Pages: 1 [2] 3 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Abolition of INCOME TAX!!!!!! (Read 5025 times)
|
|
Stan
|
All good points Karl. It's been a while since I've visited fairtax.org. I'll re-visit and read up. And of course, only a fool wouldn't report all of their income. If there was just a way I could keep my expenses under control, I could show more profit though.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it. -- Thomas Jefferson Check out FreeStateAds, a classified ads service for Porcupines! http://www.freestateads.com/ads |
|
|
|
Matt Nellans
|
I support abolishing the IRS and the national sales tax on the grounds of freedom. I dont care if it would tank the economy. It is about freedom and nothing else. The irs and the income tax is slavery pure and simple. I have no compassion for an irs worker or tax accoutants (im an accoutning grad student by the way). These people are like the crews on slave ships. With the consumption tax the irs cannot seize the property of a citizen without cause and without a court order. No more of guilty until proven innocent in tax court. no more withholding. The government needs money for certain things....no argument there. But at least with a consumptiont tax, we essentially choose the level of our participation.
In my view it is the method of raising revenue that is most consistent with the rights of the individual.
The IRS can goto hell and rot for all eternity where it belongs.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds..
|
|
|
|
LeopardPM
|
Stan - ROFLMAO! All good points Karl. It's been a while since I've visited fairtax.org. I'll re-visit and read up.
And of course, only a fool wouldn't report all of their income. If there was just a way I could keep my expenses under control, I could show more profit though. I have the same problem, somehow my expenses come very close to my income, yet, somehow, I am able to live at a relatively high standard of living... lol Dearest Matt: I support abolishing the IRS and the national sales tax on the grounds of freedom. I dont care if it would tank the economy. It is about freedom and nothing else. The irs and the income tax is slavery pure and simple. I have no compassion for an irs worker or tax accoutants (im an accoutning grad student by the way). These people are like the crews on slave ships. With the consumption tax the irs cannot seize the property of a citizen without cause and without a court order. No more of guilty until proven innocent in tax court. no more withholding. The government needs money for certain things....no argument there. But at least with a consumptiont tax, we essentially choose the level of our participation.
In my view it is the method of raising revenue that is most consistent with the rights of the individual.
The IRS can goto hell and rot for all eternity where it belongs. I would advise you to not take such a dogmatic approach, although I agree with you - you do need to do some research: I dont care if it would tank the economy. - well, actually taxes are a restraint on our economy, removing them would propell us into unbelievable prosperity. The government needs money for certain things....no argument there. - ACK! Don't you dare marginalize yourself in this manner! lets do an experiment... you tell me three things that government needs money for, I will (try to) show you how we don't need it at all and you still probably have some indoctrinated statism to deal with in your psyche... With the consumption tax the irs cannot seize the property of a citizen without cause and without a court order. - the government will ALWAYS resort to force in some manner to achieve its objectives/needs. Giving it a different method to tax will just alter the form it decides to take in applying its force. (im an accoutning grad student by the way) - Congrats! You have a good career in front of you! Have you taken many economics classes? How do/did you like them? I would be interested in what theories were taught (kenysian<sp>, Austrian, etc)... See you in the Free State! michael |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
nothing to say...
|
|
|
|
jhfenton
|
ACK! Don't you dare marginalize yourself in this manner! lets do an experiment... you tell me three things that government needs money for, I will (try to) show you how we don't need it at all and you still probably have some indoctrinated statism to deal with in your psyche...
We can't allow any residual "indoctrinated statism" in our psyches, can we?  Just to play devil's advocate: Three things for which the federal government legitimately needs at least a little money (see the U.S. Constitution): 1. U.S. Military 2. Federal Judiciary salaries and expenses 3. Presidential Salary and other Executive branch expenses 4. Legislative branch expenses -- salaries optional It is at least appropriate to provide the President, Congress, and Supreme Court justices with light, heat, and AC so they can get their little bit of work done. And even though they are constitutionally appropriate federal powers, I left out providing for a postal service and the enforcement of patents and trademarks, because those can appropriately be privatized. I'm not ready to privatize the U.S. military yet.  Now does any of that reflect any residual indoctrinated statism? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Nellans
|
I agree with the prior list. Certain duties exist for the federal government according to our constitution.
The three main duties are national defense, courts/law enforcement and operations of the 3 branches of government. I think a solid argument can made that the cost of all three has skyrocketed to a point of absurdity.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds..
|
|
|
|
LeopardPM
|
you like my new term, eh? LOL
no, none of that has residual statism imho
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
nothing to say...
|
|
|
|
maestro
|
I have been unsatisfied with any argument for removing roads as a common property (although not necessarily maintained properties. This is due to the necessity for right of easement and access to your own property. This has been recognized in British Common Law for hundreds of years, for good reason. I don't think the state should have a monopoly in roadbuilding, nor necessarily should they be able to use eminent domain to build their roads, but I think there is a strong personal interest for all of us to have commonly held roads.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RhythmStar
|
I have been unsatisfied with any argument for removing roads as a common property (although not necessarily maintained properties. This is due to the necessity for right of easement and access to your own property. This has been recognized in British Common Law for hundreds of years, for good reason. I don't think the state should have a monopoly in roadbuilding, nor necessarily should they be able to use eminent domain to build their roads, but I think there is a strong personal interest for all of us to have commonly held roads.
Agreed. Actually, here in SoCal, the best roads are The Toll Roads, which are 100% privately funded, yet still owned by the public. I think we can improve on this model by allowing all of the potential profit-generating activities (finance, construction, maintenance and management) to go to private firms, with only the land titles remaining with the State. This prohibits the many abuses of public funding, eliminates the wealth redistribution of road taxes, yet preserves the public's interest in rights of way and Equal Protection while in-transit. RS |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House
|
|
|
|
LeopardPM
|
Rhythm,
That could indeed be a very workable way to improving roads. The only slippery slope I see about any sort of forced 'public' ownership or right to use is that the power to regulate the use is still left up to the 'government' and not the private owners. I understand you see this as a good thing, but, I guess I am becoming a bit overzealous and paranoid when it comes to the government. I don't believe that the current road system is the 'best' way to effect efficient transportation. I don't think it is the cheapest either. Unfortunately, we do indeed have the system of highways in place across the country and the only real way to know if it is the 'best' would be to have private industry a chance to compete on and even footing. If there was another USA somewhere which had the exact same starting circumstances as we did back after the Revolution, but the other USA choose to stick to the constitution and libertarian principles - only then could we really compare the transportation systems of the two. People are usually unable to envision the 'what if we had done something different instead...' and seem happy pointing at the status quo and using its existance and properties when comparing to an alternative - "You want 30 different highway systems criss-crossing our country, thats insane!", "Look how well our trucking industry is able to move goods about the country! (compared to what I ask)", etc etc... Perhaps if we didn't have the government forcing the highways down our collect gullets we would have something totally unforeseen, maybe a method for transporting goods over vast distances without the corresponding growth of carbon-monoxide and various other pollutants. Perhaps we would have LESS asphalt carpeting our cities and countrysides, taking up valuable space and being and endless source of needed improvements and maintainence.
My main question is: If you feel that government generally (I say always) does things inefficiently at in violation of basic rights supposedly enjoyed in this country, and you advocate getting the government out of schools, drugs, etc - then why do you accept that the highway system is the end-all-be-all?
No, I don't know what a different system would be like, and I don't really have to - the old 'where there is a will, there is a way' and the 'invisible hand' of the market have been amazing instruments of achievement and have promoted the general societal welfare more than any or all of the governments attempts to do so.
Yes, these particular beliefs of mine do border on fanatical and reek of almost a religious type 'faith' - but I would have plenty of proof to back up these theories also, more so then any religion, I think... LOL
michael
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
nothing to say...
|
|
|
|
maestro
|
While that argument makes sense with regard to the large interstate systems, it does not answer the problem of mobility in the local neighborhood. The necessity of easement and right of passage is why we need common roadways.
Personally I still think interstate highways are probably the best bet (until we figure out a cheap skycar), but I bet the free market would have taken care of that if it had been given time. As I understand it, the Interstate system was also put together for military transportation purposes as well, though, which would put it firmly on constitutional grounds.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
LeopardPM
|
I guess I don't exactly see the need for ight of passage laws.
Neighborhood: owns its roads into and out of the area, it is 'common, but only to them and their guests. There is no need for anyopne else to have 'right of passage'.
Road that connects multiple neighborhoods to business/industrial/airline/rail/etc facilities....
It is in both the businesses AND in the neighborhoods (residents) to have this access - this could be private and there is no need for others to have right of way.
intra-city roads - again, in everyones general interest.
Usually I have seen the 'right of way' idea used as a way to try to defeat the "person A hates person B, buys up all property surrounding person B, person A cannot obtain food etc because he cannot cross person A's private property without trespassing and so starves." - I wouldn't live in an area without some sort of deed restrictions protecting against this with 'right of way' - no need for a government to pass some supreme judgement which affects property greatly.
michael
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
nothing to say...
|
|
|
Zack Bass
Guest
|
Usually I have seen the 'right of way' idea used as a way to try to defeat the "person A hates person B, buys up all property surrounding person B, person A cannot obtain food etc because he cannot cross person A's private property without trespassing and so starves." - I wouldn't live in an area without some sort of deed restrictions protecting against this with 'right of way' - no need for a government to pass some supreme judgement which affects property greatly.
How long do you think is a proper amount of Time for a Deed Restriction to apply? Infinite? Life of the original Restrictor? Remember, once a Restriction is added, it cannot be taken off until the Time has passed... they are cumulative. If your answer is "infinite" then someone can in effect destroy his property for all time by adding an unlivable Restriction - for example, the Sons of Light can require that everyone setting foot on the property first undergo castration or clitoridectomy... then they all commit suicide. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
LeopardPM
|
Zack, you have asked about this before, and, I think you even answered it with a couple of suggestions.
I guess my own idea is that deed restrictions have a 'value' (positive or negative) which affect the property's worth. Once a property becomes 'worthless' it will be abandoned. I am sure there will be legal definitions created to deal with abandoned property in general but I would say mabye 5 to 10 years or perhaps the lifetime of the current owner until said property was returned to its 'natural' state with no ownership or restrictions. A property could also be abandoned directly but with certain restrictions to make sure that the owner is not abandoning the property just to change its restrictions and will regain ownership in the future.
I am not really sure at the moment - too tired... will think some more and respond better tomorrow
michae;
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
nothing to say...
|
|
|
Zack Bass
Guest
|
Zack, you have asked about this before, and, I think you even answered it with a couple of suggestions.
... I would say mabye 5 to 10 years or perhaps the lifetime of the current owner until said property was returned to its 'natural' state with no ownership or restrictions.
The reason I bring it up again now is, your "right-of-way" depends on that Deed Restriction. When it expires you are back to possible starvation. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zack Bass
Guest
|
I guess my own idea is that deed restrictions have a 'value' (positive or negative) which affect the property's worth.
ALL Deed Restrictions lessen the value of the Restricted property. They may enhance the value of adjacent property, in the eyes of some people. You want your neighbors Restricted; you don't want to be Restricted yourself if it can be avoided. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
