The federal government taxes you because it needs (an absurd ammount of) money (to pay for all the incompetence of it's budgeting).
The three main things the federal goverment needs money for are a) stupid uncessary things it should not be doing (ie iraq) b) paying the interest on its debt to the federal reserve. c) flawed socialism programs (that exaceberate the problem rather than fix and continue balooning in the ammount of money required to be spent on them)
All of these points were nil 100 years ago and to a degree accounted for a more functioning/funded government operating on a fraction of the revenue our beuracracy currently receives.
Roads for instance are payed for by a tax on gasoline that you pay without realizing.
B is the main problem, and the specific part of the tax code appropiated to deal with it the income tax.
This is bad because the income tax basically screws the poor working force and doesnt affect the middle class or above. More importantly in terms of legal tax theory specifically taxing someones income rater than spending or property is a big distinction that greatly violates personal soverignty. Because of all this, no members of congress ever actually approved the income tax (aka its political SUICIDE) and there isnt a law on the books that allows the personal income tax.
So basically I disagree with your statement since A) it is not adressing the specific income tax and assuming by generalizition all taxes are the same. B) the thing it's appropriated for is basically to pay extortion from the federal government for a greedy corporation. To put it in a more understandable analogy, how would you feel if 15% of your paycheck (I'm wagering you make under 15 dolars an hour) was given to haliburton so they could continue doing their shitty projects in Iraq that never actually do anything besides raise their stock? C) It it technically illegal. There is no law on the books allowing it, and the rules of the constitution serving as the framework saying "you need a law to exist to be taxed."
The whole subject is rather complicated and cannot be sufficiently explained in a 30 minute interview. The purpose of interviews with authors is to give you an idea of a subject, the books gives you the technicalities.
your other post is way longer. Thats gonna be hard to respond too : /
I don't have time to respond to this all day. However, I'm amused at
"It it technically illegal. There is no law on the books allowing it, and the rules of the constitution serving as the framework saying "you need a law to exist to be taxed."
Do you know your constitution? Have you bothered to see what the 16th amendment is?
Again, where are you getting your facts? From this video?
Thanks for ignoring every point I raised and just giving a blanketing "no you're stupid I'm right" statement to counter it.
but to answer your question, I've been studying this subject for about 2 years. Most people can't be fucked to read anything (or be able to understand it) so they need it hand fed a video detailing the basic thesis. That's why I endorse this video, I don't really think there's another realistic way to overcome the masses ignorance on this subject.
This isn't a matter of 'right' or 'wrong' it's political theory, there's no plausible way to prove one person right compared to another. It's unfair, however, for you to claim that the facts that I'm using to back up my arguments are false.
I'm not attacking your views; I'm distressed by the fact that Russo is choosing to convey his information the way that he is.
I am a register Libertarian.
Aaron Russo is major libertarian politician.
I've started to follow politics rather closely, and now play an active role in the libertarian party in the community that I live in. My father was an organizer for the Libertarian party.
Aaron Russo is not just complaining about Income taxes. He wants to abolish and remove power from the IRS, and phase out taxation completely. The government is not 'hiding' it's motives. You can find every law on income tax if you look. There are many of them, and some of them are contradictory, but that can be attributed to the age of the laws, and the difficult of removing a law once it's been passed.
Perhaps they fail to mention this in the interview, because they know that it's going to put people off. That doesn't bother me that much, because I know that's a common practice in most, if not all journalism.
As far as addressing your 'points' go.
A) All taxes are not the same. However, some people can't deal with taxes being raised and spend far too much time crying about it. Gasoline taxes don't pay for road systems, because it's the Crude Oil that's being shipped and processed for American consumption to the united states, this process is very expensive, and is only becoming more expensive as more litigation is put in place to make Oil laws more stringent. In order to combat these rising costs, which would make oil significantly more expensive for the consumer, the federal government is more or less eating a large percentage of the costs of shipping, purchasing and processing oil. The US benefits from providing these subsidies by being the sole customer for most of these oil companies, guaranteeing that the United States has access to what it needs, first and foremost, energy. If you think that Taxes can completely cover federal costs, than you don't understand the way the free market system works.
B) Yes. They are paying greedy corporations lots of money. What's your point? This is the beauty of the free market. If you're smarter or wealthier than someone else, you can exploit them and use them to put yourself higher up on the food chain.
C) I've already addressed this, read the 16th amendment to the constitution. I'm not trying to say that it might be a good or bad law, it's simply *wrong* to try and say something's illegal when it's clearly not. Also, income tax is not something that's simply a federal matter. States can choose to lower or raise the income taxes internally, and pass laws accordingly.
in refereence to B) the point is that they, being the goverenment, are paying the extortion by imposing taxes. specifically: by imposing the individual income tax.
i mean, you're right that taxes are useful and necessary to pay expenses. but if the federal reserve were abolished, income taxes could be used to pay off the US debt, instead of prolonging the inevitable.
and i just remembered a Colbert Report episode that said that if everyone paid their income taxes, the debt would be gone, and we'd have a 100 billion surplus.
The three main things the federal goverment needs money for are
a) stupid uncessary things it should not be doing (ie iraq)
b) paying the interest on its debt to the federal reserve.
c) flawed socialism programs (that exaceberate the problem rather than fix and continue balooning in the ammount of money required to be spent on them)
All of these points were nil 100 years ago and to a degree accounted for a more functioning/funded government operating on a fraction of the revenue our beuracracy currently receives.
Roads for instance are payed for by a tax on gasoline that you pay without realizing.
B is the main problem, and the specific part of the tax code appropiated to deal with it the income tax.
This is bad because the income tax basically screws the poor working force and doesnt affect the middle class or above. More importantly in terms of legal tax theory specifically taxing someones income rater than spending or property is a big distinction that greatly violates personal soverignty.
Because of all this, no members of congress ever actually approved the income tax (aka its political SUICIDE) and there isnt a law on the books that allows the personal income tax.
So basically
I disagree with your statement since
A) it is not adressing the specific income tax and assuming by generalizition all taxes are the same.
B) the thing it's appropriated for is basically to pay extortion from the federal government for a greedy corporation. To put it in a more understandable analogy, how would you feel if 15% of your paycheck (I'm wagering you make under 15 dolars an hour) was given to haliburton so they could continue doing their shitty projects in Iraq that never actually do anything besides raise their stock?
C) It it technically illegal. There is no law on the books allowing it, and the rules of the constitution serving as the framework saying "you need a law to exist to be taxed."
The whole subject is rather complicated and cannot be sufficiently explained in a 30 minute interview. The purpose of interviews with authors is to give you an idea of a subject, the books gives you the technicalities.
your other post is way longer. Thats gonna be hard to respond too : /
Reply
"It it technically illegal. There is no law on the books allowing it, and the rules of the constitution serving as the framework saying "you need a law to exist to be taxed."
Do you know your constitution? Have you bothered to see what the 16th amendment is?
Again, where are you getting your facts? From this video?
Reply
but to answer your question, I've been studying this subject for about 2 years. Most people can't be fucked to read anything (or be able to understand it) so they need it hand fed a video detailing the basic thesis. That's why I endorse this video, I don't really think there's another realistic way to overcome the masses ignorance on this subject.
Reply
This isn't a matter of 'right' or 'wrong' it's political theory, there's no plausible way to prove one person right compared to another. It's unfair, however, for you to claim that the facts that I'm using to back up my arguments are false.
I'm not attacking your views; I'm distressed by the fact that Russo is choosing to convey his information the way that he is.
I am a register Libertarian.
Aaron Russo is major libertarian politician.
I've started to follow politics rather closely, and now play an active role in the libertarian party in the community that I live in. My father was an organizer for the Libertarian party.
Aaron Russo is not just complaining about Income taxes. He wants to abolish and remove power from the IRS, and phase out taxation completely. The government is not 'hiding' it's motives. You can find every law on income tax if you look. There are many of them, and some of them are contradictory, but that can be attributed to the age of the laws, and the difficult of removing a law once it's been passed.
Perhaps they fail to mention this in the interview, because they know that it's going to put people off. That doesn't bother me that much, because I know that's a common practice in most, if not all journalism.
As far as addressing your 'points' go.
A) All taxes are not the same. However, some people can't deal with taxes being raised and spend far too much time crying about it. Gasoline taxes don't pay for road systems, because it's the Crude Oil that's being shipped and processed for American consumption to the united states, this process is very expensive, and is only becoming more expensive as more litigation is put in place to make Oil laws more stringent. In order to combat these rising costs, which would make oil significantly more expensive for the consumer, the federal government is more or less eating a large percentage of the costs of shipping, purchasing and processing oil. The US benefits from providing these subsidies by being the sole customer for most of these oil companies, guaranteeing that the United States has access to what it needs, first and foremost, energy. If you think that Taxes can completely cover federal costs, than you don't understand the way the free market system works.
B) Yes. They are paying greedy corporations lots of money. What's your point? This is the beauty of the free market. If you're smarter or wealthier than someone else, you can exploit them and use them to put yourself higher up on the food chain.
C) I've already addressed this, read the 16th amendment to the constitution. I'm not trying to say that it might be a good or bad law, it's simply *wrong* to try and say something's illegal when it's clearly not. Also, income tax is not something that's simply a federal matter. States can choose to lower or raise the income taxes internally, and pass laws accordingly.
Reply
16th amendment lawsuit in Oklahoma, including interview.
in refereence to B)
the point is that they, being the goverenment, are paying the extortion by imposing taxes. specifically: by imposing the individual income tax.
i mean, you're right that taxes are useful and necessary to pay expenses. but if the federal reserve were abolished, income taxes could be used to pay off the US debt, instead of prolonging the inevitable.
Reply
The debt would be paid off if the current administration wasn't so fisicaly inept and concerned with filling its own pockets.
Reply
and i just remembered a Colbert Report episode that said that if everyone paid their income taxes, the debt would be gone, and we'd have a 100 billion surplus.
Reply
Leave a comment