Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

America: Freedom to Facism

2»

Posts

  • GorakGorak Registered User
    edited November 2006
    @entropykid:

    I'm not trying to take the piss here, but would you be willing to refuse to pay income tax to see what happens?

    That documentary gives you names of former tax officers who claim to be able to back you up.

  • jclastjclast Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Isn't that you don't have to file if you don't owe but the IRS reserves the right to audit you in case you were wrong?

    steam_sig.png
  • GorakGorak Registered User
    edited November 2006
    jclast wrote:
    Isn't that you don't have to file if you don't owe but the IRS reserves the right to audit you in case you were wrong?

    The film is more about whether or not you owe in the first place.

  • peterdevorepeterdevore Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Gorak wrote:
    jclast wrote:
    Isn't that you don't have to file if you don't owe but the IRS reserves the right to audit you in case you were wrong?

    The film is more about whether or not you owe in the first place.

    You gotta agree their argument is a bit wonky, with the premise that the word 'income' as used in the 16th amendment actually means 'profits from corporate activity'. They say that invalidates the use of the 16th for validating income tax as we know it, as a tax on money exchanged for services rendered as an individual.

    I don't think they really say where they got that definition for 'income', but they do mention several supreme court cases that ruled "the 16th amendment does not rule for any new taxes" or somesuch, but I don't want to take that at face value. Also, that might be a clever excerpt, from some clarification that the 16th actually doesn't rule for any new taxes, but merely made ruling for new taxes possible.

    Also, the whole tax thing in the documentary is just a ruse to get the viewer sceptical about current practice and promoting the importance of the constitution. You'd think they would again use the constitution for invalidating practices put forth in the second part (Patriot act etc.), but instead they only use very clever quotes and a lot of fearmongering.

    Especially the part where the woman got tazered for having an outdated liscensce registration (probably just for resisting arrest). And the classic RealID, 'mark of the beast' implication

  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Were the court opinions citing the no tax thing majority opinions on the case or from the dissenting justices?

    sig-2699.jpg Iosif is friend. Come, visit friend.
  • entropykidentropykid Registered User
    edited November 2006
    Gorak wrote:
    @entropykid:

    I'm not trying to take the piss here, but would you be willing to refuse to pay income tax to see what happens?

    That documentary gives you names of former tax officers who claim to be able to back you up.

    Hell no.

    The only thing I would refuse is RFID chips, a national ID card and
    being put in a draft.

    I appreciate any documentary taking it to the new world order and war profiteering/globalization world and that's why I reccommend this documentary. I wish the documentary had focused more on the corrupt federal reserve system and the intentional decline of the dollar.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    The whole 'taxes are illegal' thing is absurd.

    Even if they were, would you really want taxes removed? True it seems like a nice idea to have more cash immediately, but consider the services you would lose. Personally I quite like having a police force to protect me, and a fire service, and maintained roads etc.

    Is this argument perhaps only referring to federal tax? And implying that all taxes should be raised and spent by the individual state, with the Federal government appealing to them for money to run affairs which are truly national?

    I can perhaps see a vague point in that, but since State Officials are part of the elected federal government (Senators n stuff) surely the people making the decisions about taxes would still be the same people. So youd still see the same overall tax burden, albeit perhaps more unevenly distributed accross the USA.

    I just dont quite see the point in the argument, surely only the craziest of kooks can truly want a tax free society and since the difference between federal tax and state tax is in the end semantics does this really matter either?

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • BasarBasar Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I haven't watched the video but I would assume the argument is the taxation of individual citizens' incomes. Businesses continue to pay taxes.

    I don't know, I am not against taxation but the current system is ridiculous.

    1. State income tax
    2. Federal income tax (which is bullcrap because if you state income tax is low, you pay higher federal tax and vice versa.)
    3. Sales tax
    4. Automobile tax (which invalidates the having maintaned roads argument because if they charge you income tax for the nice roads we have, why charge an extra automobile tax?)
    5. Residential tax (if you own)
    6. etc.

    I am just glad I don't have to pay income tax here in the US... a benefit of working for an international organization.

    confused.
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    tbloxham wrote:
    The whole 'taxes are illegal' thing is absurd.

    Even if they were, would you really want taxes removed? True it seems like a nice idea to have more cash immediately, but consider the services you would lose. Personally I quite like having a police force to protect me, and a fire service, and maintained roads etc.

    Is this argument perhaps only referring to federal tax? And implying that all taxes should be raised and spent by the individual state, with the Federal government appealing to them for money to run affairs which are truly national?

    I can perhaps see a vague point in that, but since State Officials are part of the elected federal government (Senators n stuff) surely the people making the decisions about taxes would still be the same people. So youd still see the same overall tax burden, albeit perhaps more unevenly distributed accross the USA.

    I just dont quite see the point in the argument, surely only the craziest of kooks can truly want a tax free society and since the difference between federal tax and state tax is in the end semantics does this really matter either?

    Tax free societies are certainly workable. You just need to have your personal army also perform policing and road maintainance for your city.

2»
Sign In or Register to comment.