Posted on 03/18/2010 11:00:23 AM PDT by purpleporter
Enough is enough! If these CRAZIES in the majority can DEEM a BILL passed, we should just DEEM our taxes paid.
You are correct about that, but only in relatively small numbers; if a large portion of the population were to do such a protest then the IRS simply would not have the manpower to handle it.
How large of a proportion is required to do so is the question. Certainly if 80% of people were to, or even 60%... 50% would be too much for them to handle...
The problem I have with such a “tax protest” is that the government has ALREADY taxed you, before you were paid. (That’s the reason that you file a “tax-return,” so that “the government can return what they over-taxed you”...)
This has the effect of driving the proportion of “tax protesters” needed up, because they will still have some base-funding.
>> Taxes are bullsh1t anyway, as former Federal Reserve Chairman have admitted. When you have fiat money and fractional lending/fractional currency, when the money you make out of thin air is not based on anything of intrisic wealth,
This is the kind of tax protester stuff that will very literally get your life ruined by the IRS. I’d avoid this stuff like the plague.
SnakeDoc
Over the years I've had a couple of very minor disputes with the IRS too and I can tell you it is anything but pleasant.
So true!
You know if this death-Care legislation goes through, the gov’t will control 50% of the economy.
IF they pass "Crap And Tax", they will control 70% of the economy.
The private sector/capitalism is dying a rather quick, SICK death.
AND if they grant Amnesty...
We are the DIVIDED states of Mexico!!
They’ll crush the first filers so quickly and horribly that the remainder will clamor to fix their returns. The purpose of the IRSs tax protester response is to scare people into avoiding such protests.
For what its worth, there are two types of tax protesters — (1) protesting the tax itself, and (2) using the non-payment of taxes to protest some other government problem (like the Vietnam War or something or other).
Both will get you slammed VERY hard ... but the first category is usually worse than the second. I think Noam Chomsky had his wages and bank account levied for quite a while due to a Vietnam tax protest.
SnakeDoc
I’m just saying what former Federal Reserve chairman have said.
Taxes are just punitive. Every time the government wants people to stop doing ‘x’ they raise taxes on that behavior. It can’t be punitive in one area and not another.
You cannot tax yourself into prosperity. Otherwise the communist and socialist countries would be the richest in the world.
And friend, telling you the truth ain’t tax protesting. I’m not saying don’t pay. I’m saying taxes are bullsh1t, in a country with our monetary system and policies. and they are. It is completely true.
People that have taken your statements to the point where they don’t pay have literally had their lives ruined. I have seen it happen. Someone will file a “Zero” tax return (with zeroes in all the blanks) and write “under protest” or some nonsense in the signature block ... and the immediate $5,000 fine will be the least of their worries. Tax practicioners that sell this stuff or make these arguments are typically disbarred and prosecuted.
It really doesn’t matter who has said it. Tax Courts and the Supreme Court have ruled this stuff frivolous, and the IRS will cook your goose if you get involved in it ... I guarantee it.
SnakeDoc
I deem I paid my deemed taxes!.....
>They’ll crush the first filers so quickly and horribly that the remainder will clamor to fix their returns. The purpose of the IRSs tax protester response is to scare people into avoiding such protests.
I wholeheartedly agree that is the purpose of the IRS doing so; still, that doesn’t mean that they would have the resources to handle it if, say, a whole third of the nation were to basically write “F—— Y—” on their returns and file them. (300Mil * 1/3 = 100Mil) The sheer numbers involved would mean that, basically, they didn’t have control of the situation.
>For what its worth, there are two types of tax protesters — (1) protesting the tax itself, and (2) using the non-payment of taxes to protest some other government problem (like the Vietnam War or something or other).
>
>Both will get you slammed VERY hard ... but the first category is usually worse than the second. I think Noam Chomsky had his wages and bank account levied for quite a while due to a Vietnam tax protest.
That’s kinda messed up. One would think that the 1st Amendment would include the the right to speak about _why_ you believe a tax to be unjust, AS WELL as to bring the issue up for discussion/revision/redress.
>> I wholeheartedly agree that is the purpose of the IRS doing so; still, that doesn’t mean that they would have the resources to handle it if, say, a whole third of the nation were to basically write “F—— Y—” on their returns and file them. (300Mil * 1/3 = 100Mil) The sheer numbers involved would mean that, basically, they didn’t have control of the situation.
That’s not going to matter much if you’re one of the ones they do get to. There is always a point at which anarchy reigns ... but the numbers would have to be so substantial that the number actually feeling consequences is insignificant. I see no possibility of that happening.
>> That’s kinda messed up. One would think that the 1st Amendment would include the the right to speak about _why_ you believe a tax to be unjust, AS WELL as to bring the issue up for discussion/revision/redress.
With most of this stuff, the issue has been brought up and resolved a hundred times over (by Court after Court) — people were/are simply ignoring the resolution and demanding that they re-resolve the same issue over-and-over. Part of the purpose of some of these protester techniques was to tie up the resources of the IRS in re-litigating the same stuff even after a final ruling was given.
The First Amendment allows you to SAY whatever you want, but it doesn’t allow you to file a frivolous tax return. At this point, it isn’t about the content of the arguments — those protesting the legality tax itself are just wrong (the Supreme Court has said as much), and tax law does not allow you to withhold payment based on policy disagreement.
It is a very costly form of “civil disobedience”, and people that engage in it should know the consequences before mindlessly winging off a frivolous tax return.
SnakeDoc
AND if they grant Amnesty...
We are the DIVIDED states of Mexico!!
~~~
Not “if” but “When”,,,
This hinges on O’Bammy’s DeathCare,,,
Sooner or later they will jam this krap through,,,
The best thing we can do is to have whatever we will need
to just stay in our homes for 3-4 months,,,
No work No taxes,,,
Starve the Beast...
How can that pass constututional muster?If they can make things up as they go,when we kick their @sses out we can just repeal it all and “deem” the repeal done.
>The First Amendment allows you to SAY whatever you want, but it doesn’t allow you to file a frivolous tax return.
Isn’t that what you said about the guy protesting the Vietnam war tax though? Or did he file a frivolous tax-return?
>At this point, it isn’t about the content of the arguments — those protesting the legality tax itself are just wrong (the Supreme Court has said as much), and tax law does not allow you to withhold payment based on policy disagreement.
Except that now that this bill is the mandatory purchase of insurance with an attendant tax for non-compliance. {So, now taxes are fundamentally changed.} The Amish, for example, are religiously against insurance; the Jehovah’s Witnesses are religiously prohibited from blood transfusions. And while the ‘secretary’ can grant some exemption based on religion for some time determined by the secretary this does not negate the face that the [possibility of] forcing people to pay and/or receive services contrary to one’s religion IS a law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (And requiring them to support things their religion forbids.)
>It is a very costly form of “civil disobedience”, and people that engage in it should know the consequences before mindlessly winging off a frivolous tax return.
Indeed. I’m not disagreeing with you; in fact, like I already pointed out, the tax-return is the wrong place to be attacking if you’re against this sort of taxes. (Personally I’m against the progressive income tax and its current 40K pages... I’d much rather a flat-rate, applies to everyone, no exemptions income [exclusive-or sales] tax.)
>> Isn’t that what you said about the guy protesting the Vietnam war tax though? Or did he file a frivolous tax-return?
As I understand it, he filed a return with a letter about why he refused to pay. I don’t think his return was frivolous, which is why they only seized his wages and checking account to pay the debt rather than going to the mat on the “frivolous” thing.
SnakeDoc
And like I said, I’m not saying to not file. I don’t know where you got that. I am just expressing my sympatico with the comments I initially replied to. Why you are so tightly wound on this that you can’t realize I’m not suggesting to do this, please, go over what I said one more time, without reading anything into it.
Not sure where you gathered that I’m tightly wound. I honestly couldn’t care less if you file or not.
Just making conversation, chief.
SnakeDoc
I will refuse to pay on the grounds that my taxes go to the salaries of immigration officers and all I see on every corner is illegal immigrants. If a plummer comes to my house and I pay him then I expect my faucet not to drip.
I just bought a lottery ticket.
I deem it a winner.
Party’s at 7:00.
I should hope so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.