George W. Bush

Bill,

I have heard this argument about income taxes before. In fact, I have spoken with the son of a prominent lawyer in CA who swears neither he or his dad have SSNs, pay taxes, or even have a driver's license. The argument involves specifics in the Constitution if I remember correctly. I was told that if you decide to quit paying taxes, you had better have a damn good lawyer to help you. Maybe I should study law and try it.....

Okie joke:

"Did you hear the one about the Okies throwing sticks of dynamite across the Red River into Texas?"

No, what happened?

The Texans ignited the dynamite and threw them back to the Okies. Two married couples and two pairs of brothers & sisters were injured. (total of 4 people).

Ba Da Bump!

 

Hey, hey, hey, watchit' there, Buddy! I'm a native Texan and proud of it!!!

So, now a little subjective political stuff for my dear friend Erica:

I HATE HIM! HATE HIM! HATE HIM! HATE HIM!

Ahem, there you go...hope I wasn't unclear!

LOL

 

The argument has nothing whatever to do with the constitution. If you go trying to make constitutional arguments to the IRS, you better have a good lawyer, a pair of orange coverals and nice shiny handcuffs all ready for when they come to get you. Constitutional arguments just don't fly down at the IRS. There is only one valid argument. Tell them that you will be happy to pay any taxes you owe. All they have to do to get you to pay is to present you with a lawful assessment of taxatin and you will be happy to pay up your fair share. They say you owe them a tax, they have to prove it. A lawful assessment of taxation is the only valid proof of taxes owed or payable. Simple answer to a simple problem If they want to argue about it, tell them that federal law states that it is a felony offense for any governmental agent to ask for or demand money or anything of value from a citizen absent lawful assessment of taxation. 18 USC something or other. Don't remember the full statute nor section.

As far as running around with no drivers license and no plates on your car, you want to go fooling with that mess, be my guest. As you have heard, better have a darn good lawyer who believes in that stuff and be prepared to spend a few days in the pokey trying to prove it.

You might need some money too. One way you Texans can raise it easily is to follow the example of the Texas Aggies who earned a million dollars selling Cherios for donut seeds.
But they soon found out that only Texans would buy them. Even the Mexicans were too smart to buy any.

 

GRRRRRRRRRRR!

 

Who defines this "lawful assessment of taxation"? I have learned that unless something is "defined to death", there are often ways to interpret it differently.
I know I would rather put my Social Security withholdings in an IRA instead of letting the Republicans squander it away to protect/help big business.


Okie joke #2:

A plane left Oklahoma with all Okies on board. The plane crashed in Texas (I think the pilot wasn't wearing shoes or something). Anyway, the plane crashed in Texas. Where would they bury the Okie survivors? In Texas or in Oklahoma?

The Okie replied, "In Oklahoma of course. What a moron!"

(Okie explanation: You don't bury survivors)

Ba Da Bump!!

(I know that one is weak, I am thinking....)

 

NanaC:

It's all just in fun. Nobody is serious.

(LOL)

 

TAX CUT PARABLE

If you think the Bush tax cut plan is unfair, read this rebuttal to the Daschle Gephardt Muffler/Lexus attack that appeared in the Sunday, March 4 Chicago Tribune. By the way, the ratios are roughly accurate. 10% of the tax payers pay about 60% of the taxes collected, 30% pay 37%, and 20% pay 4%.
-------------------------------------------------------
Every night, 10 men met at a restaurant for dinner. At the end of the meal, the bill would arrive. They owed $100 for the food that they shared. Every night they lined up in the same order at the cash register. The first four men paid nothing at all. The fifth, grumbling about the unfairness
of the situation, paid $1. The sixth man, feeling very generous, paid $3. The next three men paid $7, $12 and $18, respectively. The last man was required to pay the remaining balance, $59. He
realized that he was forced to pay for not only his own meal but the unpaid
balance left by the first five men.

The 10 men were quite settled into their routine when the restaurant threw them into chaos by announcing that it was cutting its prices. Now dinner for the 10 men would only cost $80. This clearly would not affect the first four men. They still ate for free. The fifth and
sixth men both claimed their piece of the $20 right away. The fifth decided
to forgo his $1 contribution. The sixth pitched in $2. The seventh man deducted $2 from his usual payment and paid $5. The eighth man paid $9. The ninth man paid $12, leaving the last man with a bill of $52. Outside of the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings, and angry
outbursts began to erupt. The sixth man yelled, "I only got $1 out of the $20, and he got $7," pointing at the last man. The fifth man joined in. "Yeah! I only got $1 too. It is unfair that he got
seven times more than me." The seventh man cried, "Why should he get $7 back when I only got $2." The nine men formed an outraged mob, surrounding the 10th man. The first four men followed the lead of the others: "We didn't get any of the $20. Where is our share?" The nine angry men carried the 10th man up to the top of a hill and lynched him. The next night, the nine remaining men met at the restaurant for dinner. But when the bill came, there was no one to pay it.

--Author Unknown

 

A lawful assessment of taxation is defined in law, of course. It is a form 423-C. I could go pop in my legal research cd-rom and it has all of this stuff in it and a lot more too.

You are going to run me out of Texas jokes real quick. At least the ones that would be fit to print in a public forum like this. However, there is this one.

This Texan who was always bragging about how big everything is in Texas went to visit his Okie cousin. The Okie was always a practical joker so he put some small turtles in the Texan's bed. The Texan threw back his covers to get into bed and yelled out "Yikes! What are those?" The Okie replied, "Oh those? Just Oklahoma bedbugs.

 

GRRRRRRRRRR, Texas-style Ya'll!

 

George and Laura Bush were riding on Air Force One along with an Okie.
The engines conked out and it was sure to crash.
There were only 3 parachutes on board.
The pilot grabbed one and jumped. Only two remained.
Laura grabbed one and jumped out.
Now there was only one left.
George said, "I'm from Texas and I'm the President" as he grabbed the other parachute leaving the Okie behind with only his backpack. The plane was losing altitude rapidly when the Okie looked down at his backpack for a bottle of booze he had. He fished around and it wasn't there!
He picked up his backpack and discovered that George had grabbed the wrong parachute, so the Okie donned the last parachute and jumped to safety laughing all the way to the ground.

 

Erica,
It sounds like you need to claim more exemptions. This way you decide what you want to do. If you owe at the end of the year, OH well. You earned interest on what you didnt pay in. If you do it just right you wont pay in and you wont get anything back. Just a suggestion...

 

You're right. It's much better to have some bible-thumping, right-wing fascist deciding whether your money goes to enforcing school prayers, fighting abortion, or helping subsidize corporate write-offs.

No, I want republicans with strong corporate ties and a vested interest in the industry to decide how money should be spent on energy. Because deep down inside I know they're really just looking out for my best interest.

Perhaps you should ask your republican cronies that question since they were the propellants behind deregulation in CA. Btw, those prices are so high in part b/c Texas companies are selling power to CA at four times the rate of what they sell the same power to the east coast for. Why? Because they can. It's hard to believe, I know. Which is why I strongly suggest you do the research.

Are you suggesting we should actually withold money? You mean the poor could either die of starvation or else be incarcertated for resorting to crime in order to stay alive? I suppose that would solve the problem of the poor, albeit in an unconvential way. Perhaps we should employ more traditional methods and have them all shot instead. I guess that's a good thing in some people's minds. Stalin and Hitler come to mind.

(Its success.) How exactly do you measure cultural enrichment? Apparently you don't see any value in being multi-lingual? Do you believe the 5.7 billion non-english speaking people on this planet should be obligated to learn english b/c it's the official language for conducting business?

Why don't you be a sport and start with yourself. Don't just regurgitate sound bites. Think for yourself. You do have a brain. And as a fellow human being you owe it to all of mankind to use it. Remember what your fellow republican Dan Quayle said, "How terrible it is to lose one's mind, or not to have a mind at all. How true that is."

'nuff said!
-bb

 

This is the same b.s. that propogates all over the world, usually regurgitated by some proletarian of limited intelligence who is clinging on to a menial job and a pillow full of beer farts, blaming his misery on those less fortunate. In Germany it's the Turks that get blamed, in France the Arabs, in the Mid-East it's the Jews, and in America we blame the poor.

Please, enlighten me. How exactly are you a productive member of society? What cancer cure will you be contributing to mankind?

'nuff said!
-bb

 

Well, in light of how the four Supreme Court Justices ruled during the last election it would appear that you can't rely on them at all.

Perhaps. But you also risk losing your job as a result. You see, most businesses will not honor an employee's request not to deduct taxes because they fear a backlash from the IRS in form of an audit. And those can be a nightmare. So rather than face the wrath of the IRS, they'll opt out of employing you.

'nuff said!
-bb

 

I really appreciate a good political conversation and enjoy the differences in all of us. But, I have to say, I have never understand the need to slam a group of people with name-calling, stereotyping, etc. I think if you are talking about a politician, that's fine, as he or she put herself in the position to be discussed. But, I've always found things like this distasteful. I also find it distasteful when words are used to do the same to the "other side."


Now where is my granola bar! I like those..I'll admit it! Hugging a tree? I think the last time was when I was playing hide and seek as a child... I'm definitely due for a good tree hug! And, my heart is doing great..no need for concern!

Just my thoughts.

 

Hello BB:

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but your statement is quite false. Furthermore, it is quite misleading to most people who are uninformed about IRS -employer-employee matters.

On the other hand, if taken exactly as you stated it, it is quite true.

It is quite true that if one just went into work one morning or just applied for a job and told the employer that you will not allow them to take out federal taxes, you would be fired or not hired for exactly the reasons you so correctly pointed out. The better reason for firing or refusal to hire, however should be "too stupid to work here." (LOL)

The uppermost thing to understand when telling your boss or prospective employer that you do not allow employers to take out federal income taxes is that it isn't their fight and you have no right to involve them in matters which are none of their business. They are in business to make money, not to fight your fights for you. As bb has so correctly pointed out, they correctly fear IRS reprisals which can come in many forms.

Any knowledgeable tax protester understands that and does not let his employer get involved with personal matters between himself and his government. Instead he goes about it in a much more intelligent manner by simply filling out a new W2 indicating the true facts which are that he owed no taxes last year and does not anticipate owing any this year either. Once he does that, the employer must honor the request by law. He cannot fire nor refuse to hire on the issue. If he does, he is in for an immediate lawsuit and maybe an IRS reprisal too.

What IRS wrath would the employer face if the employee filled out a W2 stating he owed no taxes last year and does not anticipate owing any this year either? It's all right there on the little form provided by the IRS with that option. So, you see, your statement was quite true and correct in the way you understand things, but quite false and misleading when all the facts are known and brought out. No one can berate you because you don't know or don't understand how something is done or what is the proper way to address a given situation. Your only problem is that you, like most folks, have been brainwashed and coerced by a totally illegal govenmental entity who must resort to Gestapo like fear tactics to accomplish it's ends. Even government itself has come to recognize that and are making great strides in trying to rectify the problems.

Our govenment now understands that it has done wrong and IRS is now under much greater scrutiny and control. As a result, terroristic type tax collections are down by about 90% from what they once were. Congress is working on the problems and will first try to overhaul IRS and if they fail to get the job done will eventually scrap the present tax system entirely and move on to whatever seems better prepared to meet the nation's needs while honoring the rights of the citizen.

We have the best system of government in the world, and we all know that. It just isn't perfect, and never will be.

Excuse me, but it was my understanding that the Supremes ruled in net effect that they didn't have any right to meddle in state's rights issues. I didn't really pay much attention to that little squabble. It was pretty obvious from the git-go that the Supremes would be unlikely to attempt to elect the next president. That is properly a function of the states and it was up to the Florida State Legislature to make the rules and up to the Florida State Supreme Court and the Florida State Election Commission to enforce the rules. Everybody did their jobs according to the law. Only problem in the entire process was that sore losers could not stand the fact that they lost and still want to cry about it.

If the electorial process is flawed and does not do the will of the people then it needs to be fixed before the election, not after it. The Supremes ruled in just about the only way they could have ruled under the circumstances, so using that as an excuse to say that one cannot rely on the rulings of 4 federal judges in landmark cases is completely off the wall and out to lunch.

Refusing to go along with IRS and it's terror tactics, lies, pettifogging, obfuscations and illegal acts is not all that difficult and it is well proven fact that one can and must rely on the opinons of our courts and our judges. They tell us what the law is and what one must do to obey it and give us relief when we are wronged. That is their job and they do it to the best of their ability under the law. We are a nation of laws and none is above the law.

So, again, 4 federal judges have ruled that absent lawful assessment of taxation, no tax is due or owed. A person is not a taxpayer until one has been lawfully assessed a tax. That is done through a well defined legal process which IRS refuses to follow for very simple and practical reasons. So know the law, respect the law and follow the law and one (IRS included) will have no problems from those who break the law.

nuff said

 

Since I am not qualified to comment on Bill's rant (keep ranting, Bill!), I won't.

However, I will comment on Erica's statement that she pays taxes simply because money is withheld from her check. Au Contraire, Miss Erica. If you are receiving all of that money back in April, then not only have you NOT paid any taxes, but you have voluntarily given the government an interest free loan for a year. How generous of you! You need to sit down with someone you trust to give you good financial advice, and decide how many exemptions you need to be claiming in order to get a zero balance. Then put that extra $250 per month towards retiring your debts (earn 18% instead of zero!) or beginning a savings program.

One of the things you will soon find out in your young life, Miss Erica, is that the tax system is designed to protect the status quo. Did you notice the recently released statistics from the Dept. of Labor showing that Clinton's Miracle Economy of the 90's resulted in the greatest widening of the gap between rich and poor ever (in contrast to the Greedy 80's, when the gap actually narrowed). Why is that. Let me give you a very personal example. I'm in sales for a software company. I get a decent base salary and commissions for sales above a certain baseline volume. We can "get by" on the base salary, but to make any forward progress, I've got to get into commission territory. But what do you think happens to the extra money? When I look at my check, it's disheartening. Between the federal, state, and FICA taxes, over 55% of my commission is taken from me.

The system is designed so that the trust fund babies (you know, the Kennedy's, Rockefeller's du Pont's, etc.), who all have tax free interest income, so they can sit Oh So Smugly up in their Committee chairs and make snide remarks about how the "Rich who make over $100K aren't paying their fair share." What they don't tell you is that they have a half million or more in tax free income (Earned off the money made by their great grandfather, who worked for a living!), but since it is tax free, it's not included in those figures. So what is the net effect? Their position at the top of the economic food chain is preserved, while they make it nearly impossible for others to climb the ladder (the harder I work, the lower my commensurate reward), and demonize me for trying. I don't have a lot of assets. I don't own a home. I owe money on my car, my computer, and my dog. I live very modestly, and in a modest neighborhood. My wife and I decided to forgo getting a second car so that we could afford Catholic School tuition for our daughter. But I'm considered part of the "evil rich" because I have worked my butt off and am now, finally, blessedly, beginning to see results. Now comes the punishment for trying so hard.

End of Rant.

PS I think we have, by accident, finally put this forum on the map!

 

Big Boy,
I believe it is time for you to go back to Frisch's or Bob's and take your throne as King of Hamburgers. You information is not only incorrect on how the de-regulation occurred, it also reeks with the same smell that most liberals spout when discussing anything form policy to political agendas. You give no reference to back up your facts and you seek to educate with no education. I do not have the time to edify you, but I do have the time to call a spade a spade. De-regulation has occurred all over the place in many industries and it has nothing to do with any particular party. It is a non-partisan measure that has been brought about by Fed, State and local governments in an effort to promote a free market place, while saving the governments money. The DE-regulation will sooner or later bring about competition. It will just take time. It has happened before and it will happen again as we wise up to the facts of what a free marketplace has to offer.