IRS...how long will we put up with this!!!

[nzmoman]

So I was just sitting in my office thinking about how I am about to owe a butt load of cash to the IRS. I have my own business, so I dont pay taxes throughout the year. Its more important for me to invest my money back into my work to gain more return. But why should i be forced to pay this money anyway. Why is it the Wesley Snipes has a prison sentence for not giving HIS property to the government?

So my thoughts are this:

1. The IRS is not a legal institution because there are no checks and balances or oversight. In fact in the lat 1800' the office that would become the IRS was shut down stating that it was unconstitutional.2. Most things we give to the government go to waste on poorly run programs, so they are inevitably taking money of ours and throwing it way.3. There is nothing in the constitution (that thing that dictates our gov't) that says we have to pay taxes.4. Controlling our $$$ means they control us.5. There is absolutely no real representation for the majority of our working class.

SO,

I give another 10-20 years before people realize that this is just wrong.

how long do you guys think the IRS will last?Is this something that you guys have thought about?Many of you guys on here are the age where this doesnt really matter so Im interested especially in hearing your thoughts...

[AZhitman]

1. The IRS is not a legal institution because there are no checks and balances or oversight. In fact in the lat 1800' the office that would become the IRS was shut down stating that it was unconstitutional.2. Most things we give to the government go to waste on poorly run programs, so they are inevitably taking money of ours and throwing it way.3. There is nothing in the constitution (that thing that dictates our gov't) that says we have to pay taxes.4. Controlling our $$$ means they control us.5. There is absolutely no real representation for the majority of our working class.

For the sake of argument, I'll play ball here:

1) The status of "Legal institution" isn't contingent on "C&B" or "oversight". Assuming it is, though, there are a myriad of attorneys out there who exist solely to jab the IRS in the eye if it missteps. That's oversight of the highest order.

2) Blanket statement. The things you perceive as "poorly run" are the fault of the politicians involved. Get busy and throw the bums out. I don't mind paying for roads, national defense, water, research, infrastructure, schools, police and fire.... I get a bargain.

3) Correct, but the citizens' responsibility to entrust a portion of their income to the government (elected by the people) is a Biblical construct, and this country was founded as a Christian nation (whether the naysayers like it or not). "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

The Constitution isn't the law. Just because there's nothing in it saying you must pay taxes doesn't absolve you of that responsibility. There's nothing in the Constitution that says you can't take a dump on the steps of the White House, but I'm sure there's a law prohibiting it.

4) I don't know about you, but I control my income, not the gov't. The laws are written in my favor (the way I see it). Paying too much in taxes? Change your situation. The deductions are there, take them.

5) Another blanket statement. People need to get out from under the idea that they require "representation".

ARE WE NOT MEN?

Agaain, if you feel underrepresented, get active. The political process is there for a reason, and unless you're gonna get involved, then you can't whine.



Great idea for a thread!!!

[Leuthesius]

Vote for fair tax and the problem goes away.....

[rn79870]

My income is all from 1099 stuff too. It sucks that you have to put aside 40% of each check in order to make your quarterly obligations and you SET. It sucks that you have to pay that 15% self employment tax for the privilege of giving the government 20 to 25 percent of what you earn. It sucks that taxes are going to be going up to pay for a war I didn't want.

Quote »In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.[/quote]If we could just keep the government from having wars, we'd all be rich.

And the final thing that sucks. There is no way out of it. You're screwed if you don't. Just call them and work something out.

[themadscientist]

I would like to see us go to a higher excise tax and abolish income taxes alltogether. Capital gains and Inheritence taxes should go as well. Small business seems to get squeezed to death and they can be a source of good jobs.

[smockers83]

I hate when people say the Constitution says nothing about having to pay taxes. If one simply reads the Constitution, you'll read this in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

This gives Congress the power to levy taxes, therefore making it perfectly legal and also making it illegal to not pay. There are no checks and balances or an oversight committee for the Federal Reserve, NASA, CIA, EPA, or NSF.

[nzmoman]

I hate when people say the Constitution says nothing about having to pay taxes. If one simply reads the Constitution, you'll read this in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

This gives Congress the power to levy taxes, therefore making it perfectly legal and also making it illegal to not pay. There are no checks and balances or an oversight committee for the Federal Reserve, NASA, CIA, EPA, or NSF.

yes but this tax is not supposed to be levied against your income...thats the problem. Sales taxes and embedded taxes fall under this Article. Many people dont realize there is already an embedded tax that goes into everything that you buy...who do you think pays the corporation taxes...we do. The taxing of goods and services is good, taxing based on income is bad. The reason is that there is nothing stopping them from saying they are going to take a higher percentage next year. You can argue all you want, but there is no public vote.

For the sake of argument, I'll play ball here:

1) The status of "Legal institution" isn't contingent on "C&B" or "oversight". Assuming it is, though, there are a myriad of attorneys out there who exist solely to jab the IRS in the eye if it missteps. That's oversight of the highest order.

2) Blanket statement. The things you perceive as "poorly run" are the fault of the politicians involved. Get busy and throw the bums out. I don't mind paying for roads, national defense, water, research, infrastructure, schools, police and fire.... I get a bargain.

3) Correct, but the citizens' responsibility to entrust a portion of their income to the government (elected by the people) is a Biblical construct, and this country was founded as a Christian nation (whether the naysayers like it or not). "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

The Constitution isn't the law. Just because there's nothing in it saying you must pay taxes doesn't absolve you of that responsibility. There's nothing in the Constitution that says you can't take a dump on the steps of the White House, but I'm sure there's a law prohibiting it.

4) I don't know about you, but I control my income, not the gov't. The laws are written in my favor (the way I see it). Paying too much in taxes? Change your situation. The deductions are there, take them.

5) Another blanket statement. People need to get out from under the idea that they require "representation".

ARE WE NOT MEN?

Agaain, if you feel underrepresented, get active. The political process is there for a reason, and unless you're gonna get involved, then you can't whine.

Great idea for a thread!!!

The problem is that the IRS functions along side gov't but not necessarily under it. They have the power to take away your belongings without the approval of the court. They have the power to garnish your earnings, the costs that a person would take on fighting the IRS is significant. The majority of Americans could not afford that type of representation, well if they expect some sort of quality from an attorney.

2. Name one gov't program that works and does so without threat to its future or the future of a group of citizens or a class. because of faults in design....Social Security, nope, Medicare/ade, nope, welfare, nope, give me one and I can tell you why it doesn't work and why it hurts us more than it helps.

and all of those things you listed, are things that should be run by private organization. The taxes you pay your state covers most roads ,firemen, police, and infrastructure. The gov't has no business taking money for these things. In fact the initial installation of the organization was to cover a military and support the countries war efforts. Im definitely not against this, but the money should not come from my income. It should come from the goods and services i purchase.

3. The idea of elected gov't is not a biblical design. In the Old Testament God did NOT want the Hebrew people to have a physical King. They wanted one because all the other nations had one. This would be in I Samuel. The statement Give unto Caesar what is Caesars in the greek is actually speaking about Christ's desire not being that of physical wealth, (this point is can take us into a conversation that we are not supposed to have in this thread, but I have a minor in Religious Studies and I actually had to write on this topic, so this point won't work without a serious conversation on the Early Jewish and Christian community.

Correct, the Constitution is not the law, however for some reason the constitution had to be amended in 1913 to allow for an organization that had already been deemed un-constitutional by the supreme court to come into existence again. That obviously means that our gov't had to change in order to allow this to exist. The original writing did NOT allow for control of a persons income.

4. If you control your income then tell the IRS you want to give money to those National, State, and Local institutions directly and that you don't want to give it to them...see if they will allow it. (they wont) The truth is if you truly control your income then YOU dictate where your money goes. Nobody on this forum has the ability to choose to not pay the IRS. If you control your income then the choice becomes yours. If you control your income then you should be able to choose without threat of penalty. But you can't. Anyone who can control and dictate what you do with your money can control you. Also based on your 4th poiint you would be absolutely comfortable if the gov't said tomorrow that the tax rate is increasing to 75%..would you? By the way some of those programs exist solely for the purpose of taking care of individuals with a lesser income...ie they take from the rich and give to the poor, also known as redistribution of wealth, and Socialism/Communism. Im looking for a quote from Joseph Stalin that I wanted to share with you, but I wont try to say it without getting it exactly right.

5. I heard a cool comment on the radio one time. it was said " our four fathers had a great gov't in plan, but they never intended on one thing, career politicians" This statement to me is exactly what Im talking about. It is no secret to Americans that there are some seriously corrupt politicians in office. Why do you think that is? Who do you think represents the middle class...in fact who do you think it is that gets a person elected. I would argue that people with access have the ability to sway. A congressman does not have to vote the way the majority of his community votes, it is their responsibility, but they don't have to do it. Can you opt to not re-elect that person, yes, but the damage has been done. The gov't can take your land to build a road. they can take your home and they DO NOT have to compensate you! Do you not think this is wrong?

I guess my point in all of this is that I believe Americans live with their eyes closed and their hand open. The Govt has an organization that can alter the way you live in an instant with almost no recourse. Whether or not someone is going to make it in a court case solely depends on that judge sitting in front of you. There is no trial for the IRS...its all litigation to judges.

I am definitely for the Fair Tax because I believe it removes some of the un challenged powers that I believe we give our gov't without question.

Modified by nzmoman at 8:12 PM 5/13/2008
Modified by nzmoman at 8:31 PM 5/13/2008

[smockers83]

"The reason is that there is nothing stopping them from saying they are going to take a higher percentage next year."

However true that may be, it would be political and economic suicide to do so. So that won't happen in the extreme of 75%. And the government also looks at the economic impact of taxes, so they take that into consideration so as to not perform economic suicide.

And if I'm not mistaken, the IRS is a division of the Treasury, which is in the executive branch, so therefore the IRS is under the executive branch and therefore under the government, not along side it as an independent agency like the Fed or NASA.

No matter how the government taxes, it will come up with a way to get the revenue it needs, which we will all pay for some how anyway. And arguments that income doesn't mean wages or that wages are a fair trade, all of that can be worked around anyway. A person's adjusted basis or whatever is 0, so any wage earned is a gain and is then taxable.

"The gov't can take your land to build a road. they can take your home and they DO NOT have to compensate you!"

And this is any different from a repo how? Other than that, they can take your land and build a road, but they do have to compensate fair value.

To be having this argument when every industrialized country has income taxes is a waste of time.

[audtatious]

However true that may be, it would be political and economic suicide to do so. So that won't happen in the extreme of 75%. And the government also looks at the economic impact of taxes, so they take that into consideration so as to not perform economic suicide.

Yes and no. Bush cut our taxes and it has only been a "failure" because the politicians could not reign in their spending habits. Dems came in with promises to fix everything and have done nothing at all to lower anything either. Both current Dems running for Pres have stated they would get rid of the Bush tax cuts. wants to penalize big oil/corporations for making a profit and all three (including Mac) seem to want to impose additional gov't funds (cap and trade) to combat the myth of man made global warming. Obama wants to further give the UN more money for global poverty.

All of the above will put more burden on households and hurt our economy. Guess some feel suicide is the only way for America...

[nzmoman]

"The reason is that there is nothing stopping them from saying they are going to take a higher percentage next year."

However true that may be, it would be political and economic suicide to do so. So that won't happen in the extreme of 75%. And the government also looks at the economic impact of taxes, so they take that into consideration so as to not perform economic suicide.

And if I'm not mistaken, the IRS is a division of the Treasury, which is in the executive branch, so therefore the IRS is under the executive branch and therefore under the government, not along side it as an independent agency like the Fed or NASA.

No matter how the government taxes, it will come up with a way to get the revenue it needs, which we will all pay for some how anyway. And arguments that income doesn't mean wages or that wages are a fair trade, all of that can be worked around anyway. A person's adjusted basis or whatever is 0, so any wage earned is a gain and is then taxable.

"The gov't can take your land to build a road. they can take your home and they DO NOT have to compensate you!"

And this is any different from a repo how? Other than that, they can take your land and build a road, but they do have to compensate fair value.

To be having this argument when every industrialized country has income taxes is a waste of time.

The poster above has great points.

The gov't does not have to build a road when they take your home. They dont have to build anything. This is not a REPO. If you own the land and you make your tax payments they can still take it. This is without you missing any payments or having any legal issues etc. Do you not remember just two or three years ago, there was a bill that was passed which allowed the gov't to take land and re-distribute it "for the greater good of the community" in other words PRIVATE investors. That means you or your family has owned land for generations the gov't comes along and says we will give you 800 per acre in order to take this land. You lose your land. the gov't then uses it to start a bidding war with private investment companies who will later build strip malls or movie theatres etc. Yes this has happened. Three families in Marietta GA lost several acres to the military for a few hundred dollars per acre. they have NO recourse. Land that was worth thousands of dollars taken for pennies on the dollar.

Nobody said income does not mean wages. That is the exact issue, the taxation of INCOME was called unconstitutional in the past. In fact the 16th Amendment was never even ratified. The taxation of goods and services has always been acceptable. Even historically taxes were taxes on goods, services, but not your income. You did not have to report to Caesar that you made 60k and he said well 30 of it is mine.

BTW if it is law that I should pay my taxes I would really like for that to be pointed out where it is written. I know that it says the gov't can impose taxes, but where does it say I am breaking the law if I don't? I know where it says this is a VOLUNTARY thing. Now dont forget that I am a citizen in a "free" society so I should have choices and rights to refuse certain things without penalty. So if there is no law against it how are there trials and how are people going to prison?

All that said "I do pay my taxes, I just hate that I am forced to when I shouldn't be"
Modified by nzmoman at 8:26 AM 5/14/2008

[AZhitman]

yes but this tax is not supposed to be levied against your income...thats the problem. Sales taxes and embedded taxes fall under this Article. Many people dont realize there is already an embedded tax that goes into everything that you buy...who do you think pays the corporation taxes...we do. The taxing of goods and services is good, taxing based on income is bad. The reason is that there is nothing stopping them from saying they are going to take a higher percentage next year. You can argue all you want, but there is no public vote.

The problem is that the IRS functions along side gov't but not necessarily under it. They have the power to take away your belongings without the approval of the court. They have the power to garnish your earnings, the costs that a person would take on fighting the IRS is significant. The majority of Americans could not afford that type of representation, well if they expect some sort of quality from an attorney.

2. Name one gov't program that works and does so without threat to its future or the future of a group of citizens or a class. because of faults in design....Social Security, nope, Medicare/ade, nope, welfare, nope, give me one and I can tell you why it doesn't work and why it hurts us more than it helps.

and all of those things you listed, are things that should be run by private organization. The taxes you pay your state covers most roads ,firemen, police, and infrastructure. The gov't has no business taking money for these things. In fact the initial installation of the organization was to cover a military and support the countries war efforts. Im definitely not against this, but the money should not come from my income. It should come from the goods and services i purchase.

3. The idea of elected gov't is not a biblical design. In the Old Testament God did NOT want the Hebrew people to have a physical King. They wanted one because all the other nations had one. This would be in I Samuel. The statement Give unto Caesar what is Caesars in the greek is actually speaking about Christ's desire not being that of physical wealth, (this point is can take us into a conversation that we are not supposed to have in this thread, but I have a minor in Religious Studies and I actually had to write on this topic, so this point won't work without a serious conversation on the Early Jewish and Christian community.

Correct, the Constitution is not the law, however for some reason the constitution had to be amended in 1913 to allow for an organization that had already been deemed un-constitutional by the supreme court to come into existence again. That obviously means that our gov't had to change in order to allow this to exist. The original writing did NOT allow for control of a persons income.

4. If you control your income then tell the IRS you want to give money to those National, State, and Local institutions directly and that you don't want to give it to them...see if they will allow it. (they wont) The truth is if you truly control your income then YOU dictate where your money goes. Nobody on this forum has the ability to choose to not pay the IRS. If you control your income then the choice becomes yours. If you control your income then you should be able to choose without threat of penalty. But you can't. Anyone who can control and dictate what you do with your money can control you. Also based on your 4th poiint you would be absolutely comfortable if the gov't said tomorrow that the tax rate is increasing to 75%..would you? By the way some of those programs exist solely for the purpose of taking care of individuals with a lesser income...ie they take from the rich and give to the poor, also known as redistribution of wealth, and Socialism/Communism. Im looking for a quote from Joseph Stalin that I wanted to share with you, but I wont try to say it without getting it exactly right.

5. I heard a cool comment on the radio one time. it was said " our four fathers had a great gov't in plan, but they never intended on one thing, career politicians" This statement to me is exactly what Im talking about. It is no secret to Americans that there are some seriously corrupt politicians in office. Why do you think that is? Who do you think represents the middle class...in fact who do you think it is that gets a person elected. I would argue that people with access have the ability to sway. A congressman does not have to vote the way the majority of his community votes, it is their responsibility, but they don't have to do it. Can you opt to not re-elect that person, yes, but the damage has been done. The gov't can take your land to build a road. they can take your home and they DO NOT have to compensate you! Do you not think this is wrong?

I guess my point in all of this is that I believe Americans live with their eyes closed and their hand open. The Govt has an organization that can alter the way you live in an instant with almost no recourse. Whether or not someone is going to make it in a court case solely depends on that judge sitting in front of you. There is no trial for the IRS...its all litigation to judges.

I am definitely for the Fair Tax because I believe it removes some of the un challenged powers that I believe we give our gov't without question.

1. I don't necessarily disagree with what you're proposing in theory, but the implementation would once again inject politics into the mix.

2. I completely support privatization of ALL the things you mentioned. However, the left-leaning Congress will never hear of it, because it reeks of smaller government and more power to corporations via competitive bidding and pay-for-performance Capitalism. You find a way to push this through and I'll be your #1 campaign supporter.

3. Nope. The Jewish community has valued inclusive democratic representation dating back to biblical times. God instructed Moses to gather 70 elders of Israel to serve as representatives of the people (Numbers 11:16–25).

There are various interpretations on what this statement by Jesus actually meant, but scholars universally agree it was pure brilliance in the way it flummoxed His questioners and inspires debate over 2000 years later. Interpretations include the belief that it is good and appropriate to submit to the State when asked; that spiritual demands supersede earthly demands but do not abolish them; and that the "tax laws" of the state are non-negotiable.

4. Agreed. However, I have control over how much I pay and when. Note - there may be consequences or rewards for my decisions, but ultimately the choice is mine. I shoose to make choices that minimize my tax liability, and as far as "directing" where my money goes, I can do that via charitable contributions.

5. Agreed 100%. So keep this in mind when you vote.

[smockers83]

No, the 16th Amendment was ratified correctly in regards to Ohio. If we want to argue about Ohio, then what about the 16 states that came before it (unless those were formally admitted retroactively I don't really know...just like Ohio)?

On February 19, 1803, President Jefferson signed an act of Congress that approved Ohio's boundaries and constitution. However, Congress had never passed a resolution formally admitting Ohio as the 17th state. The current custom of Congress declaring an official date of statehood did not begin until 1812, with Louisiana's admission as the 18th state. Although no formal resolution of admission was required, when the oversight was discovered in 1953, Ohio congressman George H. Bender introduced a bill in Congress to admit Ohio to the Union retroactive to March 1, 1803. At a special session at the old state capital in Chillicothe, the Ohio state legislature approved a new petition for statehood that was delivered to Washington, D.C. on horseback. On August 7, 1953 (the year of Ohio's 150th anniversary), President Eisenhower signed an act that officially declared March 1, 1803 the date of Ohio's admittance into the Union. --Wikipedia

Article IV, 3 says that Congress admits states to the Union, in which that law admitting Ohio was signed by Jefferson in 1803. The custom of "formally" admitting states didn't start until later.

"The gov't does not have to build a road when they take your home. They dont have to build anything. This is not a REPO. If you own the land and you make your tax payments they can still take it. This is without you missing any payments or having any legal issues etc. Do you not remember just two or three years ago, there was a bill that was passed which allowed the gov't to take land and re-distribute it "for the greater good of the community" in other words PRIVATE investors."

I thought you were talking about in regards to not paying taxes. If you did pay your taxes and you're in the good graces of the government, when they do this its called eminent domain--common law that predates the constitution and is part of the 5th Amendment. A couple of years back, which I do remember, it wasn't the federal government that exercised its right, it was a local government. After that situation, Bush issued an executive order that limits the fed gov to limit its right to do so as not to advance the economic interest of private parties. Great, but eminent domain is usually exercised at the state and local levels, in which some states have passed laws to limit their use of eminent domain.

In regards to the Supreme Court ruling that income tax at one point was unconstitutional, I think the ruling was that it wasn't in conformity with the constitution (it wasn't apportioned by state). It was also in regards to income received from personal property and real estate specifically. One of the justices wrote in his ruling:

When, therefore, this court adjudges, as it does now adjudge, that Congress cannot impose a duty or tax upon personal property, or upon income arising either from rents of real estate or from personal property, including invested personal property, bonds, stocks, and investments of all kinds, except by apportioning the sum to be so raised among the States according to population, it practically decides that, without an amendment of the Constitution -- two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-fourths of the States concurring -- such property and incomes can never be made to contribute to the support of the national government.

And so we got the 16th Amendment. And where it says you have to pay your taxes is probably embedded in the tax law.

[nzmoman]

for the sake of not having a single 10 page post I wont quote but first AZ...

The gathering of elders is not the formation of a Gov't. The reason there are representatives is because Moses was completely incapable of relaying commandments in an effective way to the multitude. You have to keep the passage written in Numbers in context. The reason God pulled 70 men is not to formulate and intended gov't, it was because Moses asked for help. Because the people were wining and complaining about their situation and not trusting God. So yes, the form of gov't did exist, however was not (theologically) the intention of God. He was angry about the people because they were wanting to return to Egypt instead of trusting in Him as their God. Which is the same thing that lead to the monarchy that became in Samuel with Saul. The first Hebrew king. I guess the differences is that I speak of the intended gov't vs what was actually in place. The intended gov't was not a gov't like ours.yes you have a choice, but the fact that their is a second party penalty for your choice means you are not truly free to do as you please with your money.

smockers83...

most of what you typed im way to tired to try to understand right now so I owe you a re-read tomorrow, but

I read some of our tax code and I still have yet to figure out where exactly it says that someone is obligated to pay. I brought this up because there are tax attorneys who struggle with this question...the answers are very vague, and the US is not supposed to have laws written that are hard to understand.

[ishkabibble]

The IRS is not a legal institution because there are no checks and balances or oversight.

What about these checks and balances and oversight:

-TIGTA: http://www.ustreas.gov/tigta/-the Tax Courts and other Courts-Congress-and the Public.

As for "privatization", the government often runs things better and cheaper than the private industry does. Don't believe me? Read up on the history of government outsourcing initiatives (OMB Circular A-76). The government wins most of the competitions.

[skylndrftr]

Theres alot of ways the government could be run better, but the checks and balances? Well, beyond the fact that it is constitutional under A1S8, it was passed by congress and signed by a president...Need a link to some good old fashion schol house rocks?

on the privitization issue, how botu that multibillion dollar satellite we just shot down that was built by Lockheed/Boeing, or the nextgen GPS (Boeing), how bout troops being electrocuted in Iraq by Halliburton which is moving to avoid taxes.

If we bothered to tax corporations like we taxed citizens, this woudn't be a problem. And that is OUR fault. We allow our decade+ serving representatives to represent lobbyists and corporations, not the people they are supposed to. We can only blame ourselves, anything else is a crutch

[audtatious]

We are already in the top 3 countries that tax corporations. Should we go for #1 and penalize companies for even attempting to have their big corporations in America? Might be a great idea to push them all overseas so they can make a profit I guess.

[smockers83]

nzmoman, you still owe me a re-read.

[skylndrftr]

audacious:

that gets used a lot, and yes the base tax rate is relatively high here but there are so many loopholes and write offs that the only corporations being taxed like that are small business that can least afford to hire an army of tax accountants to avoid it.

[audtatious]

And?

I assume you are a "corporations are here to provide jobs for US Citizens and not to make a profit on the backs of those who work for it" kinda person, huh?

[smockers83]

I'm going to put this out there before I say anything else. I'm a youngen comparably. People have been saying lately that big business doesn't really pay taxes or whatever. I'm looking through my IBM 2006 Annual Report...they paid roughly 28-29% from what I can tell looking through the statements. When you're paying $3,800+ million in taxes...just curious where this notion comes from.

[Cold_Zero]

I guess that Freddie Mac pays taxes as well.

http://www.freddiemac.com/corp....html

6) Is Freddie Mac a government agency?

No. Freddie Mac was chartered by Congress as a private company serving a public mission; however, Freddie Mac is not an agency of the Federal or any state government nor does Freddie Mac receive federal funds.

In fact, Freddie Mac is one of the nation's largest federal taxpayers.

Freddie Mac is owned by its shareholders and, like other corporations, is accountable to its shareholders and a board of directors. Freddie Mac's enabling legislation calls for our Board to have 18 directors, five of whom are to be appointed by the President of the United States. Anyone can own Freddie Mac stock, which is traded under the stock ticker symbol "FRE" on the New York Stock Exchange; in your local newspaper, you'll see our stock price referenced as "FredMac."

[smockers83]

Corporations do pay taxes. They're sending money to the government. Where does that money come from may be the question. If a corporation experiences a tax rate increase, is it going to completely soak up that tax increase by itself? No, it'll pass some, if not all, of the extra expense onto the consumer by way of markups, which are all percentage based anyway.

[Armelius]

So I was just sitting in my office thinking about how I am about to owe a butt load of cash to the IRS. I have my own business, so I dont pay taxes throughout the year. Its more important for me to invest my money back into my work to gain more return. But why should i be forced to pay this money anyway. Why is it the Wesley Snipes has a prison sentence for not giving HIS property to the government?

So my thoughts are this:

1. The IRS is not a legal institution because there are no checks and balances or oversight. In fact in the lat 1800' the office that would become the IRS was shut down stating that it was unconstitutional.2. Most things we give to the government go to waste on poorly run programs, so they are inevitably taking money of ours and throwing it way.3. There is nothing in the constitution (that thing that dictates our gov't) that says we have to pay taxes.4. Controlling our $$$ means they control us.5. There is absolutely no real representation for the majority of our working class.

SO,

I give another 10-20 years before people realize that this is just wrong.

how long do you guys think the IRS will last?Is this something that you guys have thought about?Many of you guys on here are the age where this doesnt really matter so Im interested especially in hearing your thoughts...

Finally a post I like.

For now I will say that we have a right to privacy and a right not to incriminate oneself. Those were before any 16th amendment and the founding fathers were trying to form a government that was to protect the people from an intrusive government or system of servitude.

They made compromises on slavery and eventually did away with the practice. However, some will say that our current tax system is voluntary. You voluntary give up your rights for servitude of the state.