End To The Irs?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i hear some conservatives talking about ridding the government of the IRS. my position as of now: i think their intentions are good, but ultimately to hold those views would be irresponsible and/or ignorant.

IRS is needed to record and enforce etc payment of taxes, so it's needed.
Many tax issues are basic tax issues that do not involve special interest breaks and credits. ie, someone who gets a gift shouldn't have to pay taxes on it. someone who gets paid in goods instead of money should have to pay money on that somehow. someone who gets paid by a release of their debts, or otherwise gets a windfall from a bankruptcy etc, should have to pay taxes. when someone invests in a property, they shouldn't have to pay tax on the money they already put into the business, which in techincal tax terms is their basis, cause they already paid tax for it. should their basis be the fair market value of say a house at the time of sellng their property, or should it be what they invested in it? obviously what they invested, but someone needs to ensure it's all done right.

these are basic tax issues. and the government is needed to ensure it's all done fairly and properly. these are just what i could think of off the top of my head.

most conservatives, i know cause i fell in that mindset at one point, think flat tax on all your income. when it's not nearly that simple. even if i agreed with the idea of flat tax, not nearly that simple.

thoughts?

[Aloysius]

Ron Paul deals with the issue pretty well for a basic overview: [url="http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/end-the-irs/"]http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/end-the-irs/[/url]

There are a lot more complicated details, The Fair Tax plan is a pretty comprehensive and feasible plan: [url="http://www.fairtax.org"]http://www.fairtax.org[/url]

[Sojourner]

We can't end the IRS. Otherwise the $4,000 I have paid for my federal taxation class will all be for naught.

[Aloysius]

haha, you can teach an "archaic history of american taxation systems" one day... explaining the significance of the date "April 15" in historical media to the generations who will grow up without that burden :

one can dream...

anyway, I think it's a terrible injustice that we have a taxation system that has to be negotiated by people with expensive degrees on the subject. It makes us dependent upon the system and cuts down our ability to have independence and freedom the way the Founding Fathers intended it.

[SarahB]

Search the Tax laws. There's no law that says we're allowed to be taxed on the money we make for our labor. And when the IRS is pushed on that issue, they have to admit it. There was just a case in Texas where a man was taken to court by the IRS for not filing a tax return for the last few years. A jury found the man was no guilty because the IRS failed to prove that we have to.


I pray for the day we can return to the way things are supposed to be instead of the way the elite want them.

Edited September 27, 2007 by SarahB

[adt6247]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1394242' date='Sep 27 2007, 04:44 PM']i hear some conservatives talking about ridding the government of the IRS. my position as of now: i think their intentions are good, but ultimately to hold those views would be irresponsible and/or ignorant.

IRS is needed to record and enforce etc payment of taxes, so it's needed.
Many tax issues are basic tax issues that do not involve special interest breaks and credits. ie, someone who gets a gift shouldn't have to pay taxes on it. someone who gets paid in goods instead of money should have to pay money on that somehow. someone who gets paid by a release of their debts, or otherwise gets a windfall from a bankruptcy etc, should have to pay taxes. when someone invests in a property, they shouldn't have to pay tax on the money they already put into the business, which in techincal tax terms is their basis, cause they already paid tax for it. should their basis be the fair market value of say a house at the time of sellng their property, or should it be what they invested in it? obviously what they invested, but someone needs to ensure it's all done right.

these are basic tax issues. and the government is needed to ensure it's all done fairly and properly. these are just what i could think of off the top of my head.

most conservatives, i know cause i fell in that mindset at one point, think flat tax on all your income. when it's not nearly that simple. even if i agreed with the idea of flat tax, not nearly that simple.

thoughts?[/quote]
The federal government could actually have significantly more tax income if it switched to a flat tax model without a refund system, or a consumption tax model, or better yet, abolished all taxes other than tariffs and excise taxes, the IRS would no longer be necessary.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well bottomline, IRS is needed for the enforcement of taxes not paid.

but beyond that, even the models posed adt would require someone to ensure it's done proper and right. even with tariffs etc, it's too simplistic to think, gee all tarifss are such that i get money for goods. it could be good for goods. it could be good for a release of debt. it could be all kinds of things. someone has to look at this to be fair.
i kinda wonder if adt read my initial post.

i know it's complicated, and too bad an ordinary person cna'lttt understand it, but that's life. we don't want to have simplicity at the sake of fairness and other justice.
so we can either not have fairness or justice, or we can have it where everyone has to learn tehse rules, or we can have where gov people tell the people the rules when they need them which is essentially what we do now but more efficient, or we cna do what we do now.

the bottom line. no one likes that it's complicted. and every system starts with the idea of a simple tax. but realities set in and people want thins fair. i recommend the book, taxes in paradise, to illustrate that point.

Edited September 27, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Sojourner]

[quote name='SarahB' post='1394268' date='Sep 27 2007, 03:25 PM']Search the Tax laws. There's no law that says we're allowed to be taxed on the money we make for our labor. And when the IRS is pushed on that issue, they have to admit it. There was just a case in Texas where a man was taken to court by the IRS for not filing a tax return for the last few years. A jury found the man was no guilty because the IRS failed to prove that we have to.
I pray for the day we can return to the way things are supposed to be instead of the way the elite want them.[/quote]
You might want to check out the 16th Amendment: Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
(Note: I tried to link to the Wikipedia article on this, but couldn't for whatever reason. PM kept saving the URL wrong so the link would not work. So go on Wikipedia and look it up. Educate yourself.)

That's a part of our law. And if you don't pay your taxes you will get in trouble, up to and including jail time. It is a fallacy to believe that you don't have to pay taxes. And it would be very very stupid to act on that belief.

I'd like to see the citation of the case you mentioned. Because I can find several citations for cases that would contradict it.

Edited September 27, 2007 by Terra Firma

[dairygirl4u2c]

also, the constitution allows the fed gov to tax its people pursuant to tax and spend clause. a state might not have authority to tax its people, but that's its own issue.

[dairygirl4u2c]

ron pauls ideas probably just represent federalism. sure, the fed govenrment cna exist without taxes if the states are so free to do their own system. the stautes could pay the feds if the feds need money or something
bottomline, if feds need money they need the tax options.

the flat tax bill is the same thing. from the second link.

even with state laws, all the issue i posted inj the initial post would't be addressed. people are not addressing issues i presented but dodging it or reverting back to what i attacked with no real counter attack. basis problems, gift problems, who is the taxpayer problems (like if you try to give gifts to avoid paying taxes etc or if your kids work for you etc) etc.

[dairygirl4u2c]

in a perfect world we owudnt need IRS. but reality... if we say only tax income money the npeople will pay with goods or releaes of debt etc. thier motives would need fought.
plus i don't htink it makes sense to only tax money income, when someone is making income with goods instead.

[dairygirl4u2c]

so i admit. it makes sense to say we can end the IRS. i guess my thread would have to be, we need some tax system at least as states and to advoate an end to all of it is irresponsible andor ignorant.

that's a very important point i now realize. andhould is really where this thread should have gone.

[SarahB]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1394292' date='Sep 27 2007, 04:56 PM']You might want to check out the 16th Amendment: Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
(Note: I tried to link to the Wikipedia article on this, but couldn't for whatever reason. PM kept saving the URL wrong so the link would not work. So go on Wikipedia and look it up. Educate yourself.)

That's a part of our law. And if you don't pay your taxes you will get in trouble, up to and including jail time. It is a fallacy to believe that you don't have to pay taxes. And it would be very very stupid to act on that belief.

I'd like to see the citation of the case you mentioned. Because I can find several citations for cases that would contradict it.[/quote]


Actually, the Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment gave the government no new power to tax us, especially on what we made for labor. That's a direct tax, and prohibited by the Constitution.

I'll have to search for that case. I thougth I had it saved on my computer, but I can't find it. I'll look for it. I'll have to look for that Supreme Court case, too. I can't remember the name of it right now.

I'm not against taxes, just unconstitutional ones.

[SarahB]

Grrr.....I can't find it. I think I read it on Yahoo, and it wasn't that long ago, maybe 2 or 3 weeks ago. But I'll keep looking. I know it's there somewhere.

[Kirisutodo333]

I think when the say "end the IRS", it means end the "income tax" period! That's what the fair tax is all about. And of course, without income tax, the IRS does not exist.

[url="http://www.fairtax.org"]Read about the Fair Tax here[/url]

It would be a wonderful thing not to be taxed for income, but only for what we consume. Imagine taking every penny of what you earn home with you.

paz

Kiris

[Sojourner]

[quote name='SarahB' post='1394308' date='Sep 27 2007, 04:14 PM']Actually, the Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment gave the government no new power to tax us, especially on what we made for labor. That's a direct tax, and prohibited by the Constitution.

I'll have to search for that case. I thougth I had it saved on my computer, but I can't find it. I'll look for it. I'll have to look for that Supreme Court case, too. I can't remember the name of it right now.

I'm not against taxes, just unconstitutional ones.[/quote]
You need to cite the Supreme Court ruling in which they found that, because I am not aware of it. And neither, apparently, is Congress or the IRS. I reiterate my earlier statement that your beliefs along these lines are a fallacy, and to act on them would be very, very stupid and could land you in jail. Here is part of my tax law reading for tomorrow.

1. Historical background. Congress enacted the first income tax in 1861 as a means of financing the Civil War. See Act of Aug. 5, 1861, sec. 49, 12 Stat. 292, 309. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Civil War income tax in Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880). After the Civil War, the income tax statute expired in 1871. In 1894, Congress again enacted the personal income tax, which the Supreme Court quickly invalidated as unconstitutional. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895). In 1909, Congress enacted a corporate income tax, which the Supreme Court found was a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to tax. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911). On February 25, 1913, the requisite number of states ratified the 16th amendment, which permitted Congress to impose an income tax without having to apportion it.

a. In Pollock the Court concluded that the newly enacted income tax violated the requirements in the constitution that all direct taxes be apportioned among the states in accordance with population. U.S. const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3 and § 9, cl. 4. This meant that if Minnesota had 2% of the total population in the United States, then only 2% of the revenue from the tax could come from Minnesota.

This rather odd rule on direct taxation was part of the “Great Compromise” at the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia in 1787. The southern states, with much larger populations of slaves, wanted representatives in the House of Representatives to be apportioned based on the number of human inhabitants. The Northern states, which had fewer slaves, did not want slaves counted at all. So the delegates agreed that each slave should be counted as three/fifths of a person. Then the idea arose that federal direct taxes should be apportioned according to the census. The 14th amendment removed the three/fifths rule to reflect the new constitutional regime reflected in the 13th amendment, which eliminated the power of the federal or state governments to permit slavery.

The administrative requirements of apportioning some direct taxes were so burdensome that previously enacted direct taxes were repealed shortly after their enactment. Federal property taxes, which would have been direct taxes, were enacted by Congress to fund the War of 1812 and the Civil War. Congress repealed both of these taxes before they could get started.

The 1894 income tax could have survived the courts' constitutional objections if it were viewed as an indirect tax or if it had been apportioned according to the population of each state. The Pollock court found that the income tax was a direct tax. Because it was not apportioned, it violated the constitution. Because an apportioned income tax was unworkable, the court's decision killed the income tax until the Constitution, or its interpretation, was changed.

The Pollock decision hinged on the distinction between a direct and an indirect tax because direct taxes had to be apportioned and indirect taxes did not. The 16th amendment empowered Congress to impose "taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States."

Most modern economists now view the income tax as a direct tax because the taxpayer is personally liable for the payment of the tax. At the end of the 19th century, this was a contested concept. A property tax is also a direct tax and has always been considered to be a direct tax. A sales tax is an indirect tax because the seller is liable for the tax, but the seller can and usually does pass the tax on to the ultimate consumer.

[Sojourner]

In addition (and this is my own and not my prof's summary) courts have found that the 16th amendment is an [b]exception[/b] to the constitutional prohibition against non-apportioned direct taxes. It is a Constitutional Amendment, and therefore [i]is part of the Constitution[/i]. So your statement, Sarah, that the Constitution prohibits direct taxation of income is factually in error.

I'll also note that the Constitution does not prohibit direct taxation. It simply says that all direct taxes must be apportioned by population.

[url="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34031"]Here is a story about the woman you were referencing. [/url]
She was found not guilty of criminal charges of tax evasion. This means that a jury found that she did not have the intent to break the law, and therefore is not guilty of the criminal penalties.

HOWEVER that does not mean she is not liable for taxes. And frankly, her understanding that the IRS Code would contain the support for Congress to tax her is a misunderstanding of how the system works. The Code is merely the instructions for HOW taxation works, not WHY it is allowable. It is allowable because of the 16th amendment, not because of the IRS Code. This is the distinction between the legislative and executive branch. Legislators develop policy, and the executive branch carries out this policy. "Why should I have to pay taxes?" is inherently a legislative and not executive question.

Edited September 27, 2007 by Terra Firma

[dairygirl4u2c]

sales instead of income is interesting. i remember i used to embrace that view and is till might but haven't given it much thought for a long time. i guess i still would. but im not sure it'd negate all the problems that are natural to tax for income.
eg peole would still pay with goods instead of money and fair market values would need calculated and basis in the property etc. and barter goods would still gbe masquarading as gifts, and gift issues in general.
so a complicated system is unavoidable. i'm not sure it's making things much more simpler. i'd have to think about that more i guess.

[SarahB]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1394339' date='Sep 27 2007, 06:09 PM'][url="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34031"]Here is a story about the woman you were referencing. [/url]
She was found not guilty of criminal charges of tax evasion. This means that a jury found that she did not have the intent to break the law, and therefore is not guilty of the criminal penalties.[/quote]

No, that wasn't it. It was a man and the jury ruled that the IRS didn't have the capacity to tax us based on income. I'm still looking.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='SarahB' post='1394368' date='Sep 27 2007, 05:38 PM']No, that wasn't it. It was a man and the jury ruled that the IRS didn't have the capacity to tax us based on income. I'm still looking.[/quote]
Well, I don't think hell is getting any colder. But hey, maybe so.