| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
benpadiah
AHDVNHAY
Joined: 09 Oct 2004
Posts: 2221
Location: phi^2/pi=e
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:54 am Post subject: your tax dollars at work |
|
|
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
, Amendment XVI (the Sixteenth Amendment) of the United States
Constitution, authorizing income taxes in their present form, was
ratified on February 3, 1913.
| wikipedia wrote: |
| In
the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. 157 U.S. 429
(1895), rehearing 158 U.S. 601 (1895), the Supreme Court declared the
he Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 attempted to impose a federal tax
of 2% on incomes over $4,000 to be an unconstitutional "direct tax"
(because it taxed the rents from land and the dividends from stocks,
and the Court said that such taxes "burden" the property). In Brushaber
v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the Supreme Court ruled
that the amendment prevented the Court from "lifting" the income tax
out of the class of indirect taxes "in which it inherently belonged"
and putting it in the category of direct taxes, as was done in Pollock.
All direct taxes must still be apportioned under Article I. It also
ruled that the Amendment was not retroactive, and observed that taxes
on personal property were still direct. In 1913, Secretary of State
Philander Knox proclaimed that the amendment had been ratified by the
necessary three-quarters of the states in 1913 (a few additional states
ratified the amendment later), making federal income taxes
constitutional. |
However, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS
in 1862, during the Civil War, President Lincoln and Congress created
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay
war expenses. The income tax was repealed 10 years later. In 1894,
Congress revived the income tax, but the Supreme Court ruled it
unconstitutional the following year.
| wikipedia wrote: |
| In
fiscal year 2004, the IRS collected $43.1 billion in enforcement
revenue. This is $5.5 billion or a 15 percent increase from fiscal 2003. |
The IRS is an "operating unit" of the department of the treasury. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_the_Treasury The basic functions of the Department of the Treasury include:
| wikipedia wrote: |
? Managing Federal finances;
? Collecting taxes, duties and monies paid to and due to the U.S. and paying all bills of the U.S.;
? Producing all postage stamps, currency and coinage;
? Managing Government accounts and the U.S. public debt;
? Supervising national banks and thrift institutions;
? Advising on domestic and international financial, monetary,
economic, trade and tax policy - fiscal policy being the sum of these,
and the ultimate responsibility of US Congress.
? Enforcing Federal finance and tax laws;
? Investigating and prosecuting tax evaders, counterfeiters,
forgers, smugglers, illicit spirits distillers, and gun law violators.
|
| wikipedia wrote: |
Effective
January 24, 2003 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was no
longer a Bureau of the Department of the Treasury. The law enforcement
functions of ATF have been transferred to the Department of Justice.
The tax and trade functions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms remained with Treasury at the new Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau.
On March 1, 2003 the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, the
United States Customs Service, and the United States Secret Service
moved to the United States Department of Homeland Security. |
Disregarding the rather obvious beuracratic nightmare of inter-office
entanglements and jurisdictional overlaps implied by the ATF and secret
service operating under the auspices of the treasury department prior
to 2003, as well as what I consider to be the unethical existence of
the IRS before the ratification of the income taxation ammendment, I
waded further into the data files...
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/economic-policy/resources/index.shtml had this to say...
[quote=US Treasury Dept."]The estimates for Total Taxable Resources
(TTR) are used in formulas that allocate Federal funds for the
Community Mental Health Service and Substance Abuse Prevention and
Treatment block grant programs among the states. The block grant
programs are administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, an agency of the Department of Health and
Human Services. [/quote]
I found this interesting, and so I downloaded the pdf document
describing TTR for the fiscal years 2000-2002. This can be found here: http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/economic-policy/resources/estimates.shtml (select 2005, pdf)
For an explanation of "per capita index" I went back to wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-capita_income where I found that...
[quote="wikipedia"]The per capita income for a group of people may be
defined as their total personal income, divided by the number of
people. Per capita income is usually reported in units of currency per
year.
and that...
| wikipedia wrote: |
| Total personal income is lower then the Gross domestic income! |
from there I then journeyed to the IRS website. After digging around a
little I found the Internal Revenue Service Data Book 2004, Publication
55B, Washington, DC, Issued March 2005. I then downloaded the "entire
publication" in pdf. It may be found here: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102174,00.html along with the complete contents listed by tables.
-ben
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top » |
|
 |
benpadiah
AHDVNHAY
Joined: 09 Oct 2004
Posts: 2221
Location: phi^2/pi=e
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Now,
of particular interest to me is comparing the TTR document from the
dept of the treasury with the IRS "gross collections" table (page 20 of
the "entire publication" pdf of the databook).
For example...
for my home state of Florida, between 2000 and 2002, the TTR went
up from $584 billion to $613 billion, although the per capita index
only increased from 92.0 to 92.6. For comparison, the state with the
highest per capita index, Illinois, generated almost the same amount in
2000 and 2002 of TTR (with a drop during fiscal 2001), despite the fact
that its per capita index was in decline during that time.
Now, here's what really interests me.
If you look at the totals for those years, take, 2002 for instance,
the TTR of the whole US is listed as $11,422,500,000. However,
comparing that the IRS "gross collections" table in the 2004 IRS
databook, $1,249,171,681 was actually collected (excluding alcohol and
tobacco taxes, and before refunds).
What interests me most about this isn't the roughly 1/11 ratio of
taxes paid to taxable amounts. Nor is it the fact that, including taxes
to alcohol and tobacco, the "gross collections" by the IRS for 2002
double. Nor is it even the fact that the gross revenue from taxation is
around $2 billion for 2004, while the federal government's budget for
the year included almost $200 billion be alloted to the DOD for the war
in Iraq and Afghanistan alone.
No, what interests me is that the amount paid from corporation
income tax declined from $211.5 million in 2002 to $194 million in '03,
while that of individual income tax declined from $1 billion in '02 to
$987 million in '03. I'm not very good with exact percentages, perhaps
someone else could help me out here, but I know that the decline of
corporate tax revenue from $211.5 to $194 million is much steeper than
the decline of individual income tax revenue from $1 billion to $987
million. The ratio difference indicates, to me, that corporations got
tax relief to the tune of about $7 million, while personal income tax
relief totalled less than $1 million. Now, considering that
corporations are (and should be) kicking in substantially less tax
dollars to the federal government than its individual citizens, then
why would they be required to be pay $6 million difference less than
individuals' incomes in tax from '02 to '03?
Here's another thing that concerns me.
The TTR from 2000 to 2002 for the entire United States increased
from $11,160,100,000 to $11,422,500,000. During that same period, the
"gross collections" total (incl. alcohol and tobacco taxes) of the IRS
only dropped from $2,096,916,925 to $2,016,627,289. In other words,
while the overall wealth of the nation's population increased about
$500 million, the amount paid in taxes declined only $80 million.
That's only a decline of (correct me if I'm wrong here) 4% between the
percentage earned and that taxed in 2000 and that earned/taxed (after
refunds) in '02.
So, if I'm interpreting this data correctly, we have a 4% rate of
tax drop (2000-2002) with a difference of $6 million dollars worth of
that between corporate tax relief and personal income tax refunds.
Basically, my conclusion from all of this is that between 2000 and
2002, of the 4% tax decrease, 6/7ths of this went to corporations. In
plain english, corporations are paying a smaller percent of their
earnings in taxes than individual people.
All sorts of arguments for and against this fact can be raised.
On the side of the corporations are the arguments: corporations'
earnings rates result in increased payment for their employees;
corporations have thousands of employees amassing millions of dollars
in taxable income; individuals aren't corporations.
On the side of the individuals are the arguments: the difference in
increased payment by corporations to their employees is then taken up
by taxes paid to the government; the US has millions of individual
citizens and thus collects a higher percentage of income taxes from
them than from corporations; and that corporations (despite lobbying
power) should not have equal (or greater) rights status to individual
citizens.
In the end it is not the arguments raised by civil rights pundits
or corporate lobbyists that are important. Only the fact that
corporations (especially ones like Saandia and Bell Laboratories who
benefit directly from DOD budgeted government contracts, as well as
Halliburton and the other energy companies) are not paying the same
percentage of their income taxes as are individual citizens is
important. Whether this is right or wrong is entirely beside this fact.
-ben
_________________
|
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
benpadiah
AHDVNHAY
Joined: 09 Oct 2004
Posts: 2221
Location: phi^2/pi=e
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've recently begun the following charming exchange with Supriem Rockefeller, my first exchange with this bright young man, about a blog he'd posted called The biggest fraud called the IRS is GONE!.
Here is his opening post:
| Supriem Rockefeller, Thursday, July 26, 2007 wrote: |
The biggest fraud called the IRS is GONE!
I told everyone a while ago that myself and several people I know
want to end the IRS. It looks like that will happen sooner then we
think. The IRS is the biggest FRAUD of all time, goodbye to them.
CHECK MATE!
Read this article.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855
|
So I skimmed the article, which was about a case in which a lawyer defended himself against a back-tax debt charge and won.
My response was relatively mundane to the topic of the article
itself, and instead I attempted to shift the focus to Supriem's motives
in wanting to disband the IRS.
| ~GOD~ on Monday, July 30, 2007 at 11:42 AM wrote: |
hello new friend,??yes, but aren't cases like this common
throughout the states on just this same level? How is this different
from, say, a truck-driver refusing to pay taxes? It seems to me it
would be necessary to file a class-action suit against the government
(or rather the US FED) on behalf of the entire American people. But
then, the sums owed in the paper-currency public-loans would have to be
paid back to the people off the standard of some more tangible solid,
such as, most likely, a precious metal. But by now, what use do we have
for massive quantities of unrefined gold when we, the raw populous, do
not have at our access simultaneously the means of refining and
processing these massive sums of precious metals into any form that
could ultimately prove biologically useful to our species? This is all
neo-Marxism, of course, which only leads me to reiterate my original
line of questioning for you... just where are you going with this? Are
your motives altruistic or venal? Not that it matters to me one way or
the other. You could say I'm "j/w."??~GOD~
|
Supriem's response was carefully worded, but he was quick to reply:
| SUPRIEM™ ROCKEFELLER on Monday, July 30, 2007 at 11:57 AM wrote: |
What makes this case stand out is that plutocratic people are
backing this case, Live Free Now Organization (livefreenow.org) is all
over this case, they are taking it to the Supreme Court to make sure
nobody has to pay income taxes.??You can't file a class-action suit
against the Government, the IRS is not a Government entity, it is a
private company, so is the FED. As far as you saying the sums owed
would have to be paid off the standard, there is no standard. The U.S.
Dollar has strictly a floating exchange rate, inflation is nothing more
than a hidden tax. There is only $435 billion of hard currency in
circulation but the U.S. owes Trillions in debt, Congress is
responsible for paying that back but they have the ability to borrow
unlimited amounts of money.??My motive is to eliminate state and
federal income taxes and have a flat tax on consumer purchases. If the
U.S. got rid of income taxes, money that has been in offshore tax
havens to avoid paying taxes would find its way back to the U.S.
because now the U.S. has become a tax haven.
|
I've taken my time in crafting my response, which I am about to post there and which reads as follows:
| what I am about to post back to Supriem wrote: |
First thank you for that well reasoned and prompt response. I must
say that you are obviously better educated about these matters than am
I. What I am asking, however, is more of a moral question.
Imagine you were the ruler of the world. Imagine you have at your
easy access and beck and call all the wealth of all the nations and all
the power over and loyal love of everybody else as well. What would
you, Supriem Rockefeller, do were that the case? How would you go about
solving the problems that you see we face as humanity? ie. After the
IRS, then what?
And please, new friend, do not misunderstand me here. I am only
curious because we share some very interesting mutual friends. They
have spoken very highly of you to me in many matters that interest me
alot.
My main reason in "testing you out" as I am, is simply to get to
know what kind of a person you are deep down. I, personally, am the
type of person who believes, deep down, that there are certain "right"
and certain "wrong" reasons to go about doing anything.
I agree with you about the need and the desire to dismantle the IRS
and the Federal Reserve. However, I want to know before I let myself
agree with you outright if I agree with your reasons for wanting to do
it. And, to be fair, I will tell you my own reasons for wanting this
outcome, if you'd care to know, and still not expect you to feel you
have to reciprocate this action to me.
I personally would like to see the IRS and the Federal Bank
dis-established because I do not agree with the concept of "debt"
itself. All institutions whose foundations are based upon funding via
the concept of "debt" will inherit only the leveling wind.
This includes not only stock-market gambling, but everybody's
financial net-worth, the entire economic network and the placement of
arbitrary value on possible future returns and on resource scarcity in
general. However, to me, this would not mean the "end of the US
dollar," since the idea of a token exchange system involving a
third-object as means of barter for any given goods or services would
not cease to be relatively necessary (insofar as it may be useful to
everyone equally).
I also foresee the inevitable expiration of all those whose power
depends from and clings to the disempowerment or inedebtedness of
anyone else. I simply believe there are a group of individual people
among us, who we can weed out, that are responsible for causing other
individuals around them to feel or to do things more or less against
their will, and most definately against their better judgment (such as
paying taxes).
However, to me what is important is finding these individuals and
helping them come to see their way through what they, as like people
possessed by demons, believe is a only a very stressful situation that
they must be forced to deal with.
So, basically, in a nutshell, that is my reason for disagreeing
with all such social instutions as privately owned banks, savings and
loans or credit unions, all debt-restructuring services, as well as,
but not limited to only, the IRS and the Fed as a non-governmental
entity.
The general sentiment at this time, however, seems to be against
the transfer, gradual or not, of economic "check and balance"
adjustments (or shock-tests) due to federal regulation out of the hands
of those who are profiting by abusing the legal loop-holes in the
taxation / stock-exchange system, and against disposal of this
financial leverage mechanism itself.
I apologise for going on for so long. I simply like to write, and
to chat about such beliefs, and to try to find solid common ground by
exploring some of the murkier depths of my own psyche. In any event, I
would still be interested to know what your take on the world situation
is now, and what kind of world-view you have for the future. Again, if
you should choose not to answer, I will not take it personally. I just,
as I say, enjoy writing and chatting about things that interest me, and
am curious to find out what might some of these type of things be that
I might have in common with you.
Your new friend,
- Jon |
I'm just beginning to wonder what any of your opinions are on the IRS.
Care to join in on this topic?
-ben
_________________
|
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
benpadiah
AHDVNHAY
Joined: 09 Oct 2004
Posts: 2221
Location: phi^2/pi=e
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SUPRIEM™ ROCKEFELLER on Wednesday, August 01, 2007 at 7:25 PM wrote: |
For the record, I never said anything about dismantling the Federal
Reserve, I only said the IRS. I am in favor of a flat tax on consumer
purchases and as far as my other views, well, I will get into that
another time.
I do however appreciate the time you have taken to address these
situations and I promise you I will be in further dialog very soon.
Now, for the record, I am for getting rid of the U.S. Dollar and
adopting a unified global currency. I only have good intentions for
humanity and I only live to see society prevail and have a better
future, and to do that we must end corruption in the sovereign debt
lending sector.
I will speak more of this very soon. |
ya gotta give the guy credit. He's right on the money. LOL.
-ben
_________________
|
|
| Back to top » |
|
|
|
|
