I'm really happy that you can see the unfairness and the force involved in tax collection. And yes, the 16th Amendment probably wasn't ratified properly, but the courts have ruled that it is the law of the land and unfortunately, it looks like Stare Diesis will keep it that way.



We are agreeing on something and that makes me very happy.

Answer it again, I missed it.

SpiderCMB said...

Those who run a company have the legal and moral obligations to keep the contracts they agree to and treat their employees humanely. That's the extent, I would say, of their moral obligation.

you guys seem to think the government could survive without taxation... how would that be possible?

Those who run a company have the legal and moral obligations to keep the contracts they agree to and treat their employees humanely. That's the extent, I would say, of their moral obligation.

No, I did not. You made the clearly false statement "Without society "trade" cannot happen." and I responded to it. I did not claim that barter "accurately describes today's economic and employment models." That's a flat out lie and if you actually thought I said that, then you are a complete moron.



Yes, very.



It's called a moral hierarchy. The choices are A) Let them work in sweatshops and earn a decent (for their country) wage or B) Force them to work as prostitutes or long hours in the sun working a field with primitive tools and/or gathering firewood for cooking and sale and still get less than they would get in a sweatshop, but while being in a far more dangerous line of work. Building a candy river, a field of lolly pops and clouds made out of cotton candy for them just isn't possible. We have to deal with the real world. Look at Taiwan, which had sweatshops years ago. As their economy grew (because of the taxes and economic activity of their sweatshop working citizens), sweatshops became less and less common. Eventually, it was no longer economically feasible to run sweatshops in Taiwan, so they moved to other countries. Taiwan now has the 19th largest GDP in the world. But you want to shut them down, subjecting the employees to greater hardships, just so that you can hold on to a smug sense of moral superiority. It's disgusting that you hold your self-satisfaction in so much higher esteem than those who you would condemn to suffer.





You are comparing apples to oranges.

In the sweatshops, the workers are getting paid the amount to which they agreed upon hiring. In the case of the wealthy, they are earning the amount that their work is worth, but then the Government is taking 50%. How you can equate the two is beyond reason.

ok... don't pay your taxes anymore then...lol

I don't think that at all. I'm just agreeing with him that the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified. I'm all about the law man, if something is done by the Government that isn't Kosher, I'm against it. I would love to see the 16th Amendment repealed and replaced with a new Amendment that would limit their powers of taxation or preferably make taxation a sliding scale with current GDP. Determine the size of the Government and never allow it to grow larger than that percent of the GDP. The Government could grow, but only when the Economy grew. Of course, you would have to pass a Balanced Budget amendment, so that they couldn't rack up ridiculous amounts of debt.

you guys seem to think the government could survive without taxation... how would that be possible?

That in itself is debatable particularly given the fact that the income tax was never officially ratified by all the states. It's an illegal tax on those grounds.

the ratification debate still goes on after several challenges have been rejected by the courts over the decades. if you'd read article five you'd know that "ALL THE STATES" need not ratify and amendment for it to take affect. an amendment requires ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures not "ALL THE STATES." mew hampshire became the 38th state to ratify the sixteenth amendment in 1913 when it officially became parr of the constitution. that's one tired argument your making as others have argued in court and lost big time. but you just go right ahead and don't pay your taxes and you can argue your rights violations from your jail cell, k?

i'm not up to speed on the 16 amendment, or why it needs to be ratified, but i know we have to pay taxes if we want this country to exist...

How about this? How about they provide us absolute indisputable PROOF that all this money they take from us on income and other taxes alike, actually is going where they say it is. If they do that, maybe then I'd feel different on taxes. But till then my view is not going to change.

Why is it that while we have to verify and confirm every last cent we make basically to them, they are held to a different standard? What's good for the goose..........

does your boss require absolute proof were you are spending your paycheck? do you require absolute proof where the grocery store is spending the money you spend there? why is where the government spends money any of your business? i mean, everyone else lies about what they are spending money on, but your only mad at the government?

Only because they have made it that way, and we don't have enough backbone to say no. Passivity has made fools of many.

your really not making any sense to me, i just can't grasp what you are trying to say... are you saying that we should just live here and never pay a dime to the government?

does your boss require absolute proof were you are spending your paycheck? do you require absolute proof where the grocery store is spending the money you spend there? why is where the government spends money any of your business? i mean, everyone else lies about what they are spending money on, but your only mad at the government?
and with all the spending the government does, just how big would this list be? face it, the government doesn't owe us any explanations on things that are none of our business... do you think they should tell us they are spending money on top secret projects?

Why shouldn't we hold them accountable? If they're gonna hold us accountable, why can't we do the same? It's total hypocrisy that amounts to "do as I say, not as I do".

Your paycheck is your money, not your employers. Taxes are the individuals money taken to support the society. The citizens should have the right to know, as members of the society, how their tax money is being spent. Sunshine laws were enacted to give us greater access to government meetings. We need transparency laws that will require budgetary transparency. I don't expect that military and intelligence community spending could be entirely transparent, but the rest of the Government should be.

one reason that comes to mind is that our spending amounts to less than a million dollars, where there spending is in the trillions... and who would explain this to you? does any one person know what the government is spending money on at any one time?