself when you sent to the government a form declaring that what you had received for your work was income and swore to it under the penalties of perjury. You don't give the government much choice when you do this but to accept what you had declared as fact.

I am reminded of a discussion that I had with a young dairy farmer a few years back. There were several persons present in the room at the time. The discussion turned to a form that he filed with the government at the end of the year. I asked him if he declared, on the form, that he purchased seed and fertilizer for his fields. He said that he did. I asked him if he had purchased any new equipment; he noted that he had purchased a new diesel tractor, and that he was depreciating it over a period of time, and that he declared this depreciation on the form. I asked him if he filed on the form his costs for his milking equipment, and other farm implements. He said yes. I asked him about other expenses concerning his farm, and he declared that he had listed them all on the form that he had sent to the federal government. I asked him if he declared on the form the money that he received in the marketplace for the farm products that he sold. He said that he did. Then, I asked him if he worked on the farm. He said yes. I asked him if his wife worked on the farm. He said yes to this. I asked him if he had any children. He said that he did have, and that they all had their chores to do on the farm. I asked him if he declared on the form the value of all of their labor. He thought for a moment, and then declared that he did not; that there was no place on the form for this. I asked him if he signed the form, declaring that the information that was contained therein was accurate, under the penalties of perjury. He thought about that, and said yes. I then said to him, "Let me get this clear in my mind. You file a form with the government in which you declare that you purchased seed for planting; fertilizer for the fields; a new tractor for plowing and other work on the farm; milking equipment, and other farm implements; fuel for the tractor; and that you sold the farm products in the marketplace; realized a profit; and that you operated this farm without any labor; and you swore to this under the penalties of perjury." He looked at me for a long, hard moment, thinking about what I had just said, and declared, "Yes, I guess that's what I did." The silence was deafening in the room.



-

And you did not post this?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RetiredGySgt posted: "The Constitution does not limit what the Government can tax at all."

I, then, posted: "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS NEVER GRANTED THE POWER TO LAY A DIRECT TAX UPON THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATES."

RetiredGySgt, then, posted: "Wrong, it is clear in section 8 Article I and it is even more clearin Amendment 16. The ONLY limit on the Government is that any tax or duty or revenue scheme must be UNIFORM through out the several States."

The Supreme Court of the United States wrote that the sixteenth amendment federal income tax was an excise tax, in the indirect tax category, and was not a direct tax, and that the sixteenth amendment conferred no new taxing powers upon the government. There was no dissent in this opinion.

These were Supreme Court Justices, the Chief Justice writing the opinion, all learned men writing opinions recorded for posterity, history, and all the world to see.

I don't see the name RetiredGySgt anywhere as having published anything remotely connected to a thesis on law, or politics for that matter, except for some droppings now and then on a message board in cyberspace.

I'll put my money on those who wrote the opinion of the Court.

And you did not post this?

So tell us, if you are not claiming the Government has no legal right to tax income, what are you claiming?

 

[indago]

You missed one, Retard:

Black's Law Dictionary, second edition, 1910, declares a difference between the economic term "income", and the term "income" as used in the income tax, the economic term meaning the same as a revenue, or that which comes in, while the term used in the income tax means yearly profits.

"We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909... the broad contention submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts - everything that comes in - are income within the proper definition of the term "gross income"" — United States Supreme Court

I, then, queried: "Are you denying those factual statements?" You didn't respond to this. Now, looking through the postings, I enquire again: "So, show all of us here where I "advices people to ignore the law", and what law did I "advices people" to ignore?"

Or, are you again going to be in denial of those factual statements?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You missed one, Retard:

I, then, queried: "Are you denying those factual statements?" You didn't respond to this. Now, looking through the postings, I enquire again: "So, show all of us here where I "advices people to ignore the law", and what law did I "advices people" to ignore?"

Or, are you again going to be in denial of those factual statements?

Again, why are you claiming the Government does not have the right to tax income, then when called on it claiming you never said that?

 

[indago]

RetiredGySgt has babbloniously bleated:

Again, why are you claiming the Government does not have the right to tax income, then when called on it claiming you never said that?

Again, show all of us here, in any of the postings I have made, where I wrote "the Government does not have the right to tax income". And while you're at it, look this over that is recorded into the Congressional Record explaining how the federal income tax works, and deny that this is recorded in the Congressional Record:

"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax." — Congressional Record House of Representatives 27 March 1943 pg 2579

 

[indago]

RetiredGySgt had babbloniously bleated: "Again, why are you claiming the Government does not have the right to tax income, then when called on it claiming you never said that?"

I, then, enquired: "Again, show all of us here, in any of the postings I have made, where I wrote "the Government does not have the right to tax income"."

And here it is, several days gone by and the Babblonious Huff'nPuff has provided us with NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH

And didn't I just know, somehow, that this is what would happen. It is becoming a regular item. So predictable. Ol' Huff'nPuff thrives on making bold and sweeping generalizations, but when called upon the carpet to examine into his ranting, the foundation crumbles, along with his veracity; and, we find that his equivocations are just that; he is just blowing smoke and eating crow; and enjoying his favorite dish: SMOKED CROW