Is Progressive Taxation Discrimination

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ramo


Income taxes aren't voluntary. Not to say that they're necessarily wrong, but saying that they are voluntary is silly. Using reasoning like that is like saying, "Concentration camps are voluntary. If you don't want to go to a concentration camp, leave Germany."

except America is an open country and you can leave any time you want... now if there were gestapo thugs forcing you to work and taking your money and you couldn't escape... then income taxes would be stealing.

none of this libertarian bs floats...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sava
except America is an open country and you can leave any time you want... now if there were gestapo thugs forcing you to work and taking your money and you couldn't escape... then income taxes would be stealing.

none of this libertarian bs floats...

Just because some one has a choice doesn't mean that they aren't being coerced. There is a cost involved with leaving the country. As long as the tax costs less than the cost of leaving the country the govt is able to coerce you into paying the tax.

[Ramo]

But you could've left Germany before the round-ups (just like you can leave this country before the IRS comes knocking). Then, you don't have to deal with the Gestapo.

In fact, let's imagine a scenario where the Gestapo comes up to you and says "You either can leave this country or come to the concentration camp." Would that be voluntary?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
This whole currency argument as a legitimization of Income Tax makes no sense.

Income Tax is not a currency usage or currency transfer tax. If so everytime I made change I would have to pay a tax.

US Currency is by its definition valued by congress and taxable (as per the Coinage act)... the government can choose to tax it in one transfer but not in another... E.G. inheritances are taxed, but gifts under a certain value are not... the rules of taxation are arbitrarily formed.

Non-currency Income is taxed at the same rate as currency generated income. The US Tax Code reads "Income from whatever source derived" and mentions nothing about currency as a qualifier.

As for currency being income...

14. U.S. v. Benson, 592 F.2d 257. C.A.Tex. 1979.

Federal Reserve Notes are legal tender for taxes, and constituted income for income tax purposes.

The federal government instituted equivalent taxation for non-currency transactions to prevent companies from avoiding taxation by those methods.

*SNIP*

Currency is not the property of the government. As I said earlier it is a bearer note. Whoever owns the currency owns it and the value it represents.

Wrong. The notes are Federal Reserve notes, and they are liens on the Government. They have no intrinsic value, other than the value of the paper, ink or metal.

Note that:

In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt cancelled (repudiated) the Redemption of Federal Reserve Notes in gold within these United States of America and forbid the private ownership of gold coins or bullion by Citizens, upon penalty of fine and/or imprisonment.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Sava
it's a social contract... go read some John Locke and educate yourself.

Who said everthing John Locke ever said was correct.

A contract is a voluntary agreement, between informed parties for consideration along with a few other points. It does not have to be written.

Just because you choose to call something a contract which isn't, doesn't mean it is

and it is VOLUNTARY if dopes don't want to pay taxes, they can leave... it's as simple as that...

the legal term for what you described above would be "duress" Contracts made under duress are null and void

hey, I'm not happy about the prices I might have to pay for a lot of things, but I don't sit here and whine like a ***** how it is stealing...

Not liking a price set for something that you are not required to pay for is not immoral because you simply don't have to buy it and u dont have to go to jail if you choose not to buy it. I'm not complaining because the cost of stereos is too high. In this thread, I am not even attempting to make the point that taxes are too high (although I think they are)

taxes are just the price for living in America and in this society... don't like it? leave...

I agree that taxes that don't involve theft and involuntary servitude as I defined above are a legitimate way to pay for the country, even if I don't agree with the amount or how they are used. Theft and involuntary servitude to pay for the government isn't.

now stop this inane and incessant libertarian BS

If you are unable to make a valid argument that relates to what I am saying please stop your inane and incessant BS

I'm not about to waste my time... it doesn't matter how much you write or what you say, you cannot prove a point to be right when it is inherently (and by definition) wrong. You could write a thousand-page book on why the sky isn't blue... you are still wrong.

The sky isn't always blue

and it only takes one small sentence for me to say why you are wrong

I'm still waiting for that one sentence

[Ramo]

Nevermind, I'm antsy today.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Not liking a price set for something that you are not required to pay for is not immoral because you simply don't have to buy it and u dont have to go to jail if you choose not to buy it. I'm not complaining because the cost of stereos is too high. In this thread, I am not even attempting to make the point that taxes are too high (although I think they are)

So the value of money doesn't concern you? It decreases the value of your income, whether you spend it or not. What's the difference between decreasing the value of your income and decreasing your income?

[MrBaggins]

"Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest." Judge Frank Easterbrook, Coleman v. CIR (7th Cir 1986) 791 F2d 68 at 69 [and quoted in several subsequent court decisions].

Heres a quote from Idiot Legal Arguments

that federal income tax is "contractual": US v. Drefke (8th Cir 1983) 707 F2d 978 cert. denied (Jameson v. US) 464 US 942; McLaughlin v. CIR (7th Cir 1987) 832 F2d 986; In re Hale (Bankr. ED Ark 1996) 196 Bankr.Rptr 122; US v. Van Skiver (D Kan unpub 12/13/90) 71A AFTR2d 4063, 91 USTC para 50017 aff'd US v. Kettler [& Van Skiver](10th Cir unpub 6/3/91) 934 F2d 326(t); Roth v. CIR (9/23/92) TC Memo 1992-563; Nagy v. CIR (1/24/96) TC Memo 1996-24; Pabon v. CIR (9/29/94) TC Memo 1994-476; A.J. Barnett v. USA (10th Cir unpub 9/14/93) 5 F3d 545(t) cert. denied 510 US 1122; US v. R.L. Keys (6th Cir unpub 4/6/93) 991 F2d 797(t); (similarly, claim that Social Security is a contract which perp can repudiate) Valldejull v. Social Security Admin (ND Fla unpub 12/20/94) 75 AFTR2d 607, CCH Unempl.Ins.Rep. para 14368B (court quoted from Flemming v. Nestor, 1960, 363 US 603, that Soc.Sec is "noncontractual", and said "Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion ... Social Security is not a voluntary system, and he did not become a participant in it by contract. His arguments regarding fraudulent inducement or that the fact that he may have been a minor when he obtained his SSN therefore are not persuasive."); ditto US v. Van Skiver (D Kan unpub 12/13/90) 71A AFTR2d 4063, 91 USTC para 50017 aff'd US v. Kettler [& Van Skiver](10th Cir unpub 6/3/91) 934 F2d 326(t); similarly Kish v. CIR (1/13/98) TC Memo 1998-16; similarly Wells v. US (ND Okla unpub 7/1/86) 59 AFTR2d 462, 87 USTC para 9189; ditto Damron v. Yellow Freight System Inc. (ED Tenn 1998) 18 F.Supp.2d 812 (which noted that the US Supreme Ct had held "individual participation in the Soc.Sec system is mandatory rather than voluntary", citing US v. Lee, 1982, 455 US 252); (that the US Constitution is a contract and only certain federal officials are obliged to observe it) US v. Novotny (10th Cir unpub 6/5/92) 968 F2d 22(t) cert.den 507 US 909; US v. Fitch (9th Cir unpub 10/30/92) 978 F2d 716(t); Skurdal v. USA (D. Mont unpub 10/20/94) 74 AFTR2d 6918; Van Hall v. IRS (D Ariz unpub 8/30/96) 78 AFTR2d 6410;tried to sue the govt for "involuntary servitude" because it would not allow them to "to opt out of the federal tax system" - "all of the appellants' claims are completely lacking in legal merit and are patently frivolous", and heavy fines imposed for frivolous litigation. Buckner et al v. US et al (10 Cir unpub 2/4/99) 172 F3d 62(t), 99 USTC para 50240, 83 AFTR2d 924

There are plenty more issues completely debunked by the courts at http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss1.asp

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
"Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest." Judge Frank Easterbrook, Coleman v. CIR (7th Cir 1986) 791 F2d 68 at 69 [and quoted in several subsequent court decisions].

Isn't it so true.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Isn't it so true.

/me chuckles

especially since the judge was adjudicating for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and against an individual making an argument such as you (and the libertarians) have made.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Ramo
All this crap about sales taxes being moral, but income taxes being immoral is equivalent to saying that it's ok for the gov't to coerce money out of people, as long as those that suffer from this coercion are poor.

Untrue. My scenario was to avoid all essentials, which the poorer you are the higher percent of your income goes to.

By definition if they are not essentials they are discriminatory purchases. When making the buying decision (note the word decision and not obligation) you look at the price and determine if you want to buy it or not. You could if you want set up a system where the rich were the only ones that paid the tax. (i.e. tax very expensive non-essential items (Yachts for example) or tax essential items over a set minimum price (i.. tax the value of a home over $50,000 for example)

[GePap]

Interestingly enough, while I disgree with Deity Dude's belief that income tax is theft (and I assume he thinks taxes on dividends at profits are the same-not sure), I do think the gov should make further use of use taxes.

[Ramo]

By definition if they are not essentials they are discriminatory purchases.

Every purchase is discriminatory (even ones you might classify as "essential" like food). I can make a discrimination about whether or not I should buy food; if I don't, I could go to friends and relatives, a soup kitchen, I could even die. And even if owning a yacht isn't a major priority for a person like food might be, that doesn't mean a sales tax on it is not coercive (see the other posts I addressed to you). For exactly the same reason why an income tax is coercive.

(i.e. tax very expensive non-essential items (Yachts for example) or tax essential items over a set minimum price (i.. tax the value of a home over $50,000 for example)

You're really going to fund a modern government through sales taxes from things like yachts and airplanes?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


Untrue. My scenario was to avoid all essentials, which the poorer you are the higher percent of your income goes to.

By definition if they are not essentials they are discriminatory purchases. When making the buying decision (note the word decision and not obligation) you look at the price and determine if you want to buy it or not. You could if you want set up a system where the rich were the only ones that paid the tax. (i.e. tax very expensive non-essential items (Yachts for example) or tax essential items over a set minimum price (i.. tax the value of a home over $50,000 for example)

You are saying that a tax is only moral if the payer decides to pay it, but no one really decides to pay a tax. They decide to participate in some activity which they are taxed for - they earn income, make a purchase, or something. They add the cost of the tax to the cost of the activity they are thinking of participating in and then they make a decision, but you are assuming incorrectly that they will recieve no benefit from the activity. Therefore they are coerced into paying the tax. It's no different from being obligated to pay a tax.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Kidicious


So the value of money doesn't concern you? It decreases the value of your income, whether you spend it or not. What's the difference between decreasing the value of your income and decreasing your income?

I didn't say it didn't concern me. The point is that a decrease in value in something doesn't necessarily mean someone stole something from you.

If I have a lousy harvest because the weather was bad, the value of my harvest went down... I am concerned... but niothing was stolen. If I have a harvest and someone comes along and takes a portion of it against my will, now that's a different story.