The Anti-Tax guys won -- round 2
Tockk
be something to all this anti-income tax business. This link is to a
video (almost 2 hours long) that I found quite curious.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80303867390173
But then, I found this site:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#income
which seems to answer many of the issues raised by the video. But then, I'm
no lawyer, so maybe it does, maybe it doesn't . . . I dunno . . .
What do y'all think about this? I can't tell if the anti-tax guys are
crackpots or not, or if the IRS is the Great Satan.
Chloe
news:XZUqi.29924$2v1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
Mull this over. What would happen if--legal or not--everyone suddenly quit
paying income tax?
Don K
news:XZUqi.29924$2v1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>
> or if the IRS is the Great Satan.
If they can find 12 people who thought OJ didn't kill anyone, then
you can find groups of people who will take any side of any issue
you can come up with, making seemingly logical arguments, yet ones
that are mutually exclusive and contradictive.
Personally I don't have a dog in this fight, so I haven't bothered to watch.
A casual google indicates that the issue revolves around claims that
the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified and so isn't part of the
Constitution.
Even if true, I bet there's lots of things in the past that weren't done
precisely right. What other wrongs should we take up and how far back
in history do you want to go?
Don
Peter K.
> A casual google indicates ...
As opposed to "A formal google indicates ..." ???
Sorry. Silliness overcame me.
--
"And he sees the vision splendid
of the sunlit plains extended
And at night the wondrous glory of the everlasting stars."
Don K
news:uy7gzbcu...@remove.ieee.org...
> "Don K" <dk@dont_bother_me.com> writes:
>
>> A casual google indicates ...
>
> As opposed to "A formal google indicates ..." ???
No, as opposed to a serious, more comprehensive search.
>
> Sorry. Silliness overcame me.
I feel your pain. I sometimes suffer from the same malady.
Don
Dennis
wrote:
>"Tockk" <to...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:XZUqi.29924$2v1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>> What do y'all think about this? I can't tell if the anti-tax guys are
>> crackpots or not, or if the IRS is the Great Satan.
>
>Mull this over. What would happen if--legal or not--everyone suddenly quit
>paying income tax?
Our poor congressmen could no longer afford to build multimilloin
dollar bridges to empty islands in Alaska? :-)
Dennis (evil)
--
What government gives, it must first take away.
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>A casual google indicates that the issue revolves around claims that
>the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified and so isn't part of the
>Constitution.
As I understand it, there's also an issue that the income tax was only
intended for unearned income, to landlords, stockholders, and so on.
Nick
Don K
news:f8ign7$7...@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
Since Congress both makes the tax laws and funds the IRS to administer
them, it seems to me, if the laws were not being administered as intended,
they could quickly correct it.
Don
Tockk
"Chloe" <just...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:46ac6ed2$0$20619$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Well, a lot of stuff would have to be paid for by each individual state,
like highway construction, and social services, etc. It's not like the
federal government would suddenly go bankrupt; I'm sure they have lots of
other sources of income.
Tockk
"Don K" <dk@dont_bother_me.com> wrote
>
> Personally I don't have a dog in this fight, so I haven't bothered to
> watch.
> A casual google indicates that the issue revolves around claims that
> the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified and so isn't part of the
> Constitution.
Ya, that's one aspect of things. I don't think that's a good reason to
dispute the veracity of the 16th Amendment, because the question there
centers over whether or not Ohio was officially a state when they were
admitted into the Union (1803?) -- several other states approved the 16th
after Ohio, so there were plenty of states to approve it . . .
The big question seems to center around Supreme Court rulings regarding the
Income Tax before and after the 16th Amendment was approved. I haven't had
time to sift through everything, but it seems to me that the anti-tax people
may not be taking the later Supreme Court rulings into account . . . When I
get a chance I'll dig through it all, and find out what's what. Today,
though, I gotta run down to Austin and buy me a bunch of bottles -- looks
like I'm going into the aftershave/cologne/hairtonic business . . .
L8ter . . .
clams casino
>Mull this over. What would happen if--legal or not--everyone suddenly quit
>paying income tax?
>
>
>
>
Guess George would have to stop his war in Iraq (about 50-60% of Federal
income goes to military / national security), the airports would be shut
down, China could send any quality product into the US, state taxes
would increase significantly, public schools would lose significant
levels of funding, farmers and many businesses would have to give up
significant subsidies / welfare that would result in increased prices, etc
Zuke
> I've done some more digging around, and it looks like there might actually
> be something to all this anti-income tax business. This link is to a
Yeah there is normally something to it--about 2-4 years in a Federal
pen. That is if they don't just show up at your house and start
shooting.
There was a guy I knew who tried this bunk and ended up locked up.
I read a book not too long ago by an IRS collection agent about his
experiences. It was
a pretty good read. Can't remember the title though.
Chloe
According to the nonpartisan, nonprofit Urban Institute, about 80 percent of
the federal government's revenue comes from individual income and payroll
taxes. Of the other 20 percent, about 2/3 comes from corporate income tax.
So, yeah, it *is* like the federal government would suddenly go bankrupt.
So, no big deal, you say, other than we wouldn't be paying for a bunch of
fraud, waste and pointless "wars on terror" like we are now?
Consider--according to the same source--that some 60 percent of federal
outlays go for entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,
plus other contractual obligations and interest. You think all the people
receiving benefits would just shrug, suck it up, and manage somehow?
Of course we could shift some of these programs to the states--but the money
for them would still have to come from somewhere. The point of my post was
that suddenly doing away with the federal income tax, regardless of
legality, simply isn't practical. And if you think it's ever going to
happen--at least on some kind of legal ground--you probably believe in the
Tooth Fairy's going to come to your house tomorrow night and leave you a
basket of Easter eggs, too.
Dennis
wrote:
I understand what you're saying, but I have never understood what
value is added to my tax money by having it leave my state, go to
Washington DC and then come back to my state. It seems like it would
be much more efficient to handle the accounting at a more local level.
(Yes, I realize that that would require some amount of growth of state
government.)
Dennis (evil)
--
What the government gives, it must first take.
clams casino
>>
>>
>>
>
>I understand what you're saying, but I have never understood what
>value is added to my tax money by having it leave my state, go to
>Washington DC and then come back to my state.
>
Most of the money that gets returned to states (in the widely published
statistics) is for the military / homeland security. States with a
high military presence (bases, R&D contracts, etc) tend to get more back
from the government than they send to the federal government.
Next highest return is probably for schools & roads.
Dennis
So what is the value added by the round trip for this money?
Chloe
news:271sa31s4qg56vk3l...@4ax.com...
>
> I understand what you're saying, but I have never understood what
> value is added to my tax money by having it leave my state, go to
> Washington DC and then come back to my state. It seems like it would
> be much more efficient to handle the accounting at a more local level.
> (Yes, I realize that that would require some amount of growth of state
> government.)
I couldn't agree with you more. I favor handling the work of government on
the "lowest" level possible, i.e., let local governments do as much as they
reasonably can, then state governments, only then the federal government.
Not only is it often more cost-effective, the smaller the unit of
government, the greater likelihood of accountability to the citizens.
Unfortunately, once the function and dollars make it up to the next higher
level, it's pretty much impossible to get it back.
Chloe
news:46ori.19737$GO6....@newsfe21.lga...
If you say so--but as Dennis inquires, where's the value added? Interesting
couple of examples you cite: IMO both education and highway construction can
be handled perfectly well on the state level. What's the federal government
doing involved in either, except perhaps in a limited, quality-control kind
of way?
hchi...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>If you say so--but as Dennis inquires, where's the value added? Interesting
>couple of examples you cite: IMO both education and highway construction can
>be handled perfectly well on the state level. What's the federal government
>doing involved in either, except perhaps in a limited, quality-control kind
>of way?
>
Highway construction? Interstate commerce and defense. Eisenhower
knew the importance of the autobahn. Before the interstates, the
Federal govt was deeply involved in developing railroads for similar
reasons, and in post roads before that. If you've ever been through
Louisiana, you know that not all states can handle roadbuilding.
Education also relates to a basic ability to read/write/follow orders,
which is needed for any militia or military. Again, certain states
<cough Florida cough> were so mired down in teacher's unions and graft
that the kids being shat out were a detriment to the country. Bush's
"no child left behind" is probably his only positive program or claim
to greatness. For all its faults, most of the moaning is coming from
people who never should have been allowed to teach in the first place.
wat...@moog.netaxs.com
Yep; as long as they have the printing presses running, they can make all the
money they want to buy whatever they want. :-) Oh, and let's not forget
T-Bills, U.S. bonds of all types and all the other borrowing instruments the
Feds have available to them to generate a little pocket money.
W.
Peter Bruells
> In article <x3lri.264$rG7...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, Tockk wrote:
> >
> > Well, a lot of stuff would have to be paid for by each individual state,
> > like highway construction, and social services, etc. It's not like the
> > federal government would suddenly go bankrupt; I'm sure they have lots of
> > other sources of income.
>
> Yep; as long as they have the printing presses running, they can make all the
> money they want to buy whatever they want. :-)
Who would take that money?
> Oh, and let's not forget T-Bills, U.S. bonds of all types and all
> the other borrowing instruments the Feds have available to them to
> generate a little pocket money.
All these assume that the government is able to create *income* to pay
off the debt. Or would you lend money to someone who has no income
and spends the money you give him on automatic weapons, street lights
and gives it to charity? How do you think can he ever pay it back?
Don Klipstein
>Chloe wrote:
>
>>Mull this over. What would happen if--legal or not--everyone suddenly quit
>>paying income tax?
>>
>Guess George would have to stop his war in Iraq (about 50-60% of Federal
>income goes to military / national security),
How do you get that figure? I have seen figures like that before, but
when I saw the calculations I saw such things as blaming national debt
interest entirely on past military spending and a suspiciously large chunk
of the Department of Energy's budget being claimed to be used for nuclear
weapons.
Not that I'm big on big defense spending, but those making claims easy
to shoot down do a disservice to their side.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
dfr
The states which dont collect as much revenue are
supported by the states that collect more per head etc.
You'd have a problem with the 'poor' states being
able to collect enough taxation revenue otherwise.
And someone has to pay for some central functions like the defense system etc.
clams casino
>The states which dont collect as much revenue are
>supported by the states that collect more per head etc.
>
>You'd have a problem with the 'poor' states being
>able to collect enough taxation revenue otherwise.
>
>
In the case of defense (50-60% of the Federal budget) , states with a
high military presence should not have to fund that presence locally,
when in fact, it's for national defense. That should be funded equally
around the country. Most federal road money probably goes for the
building / maintenance of the interstate network which is also for the
benefit of all.
IMO, schools should be entirely funded by state & local taxes. I
don't see why CT / NJ, NY, etc tax payers should be subsidizing schools
in MS, KY, etc.
Then again, the states where complaining is highest against Federal
income taxes tend to be the states that receive the highest tax
subsidizes (Bush / red states vs, blue states).
http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/hweisberg/conference/Lacy-OSUConf.PDF
dfr
> dfr wrote:
>
>> The states which dont collect as much revenue are
>> supported by the states that collect more per head etc.
>>
>> You'd have a problem with the 'poor' states being
>> able to collect enough taxation revenue otherwise.
>>
>>
>
> In the case of defense (50-60% of the Federal budget) ,
That claim is WAY out.
> states with a high military presence should not have to fund that presence locally, when in fact,
> it's for national defense. That should be funded equally around the country.
And that is what paying for it out of income tax does quite effectively.
> Most federal road money probably goes for the building / maintenance of the interstate network
> which is also for the benefit of all.
Thats harder to argue when some use it a lot more than others do.
> IMO, schools should be entirely funded by state & local taxes.
The problem with that approach is that the 'poor' states have
to slug their locals a lot more per head to fund it like that.
> I don't see why CT / NJ, NY, etc tax payers should be subsidizing schools in MS, KY, etc.
Essentiallly because states with a poor tax base cant afford to
provide the same education facilitys etc that the richer states can.
> Then again, the states where complaining is highest against Federal income taxes tend to be the
> states that receive the highest tax subsidizes (Bush / red states vs, blue states).
Sure, but thats an entirely separate question to what makes rational sense.
> http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/hweisberg/conference/Lacy-OSUConf.PDF
clams casino
>clams casino <PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>dfr wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The states which dont collect as much revenue are
>>>supported by the states that collect more per head etc.
>>>
>>>You'd have a problem with the 'poor' states being
>>>able to collect enough taxation revenue otherwise.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>In the case of defense (50-60% of the Federal budget) ,
>>
>>
>
>That claim is WAY out.
>
>
>
I was wrong - that should have read 50-60% of Federal income tax
receipts (not the entire budget which includes social Security, medicare
and other sources of Federal revenue)
Thanks for questioning it.
clams casino
>What's the federal government
>doing involved in either, except perhaps in a limited, quality-control kind
>of way?
>
>
>
>
If the highways were left entirely up to the states, I'm sure we'd we'd
still have a partial interstate network.
Places like AL, NC and a host of other states would likely never have
built their portion of the interstate system which is crucial for the
interstate flow of goods.
clams casino
>In article <evlri.18311$GO6....@newsfe21.lga>, clams casino wrote:
>
>
>>Chloe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Mull this over. What would happen if--legal or not--everyone suddenly quit
>>>paying income tax?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Guess George would have to stop his war in Iraq (about 50-60% of Federal
>>income goes to military / national security),
>>
>>
>
> How do you get that figure?
>
dfr
> dfr wrote:
>
>> clams casino <PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> dfr wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The states which dont collect as much revenue are
>>>> supported by the states that collect more per head etc.
>>>>
>>>> You'd have a problem with the 'poor' states being
>>>> able to collect enough taxation revenue otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> In the case of defense (50-60% of the Federal budget) ,
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That claim is WAY out.
>>
>>
>>
> I was wrong - that should have read 50-60% of Federal income tax
> receipts (not the entire budget which includes social Security,
> medicare and other sources of Federal revenue)
Its still WAY out even on that basis.
> Thanks for questioning it.
> http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
Thats nothing like an unbiased source.
Dennis
All well and good. What have they done for me lately?
Dennis (evil)
--
An inherent weakness of a pure democracy is that half
the voters are below average intelligence.
clams casino
>On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:34:57 -0400, clams casino
><PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Chloe wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>What's the federal government
>>>doing involved in either, except perhaps in a limited, quality-control kind
>>>of way?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>If the highways were left entirely up to the states, I'm sure we'd we'd
>>still have a partial interstate network.
>>
>>Places like AL, NC and a host of other states would likely never have
>>built their portion of the interstate system which is crucial for the
>>interstate flow of goods.
>>
>>
>
>All well and good. What have they done for me lately?
>
>Dennis (evil)
>
>
Bought anything lately that was delivered by truck? Arrived into the US
by ship?
I'm guessing you'd be a whole lot happier where they have no taxes.
When are you leaving?
Chloe
Might have been a blessing in disguise, especially if it meant we were
moving more goods by rail than we are now.
Don K
news:46ae67f1$0$31407$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
A simple-minded nonviolence group founded in 1923. Of course it's
a good thing they weren't influential enough to adversely impact that
unpleasant fighting stuff that occurred in the 40's. Otherwise we would
be living in a much different world today, and we'd have a lot more to
complain about than just income tax.
Don
clams casino
Granted, they have an agenda, but it's hard to dispute their numbers as
they are merely taken out of the published budget. The big difference,
as they clearly point out, is that the government tends to lump SS and
other sources of tax revenue with the income taxes and then break down
the overall expenditures. I found it more useful to see where the
income taxes are going, exclusive of the FICA, excise and other taxes.
It's amusing how the biggest complainers of how the wealthy are being
overtaxed tend to refer only to federal income tax, conveniently
omitting the FICA, excise & other taxes that tend to even out the
overall tax burden. But when it comes time to show how the
government spends the taxes, they like to group all the taxes together.
Of course the biggest sham is the use of excess FICA taxes to pay for
non SS uses.
Tockk
"Chloe" <just...@spam.com> wrote
> And if you think it's ever going to happen--at least on some kind of legal
> ground--you probably believe in the Tooth Fairy's going to come to your
> house tomorrow night and leave you a basket of Easter eggs, too.
I rather suspect that change isn't gonna happen . . .
I was originally intrigued at the newpaper report where one of the anti-tax
people won their day in court against the IRS, and was curious to know what
the story behind the story was. After doing some preliminary digging
around, it looks like the anti-tax folks may not be looking at all the
Supreme Court rulings regarding the IRS. When I get a chance, I'm gonna
check things out a bit more completely, and try to find out exactly what's
what.
But, did ya check out that video that group put out (I gave a url on the
original post)? I watched about 1/5 of it (ran out of time), and was duly
impressed. I kinda think it's a testament to the ability of 3/4 truths to
stir up the populace . . .
Tockk
"Chloe" <just...@spam.com> wrote
> According to the nonpartisan, nonprofit Urban Institute, about 80 percent
> of the federal government's revenue comes from individual income and
> payroll taxes. Of the other 20 percent, about 2/3 comes from corporate
> income tax. So, yeah, it *is* like the federal government would suddenly
> go bankrupt.
Well, if push comes to shove (I never knew what that phrase meant, but it's
fun) it shouldn't be too difficult to put up a National Sales Tax. And for
stuff that rich folks buy overseas, they'd have to pay an import tarriff on
everything they bring into the country.
-- As bad as that system would probably work, it can't possibly be any
worse than the current Income Tax.
dfr
Yeah, tho america could have gotten away with just telling
the japs that if they wanted their SE asian and pacific
possessions that bad, they could have them etc.
> and we'd have a lot more to complain about than just income tax.
Thats arguable. Certainly american jews would have seen many
more of their relatives in europe killed off, and wouldnt have
been welcome to visit europe etc, but I expect the krauts
would have been quite happy to deal commercially when
the US wasnt involved in supporting england and russia etc.
I think its unlikely they would have been stupid enough to try invading north america
once they had conquered europe, they would have had enough trouble with russia etc.
dfr
> dfr wrote:
>
>> clams casino <PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> dfr wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> clams casino <PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> dfr wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The states which dont collect as much revenue are
>>>>>> supported by the states that collect more per head etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'd have a problem with the 'poor' states being
>>>>>> able to collect enough taxation revenue otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> In the case of defense (50-60% of the Federal budget) ,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> That claim is WAY out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I was wrong - that should have read 50-60% of Federal income tax
>>> receipts (not the entire budget which includes social Security,
>>> medicare and other sources of Federal revenue)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Its still WAY out even on that basis.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Thanks for questioning it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thats nothing like an unbiased source.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Granted, they have an agenda, but it's hard to dispute their numbers as they are merely taken out
> of the published budget.
They arent tho. The inset pie with 21% is the figures out of the published
budget and they have basically moved from those to the >50% number
themselves, and have basically double counted the debt particularly.
> The big difference, as they clearly point out, is that the government tends to lump SS and other
> sources of tax revenue with the income taxes and then break down the overall expenditures.
That cant get you from 21% to >50%.
> I found it more useful to see where the income taxes are going, exclusive of the FICA, excise and
> other taxes.
Sure, but the inset official figures are a lot closer to reality than theirs.
> It's amusing how the biggest complainers of how the wealthy are being overtaxed tend to refer only
> to federal income tax, conveniently
> omitting the FICA, excise & other taxes that tend to even out the
> overall tax burden.
Not by that much tho, because they arent progressive taxes and dont
generate anything like the total revenue that federal income tax does.
> But when it comes time to show how the government spends the taxes, they like to group all the
> taxes together.
Yes, because the total govt tax take is mostly spent on everything.
> Of course the biggest sham is the use of excess FICA taxes to pay for non SS uses.
That isnt a sham, its the way all govts do it. SS isnt an accumulation
system, current outgoings are paid for with current incomes.
dfr
> "Chloe" <just...@spam.com> wrote
>> According to the nonpartisan, nonprofit Urban Institute, about 80
>> percent of the federal government's revenue comes from individual
>> income and payroll taxes. Of the other 20 percent, about 2/3 comes
>> from corporate income tax. So, yeah, it *is* like the federal
>> government would suddenly go bankrupt.
> Well, if push comes to shove (I never knew what that phrase meant, but it's fun)
http://www.answers.com/topic/if-push-comes-to-shove
> it shouldn't be too difficult to put up a National Sales Tax.
Sure, virtually all the other modern first world countrys have one or a GST/VAT.
> And for stuff that rich folks buy overseas, they'd have to pay an import tarriff on everything
> they bring into the country.
It aint just rick folks, most modern first world
countrys have the GST/VAT apply to imports.
> As bad as that system would probably work, it can't possibly be any worse than the current Income
> Tax.
The big difference is that those are regressive taxes. An income tax is progressive in a technical
sense.
The amount you pay varys with the income on a sliding scale. Few have a flat rate income tax.
Don Klipstein
part:
>http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
This pie chart claims military spending being 51% of federal outlays.
This includes blaming 80% of the interest on the national debt on
military spending. I find that false since past Federal spending
excluding then-past debt interest was much less than 80% for military.
Most of our national debt accrued since Carter took office, even adjusting
for inflation. Exclude debt interest and Social Security from the Carter,
Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II past budgets and a lot less than 80%
of what remains is military. If they said 65% I would believe them.
This claims $9 billion of NASA spending for military purposes.
I found the 2007 NASA budget request, at:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/142459main_FY07_summary.pdf
They made it somewhat confusing especially in terms of lack of a bottom
line that I could find quickly (I wonder even at any speed?) and it
appears to me to total about $18-$19 billion with darn little of it being
military.
(The war resistor page later says half of NASA spending gets classified
as "general government" rather than "military").
This claims $17 billion on Department of Energy spending on nuclear
weapons. This sounds like most of the entire DoE budget to me, and I
suspect DoE mostly does things other than making nuclear weapons or
parts/materials thereof.
This is including Executive Office of President $1 billion, and I wonder
how much of that is actually military - I suspect none or close to none.
- Don Klipstyein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>Don Klipstein wrote:
>
>>In article <evlri.18311$GO6....@newsfe21.lga>, clams casino wrote:
>>>Guess George would have to stop his war in Iraq (about 50-60% of Federal
>>>income goes to military / national security),
>>
>> How do you get that figure?
>
>http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
You posted this article at a time late enough for me to not see this
before I responded via followupping-with-editing someone else countering
your point (and my then-largely-edited-out stepping stone was posted by a
famous sub-troll that I think deservedly nobody wants to get caught
agreeing with).
This war resister pie chart claims for example $9 billion NASA budget
for military, and I previously posted a link to NASA's 2007 budget request
that I see as confusingly avoiding a big bottom line and more-discerningly
not requesting anywhere near $9 billion for military purposes.
This pie chart also comes with a claim of blaming 80% of interest
payments on national debt on past military spending. Since I know
somewhat well what USA Federal budgets looked like in the past 30 years, I
find this a very tall claim begging for good support which I found
lacking. If they said 65% I would be a lot less skeptical of such a
claim.
I mainly vote for Democrats in November elections in even-number years,
and I am attracted to such a cause - although better-attracted to such a
cause if that cause does not resort to claims easy to shoot down!
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
(subtroll that I normally avoid getting caught agreeing with wrote)
>>Its still WAY out even on that basis.
>>
>>>http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
>>
>>Thats nothing like an unbiased source.
>>
>Granted, they have an agenda, but it's hard to dispute their numbers as
>they are merely taken out of the published budget.
I have countered already on basis of NASA 2007 budget request details
not supporting the warresisters claiming their claim of half of NASA's
budget being military, and on basis of 80% of interest [payments on
national debt being military-blamable. On basis of considering what the
USA's national debt is now and what it was 30 years ago even after
adjusting for inflation, and considering what percent of the Federal
budget in the past 30 years is from military spending even if debt
payments and Social Sercurity are excluded.
> The big difference,
>as they clearly point out, is that the government tends to lump SS and
>other sources of tax revenue with the income taxes and then break down
>the overall expenditures. I found it more useful to see where the
>income taxes are going, exclusive of the FICA, excise and other taxes.
Exclude spending programs that FICA and other program-specific taxes
as opposed to income taxes are supposed to fund, and their spending is
only majority military according to a source that stretches "facts"
*bigtime*.
>It's amusing how the biggest complainers of how the wealthy are being
>overtaxed tend to refer only to federal income tax, conveniently
>omitting the FICA, excise & other taxes that tend to even out the
>overall tax burden. But when it comes time to show how the
>government spends the taxes, they like to group all the taxes together.
I also note how high income people have a lower tax burden... by paying
lower-rate on capital gains and dividends enjoyed more by higher income
folks, and likely paying lower percentage of income on more-regressive
taxes such as home property taxes, gasoline taxes, and sales taxes.
>Of course the biggest sham is the use of excess FICA taxes to pay for
>non SS uses.
FICA has experienced ability to "run a surplus", and Lyndon Johnson
presided over FICA/SS getting included into the "general federal budget"
to improve the "federal bottom line".
I have noted that SS-excluding Federal budget ran a surplus during a
fiscal year presided over by Clinton.
I have noted Federal budget bottom line benefiting from SS surplus
mitigating non-SS deficit. However, I have noted that changing Federal
bottom line from red to black in only 2-3 of the past at-least 30-plus
years, during Clinton's second term.
However, I still see that with-FICA/SS-excluded USA's Federal budget is
not as military-heavy as Clams Casino claims.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
clams casino
>
>
>
>>It's amusing how the biggest complainers of how the wealthy are being overtaxed tend to refer only
>>to federal income tax, conveniently
>>omitting the FICA, excise & other taxes that tend to even out the
>>overall tax burden.
>>
>>
>
>Not by that much tho, because they arent progressive taxes and dont
>generate anything like the total revenue that federal income tax does.
>
>
?? Guess it's time to end this discussion. You are obviously either
paying games with me or are totally ignorant of the US tax structure.
Hint - Federal income is only about 1/3 of the overall tax burden.
Granted, the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their taxes in income
tax, but average and below average tax payers pay a higher percentage in
FICA, sales, excise & property taxes. Many pay more gross taxes in FICA
than federal income tax. When all taxes are taken into consideration,
most all pay about 28-32% of gross income in taxes where the wealthy
tend to be on the lower end of that range.
You obviously need to read up on total tax burdens and stop playing the
selected federal-income-only tax game.
Bye.
clams casino
>
>
>
>>It's amusing how the biggest complainers of how the wealthy are being
>>overtaxed tend to refer only to federal income tax, conveniently
>>omitting the FICA, excise & other taxes that tend to even out the
>>overall tax burden. But when it comes time to show how the
>>government spends the taxes, they like to group all the taxes together.
>>
>>
>
> I also note how high income people have a lower tax burden... by paying
>lower-rate on capital gains and dividends enjoyed more by higher income
>folks, and likely paying lower percentage of income on more-regressive
>taxes such as home property taxes, gasoline taxes, and sales taxes.
>
>
Another significant savings for the wealthy tends to be $10-15k/year in
tax free medical subsidies (welfare for the wealthy). Most >$50k tend
to get highly subsidized (tax free) medical whereas most below perhaps
$50k have to pay for medical care with after tax income. That can
shave a good $3-6k + /yr from income taxes for most in the upper
brackets..
Another is that the wealthy tend to enjoy significant housing subsidies
where interest / property taxes can be tax deductible resulting in their
subsidized housing asset growing higher in value vs. the average person
who can't afford as much house, not having that subsidy. The end result
is a nifty tax-free savings (up to 500k) when sold (as frequently as
every few years).
Point is, gross income for the wealthy can be much higher than simply
using their salary as the divisor when figuring percent tax burdens.
clams casino
>In article <dFtri.42024$kK1....@newsfe14.phx>, clams casino wrote in
>part:
>
>
>
>>http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
>>
>>
>
> This pie chart claims military spending being 51% of federal outlays.
>
>
This is not true - read it again. They are claiming its about half of
the federal income tax is used for military where other sources of
revenue are excluded because they are specifically spent / collected
elsewhere (gas taxes, FICA, medicare, etc).
> This includes blaming 80% of the interest on the national debt on
>military spending. I find that false since past Federal spending
>excluding then-past debt interest was much less than 80% for military.
>
>
Agree - it probably should be in balance with the military expenditures,
although it can be argued that the Iraq war (and previous wars) were
primarily paid for using borrowed money.
Is there any doubt that there would be significantly less federal debt
if GW hadn't invaded Iraq?
Fact -the Iraq invasion is costing future tax payers about 200M / day -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/ - (plus interest - all borrowed
money).
see
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
how the total cost is building up.
dfr
> dfr wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> It's amusing how the biggest complainers of how the wealthy are
>>> being overtaxed tend to refer only to federal income tax,
>>> conveniently omitting the FICA, excise & other taxes that tend to even out the
>>> overall tax burden.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not by that much tho, because they arent progressive taxes and dont
>> generate anything like the total revenue that federal income tax
>> does.
>
> ?? Guess it's time to end this discussion.
Nope.
> You are obviously either paying games with me or are totally ignorant of the US tax structure.
Or you hate having the problems with that >50% of income
tax spent on the military exposed as the fraud it always was.
> Hint - Federal income is only about 1/3 of the overall tax burden.
Irrelevant to that fundamental point about progressive and regressive taxes.
> Granted, the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their taxes in income tax, but average and below
> average tax payers pay a higher percentage in FICA, sales, excise & property taxes.
Lie with property taxes which leave the rest for dead.
AND we happen to be discussing federal taxes, not taxes in general anyway.
> Many pay more gross taxes in FICA than federal income tax. When all taxes are taken into
> consideration, most all pay about 28-32% of gross income in taxes where the wealthy tend to be on
> the lower end of that range.
Pity about the total dollar value of the taxes they pay.
> You obviously need to read up on total tax burdens and stop playing the selected
> federal-income-only tax game.
Pity we happened to be discussing federal income tax.
clams casino
>
> However, I still see that with-FICA/SS-excluded USA's Federal budget is
>not as military-heavy as Clams Casino claims.
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007
2007 Federal income tax receipts = $1.5 trillion (1.2 individual + 0.3
corporate)
2007 military spending = $772 billion (699 billion defense + 73 billion
vet benefits)
military = 51% without considering interest on debt.
If one assumes interest should be rated across all debt, it actually
increases to about 60%. The percentage is even higher if one assumes
all the Iraq invasion costs have been borrowed (has there been any new
tax to pay for any of this relatively new expense - if not, it's all
borrowed money).
Obviously this assumes only the federal income taxes pays for military
where SS, Medicare, gas excise taxes, etc are also collected, but pay
only for there intended purpose. It can be argued that a portion of the
gift, excise, customs, etc taxes also go to military, but there are
also indirect military expenses not under defense that should also be
considered which makes an exact calculation near impossible.
Point is, nearly half (likely more) of the federal incomes taxes go just
for military purposes..
.
Dennis
<PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>Another significant savings for the wealthy tends to be $10-15k/year in
>tax free medical subsidies (welfare for the wealthy). Most >$50k tend
>to get highly subsidized (tax free) medical whereas most below perhaps
>$50k have to pay for medical care with after tax income. That can
>shave a good $3-6k + /yr from income taxes for most in the upper
>brackets..
>
>Another is that the wealthy tend to enjoy significant housing subsidies
>where interest / property taxes can be tax deductible resulting in their
>subsidized housing asset growing higher in value vs. the average person
>who can't afford as much house, not having that subsidy. The end result
>is a nifty tax-free savings (up to 500k) when sold (as frequently as
>every few years).
This is the same old tired line. Of course someone (with lower
income) who pays less in taxes saves less from a tax break than
someone (with higher income) who pays more in taxes. Duh! They
didn't pay the taxes in the first place.
Completely, totally, undeniably specious argument.
Dennis
<PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
Nice tap dance. I never said no taxes. I asked what we gain from
sending tax money to DC and then getting it back, versus doing it on a
more local level.
Please try to keep up.
Dennis (evil)
--
What the government gives, it must first take.
clams casino
Duh - they paid less taxes because they earned less. So why should they
pay a higher rate (total taxes / income ) if they earn less?
As a reference - Warren Buffet likes to point out, last year he only
paid 17.7% of his gross in taxes, yet his secretary paid about 30%
(about the average) .
Don't get me wrong - government medical & housing subsidies have been
very generous for me. I'm not turning down that welfare (tax transfer).
I'm just realistic to see how the US tax system favors the higher paid
over the lower paid.
Dennis
>Well, if push comes to shove (I never knew what that phrase meant, but it's
>fun) it shouldn't be too difficult to put up a National Sales Tax. And for
>stuff that rich folks buy overseas, they'd have to pay an import tarriff on
>everything they bring into the country.
> -- As bad as that system would probably work, it can't possibly be any
>worse than the current Income Tax.
In terms of rates, these days I am paying about the lowest federal
income taxes that I have seen since my student days. Somewhere
between 5 and 6 percent of gross income. (And I don't even have a
mortgage to write off!) I pay way more in other (local and state)
taxes.
But I wouldn't mind seeing the income tax replaced by a national sales
tax/VAT.
Dennis
<PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
Or, put another way: the US tax system gives tax breaks to those who
pay taxes over those who don't.
Yeah, you're right -- it makes sense.
Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally
dfr
That's what a progressive tax system is about.
And he pays a hell of a lot more tax in dollar terms than his secretary does too.
> Don't get me wrong - government medical & housing subsidies have been
> very generous for me. I'm not turning down that welfare (tax transfer).
> I'm just realistic to see how the US tax system favors the higher paid
> over the lower paid.
Pity it doesnt.
Don Klipstein
>Don Klipstein wrote:
>
>>
>> However, I still see that with-FICA/SS-excluded USA's Federal budget is
>>not as military-heavy as Clams Casino claims.
>>
>> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007
>
>2007 Federal income tax receipts = $1.5 trillion (1.2 individual + 0.3
>corporate)
>
>2007 military spending = $772 billion (699 billion defense + 73 billion
>vet benefits)
>
>military = 51% without considering interest on debt.
And what if that $1.5 trillion is increased to the $1.745 trillion that
Federal spending other than SS/Medicare/debt-interest adds up to?
Minus $35 billion for motor fuel tax supported spending is $1.71 billion,
and billion is about 45% of that.
>If one assumes interest should be rated across all debt, it actually
>increases to about 60%. The percentage is even higher if one assumes
>all the Iraq invasion costs have been borrowed (has there been any new
>tax to pay for any of this relatively new expense - if not, it's all
>borrowed money).
To the nearest billion, 2007 interest on national debt was $244 billion
according to the above Wiki article. I would think the percentage of that
to be blamed on the military would be the same as average percentage of
non-SS/Medicare/debt-interest Federal spending being spent on military
during the big national debt growth years of the administrations of
Carter, Reagan, both Bushes and the first term of Clinton.
Percentage figures in all the Federal budget pie charts I see have
generally made only minor shifts since Carter's first budget. So I would
say percentage of national debt interest to blame on military is also not
too far from 45%.
I consider it untruthful to say military spending is to blame for
51% (59% including 45% of interest on debt for past military spending) of
our income tax burden, unless you would agree that the $938 billion spent
on domestic programs excluding fuel tax spanding and SS/Medicare is to be
blamed for 62.5% of our income tax burden (71.5% including 55% of interest
on debt for past non-SS/Medicaid domestic spending not supported by fuel
taxes).
>Obviously this assumes only the federal income taxes pays for military
>where SS, Medicare, gas excise taxes, etc are also collected, but pay
>only for there intended purpose. It can be argued that a portion of the
>gift, excise, customs, etc taxes also go to military, but there are
>also indirect military expenses not under defense that should also be
>considered which makes an exact calculation near impossible.
>
>Point is, nearly half (likely more) of the federal incomes taxes go just
>for military purposes..
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
The Real Bev
> But I wouldn't mind seeing the income tax replaced by a national sales
> tax/VAT.
For garage sales too? Theory has it that they're supposed to charge (and
remit) sales tax (8.5% here), but only the professional sellers actually do it.
--
Cheers,
Bev
*************************************************
Never argue with a woman holding a torque wrench.
clams casino
> Dennis wrote:
>
>> But I wouldn't mind seeing the income tax replaced by a national sales
>> tax/VAT.
>
>
> For garage sales too? Theory has it that they're supposed to charge
> (and remit) sales tax (8.5% here), but only the professional sellers
> actually do it.
>
Which is why the IRS would have to triple in size if the US went to a
national sales or Vat tax.
Don K
news:F3eti.1475$P82...@newsfe05.lga...
> Dennis wrote:
>
>> But I wouldn't mind seeing the income tax replaced by a national sales
>> tax/VAT.
>
> For garage sales too? Theory has it that they're supposed to charge (and remit) sales
> tax (8.5% here), but only the professional sellers actually do it.
In MD, they sensibly exempt the casual seller (who is defined as someone
that only sells a limited number of times per year, IIRC) from collecting
state sales tax.
You do see them occasionally enforcing compliance from the professional
sellers at flea markets and hamfests.
Don
clams casino
In most cases (depending on location), that's perhaps 1-4 times/ yr -
the key word is "casual".
Of course, all flea market booths report all their income (as with all
small business), so there is no reason to check their sales.
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
:>Dennis wrote:
:>> But I wouldn't mind seeing the income tax replaced by a national sales
:>> tax/VAT.
:>For garage sales too? Theory has it that they're supposed to charge (and
:>remit) sales tax (8.5% here), but only the professional sellers actually do it.
Even when they already paid sales tax when purchasing the product?
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
Vic Smith
Whether insurance fraud or tax collection/fraud, a penny spent on
investigative and enforcement staff is usually a dollar saved.
But garage sales probably don't apply here.
--Vic
Rod Speed
Nope, most countrys dont tax garage sales when they have a national sales or GST/VAT.
clams casino
>On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:25:24 -0700 The Real Bev <bashley1...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>:>Dennis wrote:
>
>:>> But I wouldn't mind seeing the income tax replaced by a national sales
>:>> tax/VAT.
>
>:>For garage sales too? Theory has it that they're supposed to charge (and
>:>remit) sales tax (8.5% here), but only the professional sellers actually do it.
>
>Even when they already paid sales tax when purchasing the product?
>
>
>
Some locations items allow for such on some items, but sales tax is
generally due even if resold. Ever buy through Salvation Army,
Goodwill, etc?
Ever buy a used car? From what I recall on trades, one pays the
difference between the new & trade, but if you buy from an individual,
there will likely be a sales tax on the used, regardless of the amount
the seller had paid (unless transferred between family members).
If items are intentionally to be resold, they are generally exempt (for
the seller) from paying sale tax initially.
The Real Bev
It's a state and city tax, not national. We could get screwed BOTH ways.
--
Cheers,
Bev
=====================================================
It's 95% of the lawyers making the other 5% look bad.
The Real Bev
> The Real Bev <bashley1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :>Dennis wrote:
>
> :>> But I wouldn't mind seeing the income tax replaced by a national sales
> :>> tax/VAT.
>
> :>For garage sales too? Theory has it that they're supposed to charge (and
> :>remit) sales tax (8.5% here), but only the professional sellers actually do it.
>
> Even when they already paid sales tax when purchasing the product?
Yes. It's a tax on the sales transaction, not the product. No matter how
many times it's resold, the sales tax is supposed to be paid. If the seller
doesn't charge (and remit) the tax, the buyer is supposed to do it.
Yeah, right.
--
Cheers, Bev
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
The volume of a pizza of thickness 'a' and radius 'z'
is given by pi*z*z*a
Rod Speed
>
>> clams casino <PeterG...@drunkin-clam.com> wrote
>>> The Real Bev wrote
>>>> Dennis wrote
>>
>>>>> But I wouldn't mind seeing the income tax replaced by a national
>>>>> sales tax/VAT.
>>
>>>> For garage sales too? Theory has it that they're supposed to
>>>> charge (and remit) sales tax (8.5% here), but only the
>>>> professional sellers actually do it.
>>
>>> Which is why the IRS would have to triple in size if the US went to
>>> a national sales or Vat tax.
>>
>> Nope, most countrys dont tax garage sales when they have a national
>> sales or GST/VAT.
> It's a state and city tax, not national.
What was being discussed was a national tax.
> We could get screwed BOTH ways.
You already are with income tax.
Rod Speed
> Binyamin Dissen wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev <bashley1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Dennis wrote:
>>
>>>>> But I wouldn't mind seeing the income tax replaced by a national
>>>>> sales tax/VAT.
>>
>>>> For garage sales too? Theory has it that they're supposed to
>>>> charge (and remit) sales tax (8.5% here), but only the
>>>> professional sellers actually do it.
>>
>> Even when they already paid sales tax when purchasing the product?
>
> Yes. It's a tax on the sales transaction, not the product.
Not always.
> No matter how many times it's resold, the sales tax is supposed to be paid.
Not always. Many states except second hand goods
and transactions that arent commercial transactions.
> If the seller doesn't charge (and remit) the tax, the buyer is supposed to do it.
Bet there are some exemptions.
> Yeah, right.
The Real Bev
> The Real Bev <bashley1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Binyamin Dissen wrote:
>>> The Real Bev <bashley1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Dennis wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> But I wouldn't mind seeing the income tax replaced by a
>>>>>> national sales tax/VAT.
>>>
>>>>> For garage sales too? Theory has it that they're supposed to
>>>>> charge (and remit) sales tax (8.5% here), but only the
>>>>> professional sellers actually do it.
>>>
>>> Even when they already paid sales tax when purchasing the product?
>>
>> Yes. It's a tax on the sales transaction, not the product.
>
> Not always.
If they call it a "sales tax" then yeah, it is. Not all sales require sales
tax, though; the sale of services is NOT taxed, so housecleaning and
prostitution carry no sales tax.
>> No matter how many times it's resold, the sales tax is supposed to be
>> paid.
>
> Not always. Many states except second hand goods and transactions that
> arent commercial transactions.
>
>> If the seller doesn't charge (and remit) the tax, the buyer is supposed
>> to do it.
>
> Bet there are some exemptions.
"Here" means Pasadena, California. YMMV. You used to be able to avoid
sales tax by mail-ordering stuff from out of state. If, however, a business
has a location in the state of California then they have to charge the
proper sales tax even if you're buying from the Nashville TN location.
>> Yeah, right.
--
Cheers,
Bev
============================================
"People are too stupid to realize they are."
--JoHn DoH KeLm
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> The Real Bev <bashley1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Binyamin Dissen wrote:
>>>> The Real Bev <bashley1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dennis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> But I wouldn't mind seeing the income tax replaced by a
>>>>>>> national sales tax/VAT.
>>>>
>>>>>> For garage sales too? Theory has it that they're supposed to
>>>>>> charge (and remit) sales tax (8.5% here), but only the
>>>>>> professional sellers actually do it.
>>>>
>>>> Even when they already paid sales tax when purchasing the product?
>>>
>>> Yes. It's a tax on the sales transaction, not the product.
>>
>> Not always.
> If they call it a "sales tax" then yeah, it is.
Nope, plenty of sales taxes only apply to retail
transactions, not other stuff like garage sales.
We had national sales taxes before we changed to a
GST and garage sales did not have sales taxes payable
and the GST isnt payable on those even now.
> Not all sales require sales tax, though;
Yep, including garage sales in many places that have sales taxes.
> the sale of services is NOT taxed, so housecleaning and prostitution carry no sales tax.
There's plenty of taxes on the sale of services.
>>> No matter how many times it's resold, the sales tax is supposed to be paid.
>> Not always. Many states except second hand goods and transactions that arent commercial
>> transactions.
>>> If the seller doesn't charge (and remit) the tax, the buyer is supposed to do it.
>> Bet there are some exemptions.
> "Here" means Pasadena, California.
Bet there are some exemptions there too.
> YMMV. You used to be able to avoid sales tax by mail-ordering stuff from out of state. If,
> however, a business has a location in the state of California then they have to charge the proper
> sales tax even if you're buying from the Nashville TN location.
Irrelevant to whether many jurisdictions have sales taxes payable on garage sales.
>>> Yeah, right.
Jim Prescott
>> But I wouldn't mind seeing the income tax replaced by a national sales
>> tax/VAT.
>For garage sales too? Theory has it that they're supposed to charge (and
>remit) sales tax (8.5% here), but only the professional sellers actually do it.
With the national sales tax proposed by http://www.fairtax.org/ tax is
only charged on new merchandise so most garage sales would be excluded.
Supposedly Fairtax is embraced by 5 of the 8 GOP presidential candidates.
FairTax front and center in GOP debate!
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_feature
(the link will probably change when it moves into the "Weekly Feature
Archive", hopefully the title will assist in locating it.)
--
Jim Prescott - Computing and Networking Group j...@seas.rochester.edu
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Rochester, NY
Sgt.Sausage
"Chloe" <just...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:46ac6ed2$0$20619$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> Mull this over. What would happen if--legal or not--everyone suddenly quit
> paying income tax?
Uhhh .. I dunno. Maybe they'd stay within their constitutinally
bounded limits? Maybe they'd be more like the Federal Government
the founding fathers envisioned? Maybe it would be the type of
Government we'd all like better than the one we have now?
Rod Speed
> Chloe <just...@spam.com> wrote
>> Mull this over. What would happen if--legal or not--everyone suddenly quit paying income tax?
> Uhhh .. I dunno. Maybe they'd stay within their constitutinally bounded limits?
Pigs might fly too.
> Maybe they'd be more like the Federal Government the founding fathers envisioned?
Not a chance. And what they envisioned is WAY past its useby date anyway.
> Maybe it would be the type of Government we'd all like better than the one we have now?
Not a chance. We have the current type of govt because thats what the voters mostly want.
Usene...@the-domain-in.sig
nob...@nowhere.com says...
It is a moot point. Because most American's don't exactly "pay"
their income tax. Rather, it is confiscated before s/he even
sees his/her paycheque. For the average employee, not paying is
not an option.
And a business owner who fails to deduct and forward payroll
taxes has a lot more to lose than the employees. Like shutdown
of the whole business. So the individual owners won't do it.
They will simply imagine all of their competitors playing by the
rules, while the resister has chains put across the door by a
couple of IRS agents.
After all, the business owner isn't the one working for those
payroll taxes. And even the "employer's" share of Socialist
Insecurity is really coming from the labour of each employee.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum