Taxes are Illegal.

[A-Unit]

Re:

I'll take note of going to the Supreme Court and do so. To me, no problem is big enough to be tackled.

I'm not saying handouts Str8up. I don't believe in the social programs that we have, which are more like a resort, encompassing FULL benies for all, with little contribution. But why play a game with already skewed rules?

I already SIDE with you in wealth creation and personal financial independence, but you're playing by their rules anyway, because THEY implemented them. I'm all for R/E, taking care of my own, etc, that's HOW the country was founded and what it was founded for. However, I don't think people are unproductive dolts, that because they're not as smart, or fortunate, skilled, or blessed as you, that they deserve to die.

As stated previously, the intended consequences of our society were long planned out centuries ago, beginning with the creation of forced schooling which dumbs down the masses, on top of the media/government controlled news syndicates. From there, people haven't taken the RED PILL to awaken, so while you can be bitter at their misgivings, to them it's like a SPLINTER in their mind, to which they can comprehend WHY things aren't working out right.

And you can go about your own business as long as one chooses, but so long as the UNDERLYING thinking behind such devices is corrupt, it will only be a matter of time before it infiltrates all levels of thinking/planning. I don't get why it's SO easy for guys here to believe in some AFC agenda, but not see the easiest complicity of all? Illegality with respect to laws, branches, departments, taxes, etc??

You can make your millions, but as long as they write the rules (and the people allow them to) with carelessness toward us, and lethargy on the part of the citizens, they right the rules for the top 1% in mind, and other agendas. It's fine, amass millions, but that doesn't change how illegal some things are, and you can turn a blind eye, but that doesn't make it go away, or change it, and what's all the free money and autonomy, if the imprint we have made is worse than before we arrived?

-------------------------

As far as the tax status of OTHER countries, that's because the US hasn't caught up yet. Europe and Asia are the 2 oldest populations. In some 30 years, Men will out Number women 2:1, and rise exponentially. Birthrates have not kept up to replenish their supply of women, so women will be imported, or the population will decline (esp with larger world wars).

Moreover, the older populations have placed a HUGE strain on the European and Asian populations BECAUSE of social projects, such as social healthcare and pension programs. The US is GETTING there, our population age is catching up, which means...

>less tax payers, more benefit receivers.
>more benefit payouts, for longer periods of time.
>more drain on taxes.

So for the visual...the WHOLE in the bucket funnelling money OUT, is bigger than the SUPPLY putting MONEY into it. WE're at the tipping point of not being able to pay. Why do you think the Canadian currency is barely 10% less valued than our's? It used to be 50%! World currencies have caught up in valuations, while the dollar has tanked. That's not just cyclically, that's a total fiscal policy change.

To solve the financial crisis looming on our doorsteps the following must happen:

>Increase taxes on the whole
>Increase payroll taxes
>Decrease benefit payouts
>Lengthen the age to which you apply for said benefits

People believe in the following strategies:

>People work longer
>More immigrants, more workers
>Greater international trade
>Diminish spending

Ask yourself how many of those APPLY now? Especially when the SENIOR population and boomers, are the largest voting population, who would fight tooth and nail to protect the benefits they've paid for over decades. The generations in trouble are our's...those 40 and under, because benefits we've been locked into, don't apply (and personally I don't care about them anyways, but I don't want to pay something to get nothing), yet taxes will still exist to pay for what are basically illegal collections.

-----------------------------------------

The analogy of the DR vs. the Janitor has nothing to do with income, expenses, benefits, or education. I'm speaking specifically on the illegality of taxes. Taxes effect the DR and Janitor the same, possibly the janitor more, since he's like to feel a larger crimp on his low wages. The DR obviously deserves his return on invested capital (his education) but that does not negate the fact he ALSO pays exhorbitant taxes based on his income. Would he just SHUN it away because he has enough dough to do so?

I get that passive income and the like is taxed at lower rates, that real estate has depreciation features, that owning your own corporation has its inherent tax benefits. Yes, legally skirt the issue of taxes. But that doesn't make anything RIGHT. It just means those that can turn a blind eye do, because for NOW, it doesn't effect you. However, so long as the illegality of taxes persists, there's no telling what other LAWS will be passed.

AS a for instance, if the estate tax is REPEALED, the step up in basis people receive at death on the transfer of real estate will be eliminated. MEANING, those who inherit property will pay taxes on the gain in their home. HOW big would that tax revenue be? And who does the estate tax most hit? Probably those with just enough assets to qualify. Those who are rich and superich have their money planned in such a way as to minimize or eliminate taxes altogether.

That's just one of many different changes to laws people barely read about. Or what about the deficit reduction act? Not only does it harm the young and old most, but it drastically changes laws regarding medical and nursing homes, to the point you either BUY long-term care, or forfeit all your assets upon sickness. There's more to it than that, but for anyone retiring now, or with parents, you either die with no money, or you buy long-term care. It's change for the good, in some respects, but in other's a change for the worse.


I'm glad there's been some good points raised, but most of the points being raised seem so diffused and spread out I can't make heads or tails of them.



A-Unit

 

[Docs]

A-Unit, do you have research on the Canadian side of taxes?

 

[Bible_Belt]

str8up mentioned that taxes are necessary for government to function. Are you against all taxes - income, property, sales, and city/state? I imagine you see many government services as unnecessary, but most people agree that there has to be some sort of government. Somalia is a good example of the breakdown of organized government; they have none, and they are ruled by feuding war lords. So without taxes, how does the government pay for basic social services - fire, police, prisons, roads, public schools, and enough social benefits to keep people from starving or getting communicable disease that infects everyone?

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

I don't have personal familiarity with the Canadian constitution or govenmental style. I'd be happy to look at it, since the Constitution, state Consitution, and Bill of Rights, as well as Amendments are your keys to living within the boarders you choose, though so few even take a gander at it. You should, if you live here. I'd advocate looking at it, versus watching the Simpsons, TV, or playing games. But then again, "big brother" doesn't want us to "suffer or struggle", so they do the heavy lifting and we do the enjoyment/playing, rarely efforting much beyond our income producing work.

I'm not against government services. I'm against a STRONG government that acts like a NICE, benevolent father, that expects in exchange our undying devotion. That's precisely what the forefathers fought AGAINST and designed the constitution for, and why they fled England. Only it has not cropped back up, and people are becoming aware. During college I could careless, but now, since I'm out and involved, i care. Back then, my view of the world was limited to the beer I drank, the women I persued, and the courses I studied.

But then you back into the fact that...the women you persue have implications with the laws that are written to protect men or women, which ultimately effect parental rights, rape laws, custody battles, etc. Most guys operate in bubble, that is until she's pregnant, and you're wanting NOT to pay child support.

Moreover, whatever you're studying has implications with the wealth you build, the industry you're in, where the jobs are flowing to, and the laws governing that industry.

And as far as drinking goes, there's the laws by which you must adhere to with respect to drinking, being pulled over, breathalizers, self-defense, etc. Most guys don't come to KNOW of the various laws within their states or countries UNTIL they need to.

Fine, but that's like WANTING a parachute AFTER you've jumped, or trying to buy insurance after a serious illness has come over you. TOO LATE.

--------------------------------------

Taxes are necessary, but the REALITY is to be, the sole purpose of government, to PROTECT our rights, that's it. Not to be some RESORT, where they offer SIDE benies for a few additional bucks. Maybe the reality is at present, we can't turn the ship around of drastic overspending and taxation. However, if enough souls get educated, awakened, aware, and consciously care, WHILE going about their individual WEALTH building, a compromise can be had.

Though people feel that we pay enough in illegal taxes, even those COLLECTING the benies don't feel able to live. Ask any retiree if they enjoy their pharmaceutical drug payouts, or the new Medicare. Any society of this size will be a tough ship to steer. However, the first layer is...WE are the contributors. When billions, and trillions, of dollars float everywhere else without our consent, and people don't care, the wrecklessness continues.

Are you aware of the FREE aid payments we offer Israel, in return for their Friendship?

Or that we just off loaded tons of Nuclear technology to India, at the expense of you, the American tax payer?

We create the demons we end up trying to control and kill off, at our own expense, and I'm the one on here saying, HELLO, fundamentally and realistically taxes are illegal, and don't go for the services MOST people would select them to go to, and the best I get is "Well, you can't make an omlete without cracking a few eggs." ?



A-Unit

 

[NYtomb]

Are you aware of the FREE aid payments we offer Israel, in return for their Friendship?

Or that we just off loaded tons of Nuclear technology to India, at the expense of you, the American tax payer?

We create the demons we end up trying to control and kill off, at our own expense, and I'm the one on here saying, HELLO, fundamentally and realistically taxes are illegal, and don't go for the services MOST people would select them to go to, and the best I get is "Well, you can't make an omlete without cracking a few eggs." ?



A-Unit

In a world of **** sometimes you need to help out your allies at a personal cost for the betterment of the whole. Aiding both of those countries is in our best interest. Look at their neighbors, the history of the region, and then maybe it will become a bit more clear to you.

 

[A-Unit]

re:

I'd respond to that post, but then we're getting too political, and off course, so I'll digress and offer the same suggestion, READ the history of it, the taking of lands from Palestine, and the fact the aid payment subsidize much of the killing going on. Oh, and that the aid, per person amounts to what the US spends on its own citizens, and Israel has some of the highest percapita incomes in the world. There's an abundance of wealth there despite the infighting going on, so all's not as it seems.

But that's also where tax dollars go to.

To what end do my accusations harm anyone here?

I'd have thought hearing much of what people deem legal would in fact be BENEFICIAL, but apparently I was wrong, or am miscommunicating what I am trying to say. In any event, perhaps the truth is so ghastly and difficult to comprehend that it immediately results in an automatic abortion of whatever I've written.

Is it to discredit me, or just the information I provide?

A-Unit

 

[Create Reality]

I think it got too political when someone said "Taxes are Illegal"

 

[Nocturnal]

Man you Americans think you have it tough, just look at Australia or most of Europe - taxes are enormous, and tax brackets are very low (in some places, $50K is enough to get you in the highest tax bracket).

You can always come here

 

[diplomatic_lies]

You can always come here

No thanks. I prefer not getting shot every time I go to the supermarket, or sued because I bumped into another person by accident.

 

[Nocturnal]

No thanks. I prefer not getting shot every time I go to the supermarket, or sued because I bumped into another person by accident.

Then I guess maybe we do "have it so tough?"

 

[diplomatic_lies]

Then I guess maybe we do "have it so tough?"

Only because you guys made it so. The government doesn't encourage the worship of violence or criminals, people do.

Tax doesn't have many correlations with crime (many African countries have very low taxes). People do.

 

[Nocturnal]

Tax doesn't have many correlations with crime (many African countries have very low taxes). People do.

I find taxation to be a crime in itself.

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

Nothing is inherently good or evil at the source. It's the use of it that makes the end evil, or good.

If we live together, SOMEONE must subsidize firefighters, policemen, military protection (to an extent, not to the extent of EMPIRE building), some public works services, and that's it. However, as you can see, there's been a melding or blending of society into ONE uniform culture.

Some might think that right, but I personally think it wrong.

Taxes are just our "dues" to Caesar. Fine. But when military spending dwarfs education spending, when we send more in aid payments per individual to foreign countries than our own, when the spending is like drunken sailors pulling into port, AMERICANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO STAND UP, COMPLAIN, BYTCH, and CHANGE IT. That's right in the first lines of the Declaration of Independence, AND allowable by the Constitution.

It's like sheeple delude themselves that EVERYTHING is ALRIGHT. Happiness is a state of mind, not an external reality, HOWEVER, you can't deny the facts surrounding you, no matter how misinterpret them.

--------------------------------------

The fact we're super violent is misinformation, too, because that's all the mainstream media reports on. Fires, mayhem, murders, death, traffic, graft, kidnapping, terrorism, and war, sprinkled with a few bouts of happy stories. All in all, NOTHING of any use, because normally in America, anything of controversy is pulled off TV. Even if Kanye West's outspoken words against Bush were "tasteless" he has the freedom of speech to do so, the right to criticize the President, and yet, it was swept under the carpet like it never happened.

They all skirt the line, knowing if they cross it, repercussions will result.

Do your due dilligence on taxes. Legally minimize them now. Fight the good fight for the long-run to educate and enlighten people to this as just one the many illegalities confronting the American public. No doubt America CAN be the best country, if the people TREAT it as such and don't just GIVE up the responsibility to disinterested supposedly public servants getting boatloads of dough to do so. Yet, it's the PEOPLE who make it good or bad, not the GOV. The form will remain, if the underlying thought of the form does not change.



A-Unit

 

[B-Lemond]

That is WAY too much reading. Someone give me a short summary. Do I just stop paying taxes and I won't go to jail?

 

[Nocturnal]

Taxes can be minimized to zero. Virtually all government organizations, the ones you and I are paying for whether we like it or not, could have private alternatives. If the government shut down those organizations (it would have to be gradual of course), demand would bring the private ones into existence. The other government organizations, the ones that cannot be substituted by private alternatives, such as the mililtary (which currently spends orders of magnitude more money than it needs to), could be funded both by charities and other methods that would not leave the citizen obligated to give up their money to a government unwillingly.

It doesn't matter who you are, if you take my money against my will, you are violating my rights.

 

[NYtomb]

Taxes can be minimized to zero. Virtually all government organizations, the ones you and I are paying for whether we like it or not, could have private alternatives. If the government shut down those organizations (it would have to be gradual of course), demand would bring the private ones into existence. The other government organizations, the ones that cannot be substituted by private alternatives, such as the mililtary (which currently spends orders of magnitude more money than it needs to), could be funded both by charities and other methods that would not leave the citizen obligated to give up their money to a government unwillingly.

It doesn't matter who you are, if you take my money against my will, you are violating my rights.

Make every road private so it costs me $10 just to get out of my driveway? Provide no health care to the diseased so that they infect the rest of us? Go with minimal spending with the military so that when its time to use them they get stomped on by the enemy? When you become ruler of this fantasy world be sure to come back here and say hello.

 

[diplomatic_lies]

The other government organizations, the ones that cannot be substituted by private alternatives, such as the mililtary (which currently spends orders of magnitude more money than it needs to), could be funded both by charities and other methods that would not leave the citizen obligated to give up their money to a government unwillingly.

So we would have:

-Private mercenary armies
-Private road sections (you can't even go across town!)
-Private police force (well, at least "corporate wars" will become a reality)
-All private land (considering the population of the world, you will no longer be able to leave your property, because all the land surrounding your property is private)


As much as I dislike socialistic governments, I have to admit some form of regulation and public property is necessary. Unless you want to live in an anarchic, Wild West country.

 

[Nocturnal]

Make every road private so it costs me $10 just to get out of my driveway? Provide no health care to the diseased so that they infect the rest of us? Go with minimal spending with the military so that when its time to use them they get stomped on by the enemy? When you become ruler of this fantasy world be sure to come back here and say hello.

If it costs $10 to get out of your driveway, then it costs $10, but if the road is run by a private company then you can be confident that the $10 is less than you would be paying in taxes if it were government controlled. Do we really even have a health care system for people who can't afford it themselves? There are a lot of poor people who aren't getting much money from the government for health care, is our country that much more "diseased" than countries with socialized health care?

About the military, if you knew how the military spent its money, I don't think you would put it like that. I believe the the government's primary (and only) responsibility is protecting the rights of the citizens, so the military is certainly important. But nothing justifies the government taking the money of its citizens if they do not volunteer it. If it comes down to it, people will want protection so they will volunteer it. But the government cannot assume someone's intentions and then make decisions for them, their money is still their property, so the government cannot take it from them without violating their property rights. If it means leaving national defense in the hands of the citizens, leaving them to decide whether they are willing to pay for it, then it is their choice. If they don't want it, then they can't complain if something happens. But tell me, what moral absolute says that someone can be obligated to give their money away if they don't choose to give it?

So we would have:

-Private mercenary armies
-Private road sections (you can't even go across town!)
-Private police force (well, at least "corporate wars" will become a reality)
-All private land (considering the population of the world, you will no longer be able to leave your property, because all the land surrounding your property is private)


As much as I dislike socialistic governments, I have to admit some form of regulation and public property is necessary. Unless you want to live in an anarchic, Wild West country.

Privately owned roads would work just as well as the phone companies work. If phones did not exist, I could say, "if phone lines were privately owned, how could you ever call a customer of a different phone company than your own!?" All of the major companies know that it is in their best interest if their customers can talk to everyone, so they have devised a system where they allow their networks to connect to eachother in such a way that if half of the people are customers of one network, they can still talk to the customers on the other network. Roads would work the same way. If I owned a block of roads in my town, no one would use them if they did not have access to the other roads. And the owners of the other roads would be in the same situation, so we would come to an agreement where people could drive on all of the roads. Most likely, there would be an oligopoly and most of the roads in one area would be owned by one same company, making it easy for customers to drive throughout those areas.

Private police forces would be very feasible. They would be regulated by the government of course, but they would still operate privately. They would be no different than the public police forces except for the financial incentive, so they would perform better.

I forgot what it is called specifically, but legally, no one can prevent you from accessing your property, they have to give you a way to get to it. For example, I couldn't buy a rectangle of land around someone's house, and then prohibit them from crossing my property to get to it. There's a word to describe this, can anyone help me out? Anyway, I imagine that this would carry over to the road situation at least in some capacity.

I'm not saying there are a lot of details to work out, or that it would be an easy change to make, but I am saying that it is possible and it would be better.

I admit that this post is poorly written, I pulled an all-nighter to study for a test so I'm a little out of it. I'll try to explain myself better when I can think clearly again.

 

[NYtomb]

If it costs $10 to get out of your driveway, then it costs $10, but if the road is run by a private company then you can be confident that the $10 is less than you would be paying in taxes if it were government controlled. Do we really even have a health care system for people who can't afford it themselves?

To an extent.

There are a lot of poor people who aren't getting much money from the government for health care, is our country that much more "diseased" than countries with socialized health care?

Without the various agencies under the office of Health and Human Services (Center for Disease Control (CDC) pops into my mind as one of the most important) we would have greater health related problems throughout this country.

About the military, if you knew how the military spent its money, I don't think you would put it like that.

You are 19 and as far as I know you arent in the mil, so how would you know? I am sure I have a better grasp on how the Mil spends money than you do since I was part of the green machine for a few years.

I believe the the government's primary (and only) responsibility is protecting the rights of the citizens, so the military is certainly important. But nothing justifies the government taking the money of its citizens if they do not volunteer it. If it comes down to it, people will want protection so they will volunteer it.

Are you going to volunteer 2 million dollars for an Abrams tank to protect your neighborhood? How about 600,000 to purchase an armored Hummer and fully equip it? I have no idea what a fighter jet costs but millions of dollars for them as well. Get real, no one has that kind of money to spend on it and even if neighborhoods pooled their money no way in hell would a citizen defense force match the equipment and training of any professional military. If the Queen of England wanted to invade us her majesties armed forces would roll through here with minimal resistance and reclaim what they lost over 225 years ago.

But the government cannot assume someone's intentions and then make decisions for them, their money is still their property, so the government cannot take it from them without violating their property rights. If it means leaving national defense in the hands of the citizens, leaving them to decide whether they are willing to pay for it, then it is their choice. If they don't want it, then they can't complain if something happens. But tell me, what moral absolute says that someone can be obligated to give their money away if they don't choose to give it?

Sometimes you need a big brother to look out for you. Our own greed would cause our demise (which is happening now with outsourcing to China but thats a whole other topic for discussion). There is no moral absolute that says you have to give your money away but there is also no law saying you have to live in the states. If you dont want to play by the rules put in place here in the USA, then go live somewhere else. No hard feelings. I am in no way a fan of giving my money away in the form of taxes but it is a necessary evil. I plan on moving out of the US when I am of retirement age to somewhere in South America. Until then I will fork over a portion of my income to the State and Federal government to use as they see fit.

 

[Bible_Belt]

There's a word to describe this, can anyone help me out?

The word you are looking for is "easement." The specific scenario you discussed, where someone buys up all the surrounding land, would live the newly isolated landowner an "easement by necessity" that could be used to get access to the nearest road.