50% Of Americans Are Parasites AND They VOTE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Contumacious]

Mr. Bill Benson used to work for the Illinois Department Of Revenue - all the documents have been VERIFIED by the Secretary Of State of each of the states. But his material constitutes a bizarre conspiracy theory because ........


.

Because the courts said so.

Can you identify ONE CASE in which the EVIDENCE was discussed and rebutted. Just one case.



.

 

[edthecynic]

Don't you CON$ ever get tired of lying?????

According to the CBO publication "Effective Fed Tax Rates pg 18 Table 2: in 2006 the bottom 40% had a 6.3% Federal Tax Liability.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-EffectiveFedTaxRates.pdf

Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million.

Just re-posting the same unsourced tax foundation lie does not change the fact that the CBO numbers belie your CON$ervative claims.

Each Quintile represents about 22 million tax returns and according to my linked CBO report: the lowest Quintile paid 1.1% and the second Quintile paid 5.2% in Fed tax liabilities so the claim that 43.4 million tax returns had "NO Fed tax liabilities" is obviously a lie and that explains why your source does not link to any supporting data.

You have to copy and paste the whole link through to the .pdf part to download the pdf, USMB butchered the link.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-EffectiveFedTaxRates.pdf

Identify by page and paragraph in your CBO the location where I can find data specifically contradicting Prof Williams' assertions

Like I've said repeatedly, when caught lying CON$ milk the Dumb Act to the max.

 

[Contumacious]

Just re-posting the same unsourced tax foundation lie does not change the fact that the CBO numbers belie your CON$ervative claims.

Each Quintile represents about 22 million tax returns and according to my linked CBO report: the lowest Quintile paid 1.1% and the second Quintile paid 5.2% in Fed tax liabilities so the claim that 43.4 million tax returns had "NO Fed tax liabilities" is obviously a lie and that explains why your source does not link to any supporting data.

You have to copy and paste the whole link through to the .pdf part to download the pdf, USMB butchered the link.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-EffectiveFedTaxRates.pdf

Identify by page and paragraph in your CBO the location where I can find data specifically contradicting Prof Williams' assertions

Like I've said repeatedly, when caught lying CON$ milk the Dumb Act to the max.

Like I've said repeatedly, when caught lying the fascists become incoherent.


There is NOTHING there rebutting Prof Williams. N-O-T-H-I-N-G,


.

 

[Toro]

Mr. Bill Benson used to work for the Illinois Department Of Revenue - all the documents have been VERIFIED by the Secretary Of State of each of the states. But his material constitutes a bizarre conspiracy theory because ........


.

Because the courts said so.

Can you identify ONE CASE in which the EVIDENCE was discussed and rebutted. Just one case.



.

I'll repeat what I posted.

Also stated by the court "Benson has failed to point to evidence that would create a genuinely disputed fact regarding whether the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified or whether United States Citizens are legally obligated to pay federal taxes.

Memorandum Opinion, p. 14, Dec. 17, 2007, docket entry 106, United States v. Benson, case no. 1:04-cv-07403, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The court ruled that Benson did not "create a genuinely disputed fact regarding whether the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified." The court looked at the evidence and said Benson had none.

 

[user_name_guest]

I love taxes, it provides jobs to those who prepare your taxes.

 

[Contumacious]

Because the courts said so.

Can you identify ONE CASE in which the EVIDENCE was discussed and rebutted. Just one case.



.

I'll repeat what I posted.

Also stated by the court "Benson has failed to point to evidence that would create a genuinely disputed fact regarding whether the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified or whether United States Citizens are legally obligated to pay federal taxes.

Memorandum Opinion, p. 14, Dec. 17, 2007, docket entry 106, United States v. Benson, case no. 1:04-cv-07403, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The court ruled that Benson did not "create a genuinely disputed fact regarding whether the Sixteenth Amendment was properly ratified." The court looked at the evidence and said Benson had none.

That's bullshit. You have to look at the evidence and judge for yourself. Federal courts are corrupt to their core.

The ONLY reason you agree with the "judgment" is because you are a sheeple,


,

 

[skookerasbil]

Ive always felt that in order to vote, you should have to display some minimum understanding of who you are voting for and why!!!

I remember Howard Stern sent his team into Harlem in October and a dozen people thought Sarah Palin was Obama's running mate!!! Parasites? Hmmm...........at a minimum!!!

Oh.........but the way...........the audio is easily accessible on the internet. Hysterical stuff.........if it wasnt so fcukking sad!!!

 

[Care4all]

Why are these people all parasites if they take their proper and legal income tax deductions THAT ALL OTHER TAX PAYERS of HIGHER income TAKE AS WELL and take advantage of as well, to reduce their own taxes owed?

Sorry, on this one, you are dummy! and a PAWN for the nimrods.

 

[skookerasbil]

Why are these people all parasites if they take their proper and legal income tax deductions THAT ALL OTHER TAX PAYERS of HIGHER income TAKE AS WELL and take advantage of as well, to reduce their own taxes owed?

Sorry, on this one, you are dummy! and a PAWN for the nimrods.

incoherant rant FTG!!!

The mind of somebody who grew up in a thatched cottage is indeed fascinating!!!

 

[Care4all]

Why are these people all parasites if they take their proper and legal income tax deductions THAT ALL OTHER TAX PAYERS of HIGHER income TAKE AS WELL and take advantage of as well, to reduce their own taxes owed?

Sorry, on this one, you are dummy! and a PAWN for the nimrods.

incoherant rant FTG!!!

The mind of somebody who grew up in a thatched cottage is indeed fascinating!!!

are you old enough to have done your own taxes? OBVIOUSLY NOT!

EVERYONE, gets to deduct themselves and family members, X-amount of money for each dependent and themselves....from their earned income, where no taxes are due on this 'X' amount....from the very poorest to the very wealthiest.

JUST because these deductions bring a poorer family down to the point where no taxes are due, does not mean the wealthiest did not take these precise same deductions to avoid tax payment on that exact same amount...BECAUSE they DID take these same deductions off of their income.

Sorry, it is YOU who does not understand how income taxes work!

 

[Old Rocks]

There's no link to any "tax foundation" there's a link to Walter Wiliams' OPINION.... and what he asserts the "tax foundation" (whoever the heck they are) says.

his home page is interesting... all global warming denial and BS about "socialism".... and touting Milton Friedman's laissez fair economics (bogus even when Adam Smith advocated it).

So how 'bout honesty about the source, eh?

love the poll tax stuff... it definitely works to exclude African-Americans...or at least it used to.

so figures....

Jillian, Adam Smith would be appalled at the present ethics on Wall Street. Smith did not advocate a market that failed to give labour their fair share of the fruits of their labor.

 

[Si modo]

I still don't know what I think about all of this, but thanks to all for giving me something interesting to ponder about the 17th Amendment combined with the 16th and how that dangerously screws us and states.

However, half of the country is of low intelligence (IQ is a normal distribution, so that's just a fact). They have a right to vote and be represented as well. I am against any limitations on who can vote - poll taxes or otherwise.

That said, we do need to recall that protection of the minority from the majority is one of our founding principles. Our founders were wise enough to see that democracies often fail because of this lack of protection. This thread presents an angle of how we have tossed out that protection, perhaps unwittingly.

Again, it's interesting reading and makes for a good argument to repeal the 17th amendment. But, I would like to see just as good arguments against repeal before I conclude a thing.

 

[Care4all]

and no one can avoid paying Corporate taxes because a good portion of this is put in to the price of the product, everyone pays sales tax on what they buy at stores but in N.H. i believe, and everyone pays federal and state taxes on their purchase of gasoline, and if they own a home, legal or illegal, everyone pays property taxes....near everyone that works pays, payroll taxes on all that they make below $106,000 as well, of which the federal government is using $150 billion to $300 billion a year of in SS surplus monies, to pay what income taxes should have paid for...

NO ONE in this country gets away Scott free from government's taxes so no one is a parasite....the thread is bogus, simple as that...

 

[Oddball]

I still don't know what I think about all of this, but thanks to all for giving me something interesting to ponder about the 17th Amendment combined with the 16th and how that dangerously screws us and states.

However, half of the country is of low intelligence (IQ is a normal distribution, so that's just a fact). They have a right to vote and be represented as well. I am against any limitations on who can vote - poll taxes or otherwise.

That said, we do need to recall that protection of the minority from the majority is one of our founding principles. Our founders were wise enough to see that democracies often fail because of this lack of protection. This thread presents an angle of how we have tossed out that protection, perhaps unwittingly.

Again, it's interesting reading and makes for a good argument to repeal the 17th amendment. But, I would like to see just as good arguments against repeal before I conclude a thing.

Remember that the Federal Reserve act was passed in the same year.

So, in one fell swoop, in 1913 we got:

1) A fiat money system, where a central bank can print up money out of thin air.

2) An unappportioned and unrestrained tax upon all productive activity in the country, ostensibly to hide the inflation of that fiat currency.

3) The removal of any say by the state houses in federal budgets.

 

[Si modo]

and no one can avoid paying Corporate taxes because a good portion of this is put in to the price of the product, everyone pays sales tax on what they buy at stores but in N.H. i believe, and everyone pays federal and state taxes on their purchase of gasoline, and if they own a home, legal or illegal, everyone pays property taxes....near everyone that works pays, payroll taxes on all that they make below $106,000 as well, of which the federal government is using $150 billion to $300 billion a year of in SS surplus monies, to pay what income taxes should have paid for...

NO ONE in this country gets away Scott free from government's taxes so no one is a parasite....the thread is bogus, simple as that...

As I said, I would like to see just as good arguments against repeal before I conclude a thing.

LOL.

 

[Si modo]

I still don't know what I think about all of this, but thanks to all for giving me something interesting to ponder about the 17th Amendment combined with the 16th and how that dangerously screws us and states.

However, half of the country is of low intelligence (IQ is a normal distribution, so that's just a fact). They have a right to vote and be represented as well. I am against any limitations on who can vote - poll taxes or otherwise.

That said, we do need to recall that protection of the minority from the majority is one of our founding principles. Our founders were wise enough to see that democracies often fail because of this lack of protection. This thread presents an angle of how we have tossed out that protection, perhaps unwittingly.

Again, it's interesting reading and makes for a good argument to repeal the 17th amendment. But, I would like to see just as good arguments against repeal before I conclude a thing.

Remember that the Federal Reserve act was passed in the same year.

So, in one fell swoop, in 1913 we got:

1) A fiat money system, where a central bank can print up money out of thin air.

2) An unappportioned and unrestrained tax upon all productive activity in the country, ostensibly to hide the inflation of that fiat currency.

3) The removal of any say by the state houses in federal budgets.

Right. And, I never looked at it that way until I saw a lot of contributions in this thread. Excellent points. I'm liking the argument.

 

[Si modo]

Oh, another thought I had while reading this: Pork in Congress is obnoxious. My first impression on a repeal of the 17th is that pork would get worse. That would be a significant contributor to the con side of the scale for me. Any arguments against or supporting that?

 

[Oddball]

Oh, another thought I had while reading this: Pork in Congress is obnoxious. My first impression on a repeal of the 17th is that pork would get worse. That would be a significant contributor to the con side of the scale for me. Any arguments against or supporting that?

Most of what has been called "pork" and "earmarks" is directed spending of monies that would be going to the states in block grants anyways....This is how politicians pay off favored supporters and build monuments to themselves.

It's when they get carried away and bust the budget, which happens all the time, that this practice becomes even more problematic.

 

[Si modo]

Oh, another thought I had while reading this: Pork in Congress is obnoxious. My first impression on a repeal of the 17th is that pork would get worse. That would be a significant contributor to the con side of the scale for me. Any arguments against or supporting that?

Most of what has been called "pork" and "earmarks" is directed spending of monies that would be going to the states in block grants anyways....This is how politicians pay off favored supporters and build monuments to themselves.

It's when they get carried away and bust the budget, which happens all the time, that this practice becomes even more problematic.

See, I am against any earmarks/pork. Theoretically, congressional politicians should be experts on administration, appropriations, and laws; not on most of the subject matter associated with specific grant approvals.

The federal government has agencies containing experts in almost any field - health, education, defense, agriculture, etc. All congress should be charged with is appropriating monies to those general fields based on the county's current and future needs. Let those experts in the agencies decide specifically how their appropriated budget should be spent. For example, DHHS might decide that autism and influenza get more monies from their chunk, and they would know best, not Barney Frank or Michelle Bachmann. DoD may decide that a large percentage of their chunk will be spent on better remote IR imaging as a priority need for national defense, not some congressman who has a large sensor developer in his/her state. I hope that makes sense.

 

[Old Rocks]

higher taxes could bring them in to the income tax system...so they do have something at stake...in addition to this all of these people are paying SS taxes and medicare taxes. Their SS tax surplus has been USED by these politicians to PAY for what those higher taxed wealthy federal income tax payers, should have paid for...so the wealthiest have stolen from the poorest.

everyone has reason to watch who they vote for...and many, do not understand this importance of being an educated and informed citizen, no matter your class or net financial worth.

Care, what in the hell are you talking about?

What is it exactly that the wealthy are to have stolen from the poor? BE SPECIFIC...

Today, the average worker pays a far higher propotion of his income in taxes than a millionaire does. See what Warren Buffet has to say on the subject.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html