Stop paying tax?
- Thread starter keyser Soeze
- Start date
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
It's bullshit.
There is a law that says you have to pay tax, it was adopted by the senate when this craze started in the 70s.
Now, the argument is that the law is unconstitutional, and therefor has no grounds. But you can still be punished if a law is unconstitutional. Thinking otherwise is foolish.
Not to mention that not paying tax fucks up the system even worse than it is.
But in any case, I find it odd to think that income tax is a bad thing. It's the most fair tax that we actually have.
Not only that, the federal reserve was designed to control the economy in situations like just recently, with the housing mortgage crisis, and prevent economy crashes like the one that caused the depression.
The purpose of the reserve is that there must ALWAYS be a bank of backup funds, based on hte amount of money currently invested in it t any time.
Fyi, this economic control has INCREASED out standard of living over time due to the fact that it slows economic downturns, and speeds up economic growth. The downside is the national debt, but careful control of pumping mopney in and out as inflation increases actually slowly lowers the national debt, which is actually a sort of magical number that doesnt hold glue in the sense of normal debts.
To put it simpkly, we owe our current standard of living on the success of the federal reserve and the tax system.
Could it be better? yes.
But not paying taxxes will only harm it.
What we need is a more fair tax curve and better spending.
There is a law that says you have to pay tax, it was adopted by the senate when this craze started in the 70s.
Now, the argument is that the law is unconstitutional, and therefor has no grounds. But you can still be punished if a law is unconstitutional. Thinking otherwise is foolish.
Not to mention that not paying tax fucks up the system even worse than it is.
But in any case, I find it odd to think that income tax is a bad thing. It's the most fair tax that we actually have.
Not only that, the federal reserve was designed to control the economy in situations like just recently, with the housing mortgage crisis, and prevent economy crashes like the one that caused the depression.
The purpose of the reserve is that there must ALWAYS be a bank of backup funds, based on hte amount of money currently invested in it t any time.
Fyi, this economic control has INCREASED out standard of living over time due to the fact that it slows economic downturns, and speeds up economic growth. The downside is the national debt, but careful control of pumping mopney in and out as inflation increases actually slowly lowers the national debt, which is actually a sort of magical number that doesnt hold glue in the sense of normal debts.
To put it simpkly, we owe our current standard of living on the success of the federal reserve and the tax system.
Could it be better? yes.
But not paying taxxes will only harm it.
What we need is a more fair tax curve and better spending.
Yeah, try not paying tax. How are you going to fund your wars?
War money doesn;t come from taxres, it comes from bonds, where the government borrows money from various banks with big fat IOUs with high interest rates (which then in turn get sold to china, linking our economy more and more closely to theirs)
I don't think the war would go on for a lot longer without any form of income tax, anyway.
I shit on <strike>people</strike> robots like you.xdarkyrex said:
Ever heard about civil disobedience? Or has that text been sucessfully erased by now? Stuffed away in moist cellars?
It's puppies like you that make sure the big <strike>chiefs</strike> thiefs stay in office.
You are a target market, kid. And that's all you are. Try telling your children that when the shit hits the fan. Let's see how much of a hero they'll think their daddy is then.
"Economic growth." Shit. Everytime I hear a mongrel utter those words, I feel like smashing a bottle against the counter and rearrange his face.
Lots of hostility and big man talk about "civil disobedience" as though it has some innate value of its own regardless of serving any actual purpose, but I didn't really see any valid counterarguments.
Yeah, I guess enjoying the act of being irresponsible or "handing it to the man" is a purpose, but not everyone gets high off the mere thought of being disobedient.
Just sayin'.
Yeah, I guess enjoying the act of being irresponsible or "handing it to the man" is a purpose, but not everyone gets high off the mere thought of being disobedient.
Just sayin'.
alec said:I shit on <strike>people</strike> robots like you.
Ever heard about civil disobedience? Or has that text been sucessfully erased by now? Stuffed away in moist cellars?
It's puppies like you that make sure the big <strike>chiefs</strike> thiefs stay in office.
You are a target market, kid. And that's all you are. Try telling your children that when the shit hits the fan. Let's see how much of a hero they'll think their daddy is then.
"Economic growth." Shit. Everytime I hear a mongrel utter those words, I feel like smashing a bottle against the counter and rearrange his face.
WOOOOOOO!
REBELLION!
EVISCERATETHE BOURGEOISIE!!!
TAKE BACK THE FACTORIES FROM THE HANDS OF THE OPPRESSORS!
BURN DOWN THE BARBERSHOPS!
I wouldn't be disgruntled about taxes at all if the American people had any real, significant say in how the money was used. Pork barrel spending, non-negotiable incompetitive government contracting guidelines, exhorbitant civil salaries (at the high levels, anyway-- forget federal employees like teachers), and the $800 governement toilet seat are all products of this fair and workable system that I don't seem to remember voting for. No taxation without representation, indeed...
Personally, I like the idea of reducing (or eliminating altogether, in a more perfect world) income tax and raising property tax proportionally. Raise the sales tax too, perhaps... that way, you can be sure that everyone pays their fair share. A slick team of tax lawyers isn't going to help you one bit if you're paying your dues little by little every time you buy groceries instead of in a lump every April.
Personally, I like the idea of reducing (or eliminating altogether, in a more perfect world) income tax and raising property tax proportionally. Raise the sales tax too, perhaps... that way, you can be sure that everyone pays their fair share. A slick team of tax lawyers isn't going to help you one bit if you're paying your dues little by little every time you buy groceries instead of in a lump every April.
alec said:I shit on <strike>people</strike> robots like you.xdarkyrex said:
Ever heard about civil disobedience? Or has that text been sucessfully erased by now? Stuffed away in moist cellars?
It's puppies like you that make sure the big <strike>chiefs</strike> thiefs stay in office.
You are a target market, kid. And that's all you are. Try telling your children that when the shit hits the fan. Let's see how much of a hero they'll think their daddy is then.
"Economic growth." Shit. Everytime I hear a mongrel utter those words, I feel like smashing a bottle against the counter and rearrange his face.
Refer to the thread about stealing wireless if you want to hear about my 'civil disobedience'.
Depends on what type of income tax it is. Progressive taxation is by no means fair for the rich and successful. High tax progression is fair for loosers - the results depends on who has more votes.xdarkyrex said:
FED was established in 1913. Read something from Friedman, FED - possibly - only prolonged the crisis and made it much deeper by making money scarce.xdarkyrex said:
No, two world wars did - with (almost) whole world destroyed, USA became important. Before WW1, USA was a weak second-grade power. I am not sure what you mean by national debt, possibly current account balance or government budget deficit?xdarkyrex said:
Karel said:
The government budget deficit gets sold to private enterprise through bonds, which in turn gets traded amongst themselves, and often times ends up selling the IOUs to places like china (which owns a substantial amount of our debt)
When china owns our deficit, then it has become national debt.
Karel said:
How is that unfair?
Taxing on a curve is the only even remotely logical solution, as long as the curves progression is well behind the net return, so that it isnt much of a penalty.
If you're implying that it is harmful for the rich to have to pay more taxes, you ought to try and look at the statistics for the accumulation of wealth. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Taxes aren't about rewarding people for hard work, they are about collecting money for government spending in the way that is least socially detrimental. And whether it is fair or not, the LEAST social detriment comes from progressive tax curves. Flat taxes are absurd, as it makes it that much harder to drag yourself out of poverty, although I do admit that consumption tax is an interesting alternative, as it is both progressive and limiting, but there has been some troublesome research linking the potential economic effects with exacerbating the income bracket problem. Only speculative though.
alec said:
Someone is still upset about the Honduran doggie!
What do I think? I think that's the worst-made "documentary" evah and that I really want to kill the narrator. Frith, the internet gives morons too much ability to do their moronic things.
Puppy? What are you, Humongous?
Besides, a bunch of rich, stinking bastards refusing to pay taxes because they don't want social equalisation might technically be civil disobedience, but to me, it's more like civil sickening behaviour. Amirite?
alec said:
Puppy? What are you, Humongous?
Besides, a bunch of rich, stinking bastards refusing to pay taxes because they don't want social equalisation might technically be civil disobedience, but to me, it's more like civil sickening behaviour. Amirite?
I'm with Kharn on this one.
In parallell, wealthy Swedes fleeing to Monaco or such to avoid taxes kind of disgusts me. The only reason they could become rich is the society we live in. A good example of this is sports stars.
In parallell, wealthy Swedes fleeing to Monaco or such to avoid taxes kind of disgusts me. The only reason they could become rich is the society we live in. A good example of this is sports stars.
Colonel_here
First time out of the vault
Karel said:
FED is powerless right now why do you think Greenspan quit? So he can't be blamed for the crisis that could unfold.
FED only control interest rate. It reduced it when US economy was in crap, so people jumped on it and got lot of mortgages which they can't pay now since interest rate went up. However if interest rate goes down the US dollar price will go down and if interest rate goes up US banks will come illiquid and go bankrupt.
Federal spending however on war are creating huge surplus of money in the world and so depreciate the dollar so now FED is stuck and can do nothing that won't cause problems. If US dollar keeps dropping we will end up with dollar crisis and nice recession across the world.
You just had to remind me, didn't you? DIDN'T YOU?Per said:
Said the biggest moron of them all.Brother None said:
I'm everything you choose to ignore, my friend. Everything.Brother None said:
I didn't even bother watching that crap, so I wasn't aware it were a bunch of rich lapdogs refusing to pay taxes.Brother None said:
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS THEN! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!
A bit nationalistic wording, I would say. Don't forget that ownership is extremely mixed up, Chinese companies make profit because you buy their goods etc, so it's more like FDI than a debt.xdarkyrex said:
xdarkyrex said:
Poor people are those who haven't yet become rich. The middle class is getting 'richer' and larger, good for democracy and bad for progressive taxation. We have never been so rich in the human history, so poor people are quite contrasting because they cannot afford to pay for living 'standards' (cellular phone, computer, iPod, house, car, TV, refrigerator, education, health care,...)
Consumption tax is not politically feasible, but economically it works because you can't easily avoid it in the shop (as you can income taxes). For example, (totally hypothetically, of course), I avoid income taxes for simple reason - it would be too much work and they are very high. I have only worked legally once in my life, which was a funny experience. I spent half of my holiday working - the government punished me, I had to pay social insurance (25% of income, would had been much less if I had earned a bit less) - social insurance, which is paid by government if I don't work during holidays (as a student). Read: if you don't try to be successful.
For all those who are intersted-
The richer you re, the less you pay in taxes.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Warren Buffet, the second richest man in the world, is openly complaining about tax laws, because he claims that the richer you are, the less you pay in taxes.
The richer you re, the less you pay in taxes.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Warren Buffet, the second richest man in the world, is openly complaining about tax laws, because he claims that the richer you are, the less you pay in taxes.