Irs

[slackjawed]

Ok, this is not a thread to discuss the Austin plane bomber specifically, there are already some of those. There are plenty of places to discuss whether he is a d or an r or a t or whatever. (those that attempt to make political capital off this are scum, IMHO, but that's another thread.)

This thread is to discuss whether we should review the IRS, and the power it has.
My understanding is that past administrations have attempted this type of review. Personally, i haven't noticed a 'kinder gentler IRS', but then again, I don't have tax troubles.

On one hand, i would not want our country to be seen as 'giving in to a criminal's request'.

On the other hand, if we at least make it public that the IRS is being reviewed, some future attacks may be prevented, thereby saving lives.

There are a lot of people that don't like the IRS, no question.
But what alternatives are there? Would the alternatives cause just as much, or more anger?

Again, I don't want our country to be seen as 'giving in' to criminals.
Yet, i don't want to see more people die from simular attacks.

When one reads through Stock's "manifesto", it is clear that he was delusional enough to expect others to follow his lead and 'rise up' in protest. personally, i don't want to give in to that wish, even if he won't know it one way or the other.

On the other hand, I think we have to recognize that there are a lot of other nutjobs out there that just might 'copycat' him.


I am interested in hearing other opinions on the issue.

 

[RodISHI]

I have personally never had problems with the IRS, thus far. I had a book keeper that did not pay the right amounts on payroll taxes once that resulted in a fine of over a thousand dollars. I talked to an IRS agent and told him what had transpired. It was really bad timing for such a fine and we sure did not have an extra thousand bucks to give away for a mistake. It was not like the full amount had not already been paid at that point. The guy at the IRS told me to write them and give all the details and ask for an abatement of the fine. So I dictated a letter to the secretary and she typed it up. I read through it and signed it. I had these four leafs clovers I had found pinned on the peg board. The secretary asked me if she could tape one to the bottom of the letter. I told her if she wanted I did not see a problem with it.

I got a call about a week and a half later. It was the guy from the IRS. He was again really nice. He told me he had some news for me but first he said there were a few things I needed to know. The secretary evidently did not put enough stamps on the letter. The guy said they had to have a big discussion on whether they should even accept a letter with postage due. I'm thinking "ah poo" at this point. He says well anyhow you should not send a letter out asking for a favor without adequate postage on it. The voted in office to accept the letter even though it had postage due. He said the second thing was the four leaf clover. I told him yeah the secretary asked me if she could tape that to the bottom. He said well we had to determine if that was a bribe or just for entertainment value. So they had this long discussion about the four leaf clover before they ever got to discussing whether to abate the fine or not. This whole time I'm thinking "poo".

Then the guy said well the good news is we decided to abate the fine but next time if you have to ask for a favor like this at least use proper postage okay? He also let me know they laughed about the four leaf clover and so decided is was not a bribe just entertainment.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I have had problems a letter saying I owed 24 k 2 years ago , It took a few months to get it figured out but It did get fixed with no penalties .

I know we would not have voted the system we have now in .
I say we try something else.
and do away with the income tax, before they decide to add a VAT on top of it like they eventually will.

 

[Ravi]

I'd like to know what the fucktard's problem was. As far as I can tell, the rules benefited him. When you are an independent contractor your tax liability can be much smaller depending on how you structure your business AND you can put more into a retirement account than the average working slob.

I read several articles about this guy's problem with the IRS yet none of them actually made any sense.

It sounds to me that he didn't want to pay taxes so he didn't and he kept getting busted for it.

If anyone can explain what his IRS problem was I'd appreciate it.

 

[slackjawed]

Ravi,
I read his manifesto and it looks to me like he got caught cheating the system.
I don't know what his real problem was.

 

[Contumacious]

]This thread is to discuss whether we should review the IRS, and the power it has..

Of course, the IRS should be reviewed and then promptly abolished.

SCOTUS ruled that the 1st Income Tax Law was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Justice Field stated:

"If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an act of Congress, where is the course of usurpation to end? The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich; a war constantly growing in intensity and bitterness."

POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY., 15 S. Ct. 673, 157 U.S. 429 (U.S. 04/08/1895)

.

 

[Liability]

]This thread is to discuss whether we should review the IRS, and the power it has..

Of course, the IRS should be reviewed and then promptly abolished.

SCOTUS ruled that the 1st Income Tax Law was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Justice Field stated:

"If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an act of Congress, where is the course of usurpation to end? The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich; a war constantly growing in intensity and bitterness."

POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY., 15 S. Ct. 673, 157 U.S. 429 (U.S. 04/08/1895)

.

In 1895, the 16th amendment had not yet been passed, much less ratified. That came in 1913.

So, until that time, the IRS probably WAS a creation of an illegal Act by Congress.

But since the 16th Amendment has since BEEN ratified, what the fuck is the point of citing a SCOTUS decision that talks about the Constitution as it existed BEFORE that relevant ratification? The 16th Amendment itself overruled Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust.

If ignorance is bliss, Confusedatious resides in Nirvana.

 

[Missourian]

I'd like to know what the fucktard's problem was. As far as I can tell, the rules benefited him. When you are an independent contractor your tax liability can be much smaller depending on how you structure your business AND you can put more into a retirement account than the average working slob.

I read several articles about this guy's problem with the IRS yet none of them actually made any sense.

It sounds to me that he didn't want to pay taxes so he didn't and he kept getting busted for it.

If anyone can explain what his IRS problem was I'd appreciate it.

I didn't get the part about the tax code that pertained to engineers.

 

[slackjawed]

]This thread is to discuss whether we should review the IRS, and the power it has..

Of course, the IRS should be reviewed and then promptly abolished.

SCOTUS ruled that the 1st Income Tax Law was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Justice Field stated:

"If the provisions of the Constitution can be set aside by an act of Congress, where is the course of usurpation to end? The present assault upon capital is but the beginning. It will be but the stepping-stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich; a war constantly growing in intensity and bitterness."

POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY., 15 S. Ct. 673, 157 U.S. 429 (U.S. 04/08/1895)

.

In 1895, the 16th amendment had not yet been passed, much less ratified. That came in 1913.

So, until that time, the IRS probably WAS a creation of an illegal Act by Congress.

But since the 16th Amendment has since BEEN ratified, what the fuck is the point of citing a SCOTUS decision that talks about the Constitution as it existed BEFORE that relevant ratification? The 16th Amendment itself overruled Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust.

If ignorance is bliss, Confusedatious resides in Nirvana.

Since the passing of the 16th, we have an income tax. I believe that the Pollock v Farmer's loan decision created a precedent that even congress had to meet certain constitutional requirements in the legislation that they pass. I think that decision caused congress to pursue constitutional amendments, like the 16th, in order to meet that requirement.
As with other constitutional amendments, it is difficult to repeal the 16th once they are passed.
The fact is, there are laws, and then there are LAWS. The difference comes in the administration of the law once it is passed. Some laws, even though they remain on the books, are seldom enforced. For example, there are laws in several states against adultery with serious penalties possible, yet they are seldom enforced. here in Arizona, there remains a law on the books that horse thieves caught in the act can be hung on the spot, imagine if someone tried that today!
We all know that the IRS has 'special powers'. Seizing bank accounts, real property, and on and on.
What I am asking is if we should review these powers. Obviously, the American people did not 'rise up', as Mr. Stock seemed convinced they would, as indicated in his "manifesto".
Still, is there enough disapproval that we should worry about future nut-cases following his lead? Should we therefore review the power and enforcement methods of the IRS?
Is that simply giving an undeserved voice to a common criminal?

 

[Vast LWC]

Since the passing of the 16th, we have an income tax. I believe that the Pollock v Farmer's loan decision created a precedent that even congress had to meet certain constitutional requirements in the legislation that they pass. I think that decision caused congress to pursue constitutional amendments, like the 16th, in order to meet that requirement.
As with other constitutional amendments, it is difficult to repeal the 16th once they are passed.
The fact is, there are laws, and then there are LAWS. The difference comes in the administration of the law once it is passed. Some laws, even though they remain on the books, are seldom enforced. For example, there are laws in several states against adultery with serious penalties possible, yet they are seldom enforced. here in Arizona, there remains a law on the books that horse thieves caught in the act can be hung on the spot, imagine if someone tried that today!
We all know that the IRS has 'special powers'. Seizing bank accounts, real property, and on and on.
What I am asking is if we should review these powers. Obviously, the American people did not 'rise up', as Mr. Stock seemed convinced they would, as indicated in his "manifesto".
Still, is there enough disapproval that we should worry about future nut-cases following his lead? Should we therefore review the power and enforcement methods of the IRS?
Is that simply giving an undeserved voice to a common criminal?

You know what we really need to cure the National Debt? A purge of the IRS of any power it has to collect taxes!

Look, there are enough people already who hire lawyers to sue the IRS for "harrassment" in order to not pay the taxes they owe, do we really need to tie the IRS's hands any further?

Has anyone ever heard of the IRS wrongfully cracking down on someone? Ever?

As far as I know, anytime the IRS imprisons someone, or garnishes their wages, it's due to that fact that that person was skipping out on paying their taxes, like every other American.

 

[slackjawed]

Since the passing of the 16th, we have an income tax. I believe that the Pollock v Farmer's loan decision created a precedent that even congress had to meet certain constitutional requirements in the legislation that they pass. I think that decision caused congress to pursue constitutional amendments, like the 16th, in order to meet that requirement.
As with other constitutional amendments, it is difficult to repeal the 16th once they are passed.
The fact is, there are laws, and then there are LAWS. The difference comes in the administration of the law once it is passed. Some laws, even though they remain on the books, are seldom enforced. For example, there are laws in several states against adultery with serious penalties possible, yet they are seldom enforced. here in Arizona, there remains a law on the books that horse thieves caught in the act can be hung on the spot, imagine if someone tried that today!
We all know that the IRS has 'special powers'. Seizing bank accounts, real property, and on and on.
What I am asking is if we should review these powers. Obviously, the American people did not 'rise up', as Mr. Stock seemed convinced they would, as indicated in his "manifesto".
Still, is there enough disapproval that we should worry about future nut-cases following his lead? Should we therefore review the power and enforcement methods of the IRS?
Is that simply giving an undeserved voice to a common criminal?

You know what we really need to cure the National Debt? A purge of the IRS of any power it has to collect taxes!

Look, there are enough people already who hire lawyers to sue the IRS for "harrassment" in order to not pay the taxes they owe, do we really need to tie the IRS's hands any further?

Has anyone ever heard of the IRS wrongfully cracking down on someone? Ever?

As far as I know, anytime the IRS imprisons someone, or garnishes their wages, it's due to that fact that that person was skipping out on paying their taxes, like every other American.

That is an excellent point. I didn't know if i was alone, but I have NEVER had a problem with the irs. Even when I made a mistake on my taxes, i still had no problem resolving it, without a lawyer.
This is kinda the stuff I am wondering. In case nobody else noticed, nobody has posted that they have been mistreated by the irs on this thread.

In truth, I am leaning towards the side of NOT giving in to this, or any other nutjob.

 

[Vast LWC]

That is an excellent point. I didn't know if i was alone, but I have NEVER had a problem with the irs. Even when I made a mistake on my taxes, i still had no problem resolving it, without a lawyer.
This is kinda the stuff I am wondering. In case nobody else noticed, nobody has posted that they have been mistreated by the irs on this thread.

In truth, I am leaning towards the side of NOT giving in to this, or any other nutjob.

Exactly.

 

[Modbert]

Reviewing the IRS like people like Ron Paul wants means that we're putting that power in the hands of Congress.

Now, I don't know about any of you, but I don't trust either side of Congress with that sort of power.

 

[slackjawed]

I have always paid my taxes, never tried to cheat. I have complained about how much, as most probobly have, but thats the end of it.
I would not want congress to review the irs and make it even worse, as that IS the history of congress, at least in modern times.

 

[Contumacious]

In 1895, the 16th amendment had not yet been passed, much less ratified. That came in 1913.

Mr Fucktard, Sir:

The First "income" tax was imposed by your idol Ape Lincoln.

May you and him rot in hell.

.

 

[Liability]

In 1895, the 16th amendment had not yet been passed, much less ratified. That came in 1913.

Mr Fucktard, Sir:

The First "income" tax was imposed by your idol Ape Lincoln.

May you and him rot in hell.

.

Abe, for any and all his faults, was at least a man.

You are just a pig-dog.

And I didn't ask you for trivia about the history of the income tax, fuckface. Nobody needs any "lessons" from a retarded scumbag like you.

I merely pointed out that your "legal" citation was and is totally irrelevant since it was -- in terms of serving as any kind of precedent -- vitiated, gutted, revoked and rendered moot when the Constitution was Amended thereby overruling the case you cited, you flaming ignorant idiot.

,



;

And I am not going to the same place in the afterlife as you pedophile supporting pieces of shit. So, feel obligated to eat shit, scum.

With all due respect,

your pal,

Liability

 

[Polk]

Investigations need to be restructured. The system currently places a priority on number of people investigated and not on the amounts they owe. The result is people making 20k a year who owe a few hundred bucks get dogged by the system, while those making 200k+ a year and are stealing tens of thousands are rarely investigated.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

From what I read, the guy was just a scammer who got caught each time he tried it on. He even tried to make himself into a church in order to evade taxes.

I always think it a good idea to review the powers and authorities of government agents to make sure they are not abusing them. But if you want to buy an aircraft carrier or a welfare system, you got have the wherewithal to get the money to pay for them.

 

[Contumacious]

I merely pointed out that your "legal" citation was and is totally irrelevant since it was -- in terms of serving as any kind of precedent -- vitiated, gutted, revoked and rendered moot when the Constitution was Amended thereby overruling the case you cited, y

That is true only in your sheeple brain:

The Law That Never Was: The Fraud of the 16th Amendment and Personal Income Tax

 

[Liability]

I merely pointed out that your "legal" citation was and is totally irrelevant since it was -- in terms of serving as any kind of precedent -- vitiated, gutted, revoked and rendered moot when the Constitution was Amended thereby overruling the case you cited, y

That is true only in your sheeple brain:

The Law That Never Was: The Fraud of the 16th Amendment and Personal Income Tax

Every feeble-minded asswipe (a group you could Chair) who has ever articulated the sub-moronic notion that the 16th Amendment wasn't validly "ratified" has lost. If you bring that as a basis to defend a charge of tax-evasion nowadays in fact, you could be subject (properly so) to criminal charges or at least civil penalties for a frivolous legal pleading.

The 16th Amendment needs to be repealed, arguably. But that's another issue entirely.

Only fucking total whacked-out assholes like YOU maintain that it isn't part of the Constitution. It is. And when it DID get ratified, schmuck, it effectively orverrule the SCOTUS case you proudly displayed.

Douchebags like you need a tune up.