With the arrest of Ed and Elaine Brown over income taxes, it brings a controversial topic back to the table.
I'd like to explore the income taxes and since a couple of people have told me they would share some thoughts and answer a few questions, then I'd like to get right into this. Many of these questions will become really tough, so don't wimp out on me. I'm REALLY REALLY confused.
My first question in this post is what do you think about the income tax? Is it necessary? How did we finance everything BEFORE the 16th Amendment?
I'm not the one who made any promises, but I'll go with it to start.
"what do you think about the income tax?"
I think it is just one of the downfalls of America. The amendment itself says 'The income tax is established'. Well, that really leaves a lot to be determined.
It could not mean income that one works for. That is your property. There are other Constitutional provisions that prohibit the govt taking property without due process of law. Does the Establishment of the Income Tax satisfy those requirements? I think not.
Is it necessary?
I don't think it is 'necessary' unless you believe all the socialists/give away/income re-distribution pograms are necesary. I don't think they are necessary, I think they are intrensically illegal.
It is one thing for us to take care of the truly needy. This country is great enough, it's people generous enough, to take care of those in need. But to provide a lifestyle of 'benefits' and 'entitlements', well somebody got off on the wrong track on that one.
If one wants to look at the income tax as 'usery' then that flies out the window too. It would be the government that pays the people that they collect the income tax 'from' that the government would be paying for using our money--for the programs and such!
They're thieves.
How did we finance everything BEFORE the 16th Amendment?
I'd have to look for this one. I truly don't know the answer.
There ya go--first installment on the income tax question(s).
I'll leave this thought:
Y'all know how the congress impedes a president on some of his BS by just not funding the ideas/legislation. (any prez, not just this one).
So, what do ya think about this:
If we tied up the purse strings of the government, by not putting anything into the purse, wouldn't we be controlling this mess? Or eliminating it?
Cordially
CDJ _________________ A ship in a harbor is safe, but that is not what they are made for.
I personally am in favor of abolishing income taxes. I am not familiar enough with the 16th amendment to comment YET. I am constantly researching and learning myself. I think that the writers of the Fair Tax are onto something with it. I have to agree with you CDJ, how did we fair before the income tax was made law? People took care of themselves and when people tried, others were willing to help them to become more self sufficient. I have found that Government funding promoted to help people tends to make people more dependent on Government.
I really want to learn more about this as well. Thanks for starting the topic Enforcer.[/b]
"...how did we fair before the income tax was made law? People took care of themselves and when people tried, others were willing to help them to become more self sufficient."
You stated that better than I did. That is exactly what I meant.
I just read an article over on Drudge, where it is reported that McCain wants Greenspan, 'dead or alive', to help rewrite the tax code.
WTF--is McCain trying to be funny? Greenspan, his predecessors and the ones that follow him are the voice/policy makers for the FED, which is NOT Federal at all.
Anyone wanting to look to the 'FED' is as pandering to the financial coup as they would be to opening up the NAU. But I think the problem goes back further than the creation of the (not) FED. The second case the Supreme Court ever heard--Somebody v. Maryland. I need to look for that too.
I'd say the control of the money should be with the Treasury Department, get rid of the IRS, and leave money in the pockets of Americans. Sure, we should still get out of our personal debt, but most people would continue to feed that banking money machine. That is just a reality of the nature of people who live beyond their means. Let them suffer those consequences--not me, or you, or the next guy.
Same thing with the Social Security and Medicaid--that should be the individual's choice on whether to participate or not.
Anyway, I still have some work to do on the info to reason this out.
Thanks for the kind words and your thoughts. Let's meet up again to throw this around some more. As many members and visitors as we have, maybe we'll hash out some sort of ideas that make sense on how to fix this whole quagmire.
Cordially
CDJ _________________ A ship in a harbor is safe, but that is not what they are made for.
Actually, a new poster, Daniel Jackson, had promised to help me with this thread. I hope he finds it. However, since CDJ has provided some answers, let me ask some more while we wait for others to weigh in on this subject.
One of the most experienced men in the field of fighting the income tax is Bill Benson. For the most part, the government continues to put up a smoke and mirrors show, refusing to answer the hard questions about the 16th Amendment. But, I'd like to separate a few things right now.
Government can claim all the POWER it wants to. What I need to know is whether or not government has the AUTHORITY to impose the unconstitutional income tax on us. Benson uncovered some irrefutable facts about the income tax, among them the fact that the required 3/4 of the states did not vote in favor of the 16th Amendment.
I'd like for those of you interested in this to look at a couple of sites and answer a couple of questions:
Given that the information on these two sites is accurate and whereas the courts fail to acknowledge the truth as it would work against the government, what LEGAL OBLIGATION are we under to observe the 16th Amendment?
Do you believe that the people are under an obligation to obey EVERY law that government hands down, especially if it is obvious to most people that the courts usurped the people's authority to over-rule unconstitutional acts?
"Anyone wanting to look to the 'FED' is as pandering to the financial coup as they would be to opening up the NAU. But I think the problem goes back further than the creation of the (not) FED. The second case the Supreme Court ever heard--Somebody v. Maryland. I need to look for that too."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
