The GOP should help crash America

Photo by by rhapsouldize of DeviantArt

Before the 2012 primary election I argued that the last chance for America is to elect Ron Paul as President of the United States. The main charge against the GOP was that all the contenders – save Ron Paul – were big-government politicians and big-government was exactly what was ruining America. Before you go and get excited please understand that I’m not singling out Democrats here as big-government folks as many people like to try to pin the tail. Fiscally the Democrats want to spend money they don’t have on “social programs” and the Republicans want to spend money they don’t have on wars and nation building. Regulation wise the Democrats want to legislate the market and the Republicans want to legislate morality. They both support progressive taxation, passing laws without reading them, pseudo-safety, spying on citizens, groping citizens as they travel, and controlling their right to protect themselves. They both support fiat currency, the Federal Reserve, Quantitive Easing, fractional-reserve-lending, not auditing the Federal Reserve, bailouts, and fake stimulus checks. And best yet they all are in favor of ceding our sovereignty to the United Nations, Germany, Mexico, NAFTA, the IMF, or whoever asks for it.

I’ve heard a great divide lately after the 2012 Presidential election from all sides. I’ve heard many say that they feel that a second American Civil War is on the horizon. Others simply are realizing that as 47% of Americans don’t even pay incomes taxes on the large, that we are at the crucial turning point where half of Americans are simply voting to maintain eating out of the fiscal trough and they will vote for whoever promises them the most feed – in this case Obama promised the most.

I said before the election that if Ron Paul didn’t get elected President that it was all downhill – that America will fall. I followed that up in my conversations with friends that the faster America falls, the better. Now, I’m not saying that I want America to be overthrown, I simply want her to fall as quickly as possible so that when she does fall there will still be enough people who are able-bodied and who still value Freedom and Individualism to pick up the pieces and rebuild the greatest nation on Earth.

Apparently I’m not the only one. Arnold Ahlert said it best,

As a result, I have a suggestion for the Republicans, one they won’t hear from anyone else: give Barry and Company everything they want, without an iota of resistance. Let ‘em raise taxes and the debt ceiling, gut the military, and run up trillions of dollars of additional deficits and debt. Then stand back, and let an utterly corrupt media chronicle the demise — without being able to pin an ounce of the ensuing socialist catastrophe on an ‘obstructionist’ GOP. (link)

I’ve heard more people say that they feel that they should just quit their job and start collecting welfare and food-stamps. I think many of us know people who are indefinitely on these social programs, many of who abuse those programs and it quite frustrating to watch them live the good life while we struggle to do the right things in life – pay for our mortgages, buy groceries for our fridge, and cut our debt down. I personally know of multiple people who own homes on my tax dollar and eat like kings who don’t have jobs and haven’t in some time. There comes a breaking point where we look around and wonder why we are the only one working and struggling while others are living off our sweat in luxury… and then we say fuck it and join in.

Why fight it? Let’s just crash this bitch.

The Real Reason Gays Are Not Allowed To Marry

On October 21, 1936, our 32nd American President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, said to the people at Worcester, Massachussets, “Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society.” So what is this organized society and why am I a member of it? I have a membership to SAM’S Club by my own choice. I was a member of the National Spelological Society only after I voluntarily filled out an application and paid my dues. If I wanted to be a member of the National Rifle Association then I too would be doing the same thing. Even with banking you won’t be a member of a credit union unless you apply and are accepted.

So what does it mean when our government says that we have a “membership” into a “society.” In all the above examples, memberships are something that you individually volunteer to be in. You aren’t really “born into” any membership. Or are we?

In my above examples when I become a member of SAM’S Club, they give me a membership number on my membership card. When I became a member of the NSS I received a membership number on my membership card. I would assume that the NRA would be the same. And likewise with my banking I also have a membership number. But for this membership into this society do we have a similiar situation? Well, it seems that we do.

In 1935 the government passed the Social Security Act. In this act normal citizens were allowed to sign up for an insurance and retirement program. In exchange for their membership they paid their dues and the government through the Social Security Administration issued membership numbers. Prior to 1935 the government had this same plan and enumerated their participants, their government employees, with Social Security Numbers. The act simply allowed non-government employees to join under the plan – of course, so long as they paid their membership fees.

However, even back then the people still had a choice to be a part of the plan. They still had a choice on whether to join. In fact, the Enumeration at Birth program wasn’t even established until 1989. Here is the werd part though… FDR said that taxes a part of a membership of a society. So one should assume that if you are a member of the society (presumably in this case, an American) then you pay taxes. Right?

Somewhat.

Taxes are everywhere and generally everyone will come in contact with them somehow. I want to zero in on the income taxes though. The biggest change to the the tax code was a few years after the Social Security Act of 1935 with the Revenue Act of 1942. In the 1942 edition the Subtitle C code was introduced which incorporated the language, almost verbatim, from the Social Security Act of 1935. Is this just a coinscidence? Doubtful.

Could it be that with the Social Security Act of 1935 the government radically changed who we are? Or made us join in on a membership of which we didn’t even know about? To me, it seems that way. Even the SSA admits that one does not need to have a SSN to live or work in America.

Today we are given SSNs at birth by our parents with the encouragement of the doctors. The process is easy and the hospital does all the work for you. You simply check off a box and bam, they give you a SSN.

I am way off tangent here because the real reason I wanted to write is because I find it interesting how gay people are not allowed to marry. Quite honestly, politicians don’t care who does what behind closed doors. Many American’s don’t care either. So, why are they not allowed? I think the answer to this lies in the tax question. Married people are likely to have children, which will be automatically enrolled into the Social Security program. The SSN cannot be revoked, removed, deleted, or nullified. So once you have a number, you will have that number until you die. So, anytime you use that membership number on certain things – there will be certain legal implications of using that number. In this case, I am proposing that you are submiting your membership in the Social Security program and thus you will have to pay your membership dues to be a part of that society.

But back to gay marriage. Gay couples will never have children. They physically cannot produce offspring. So, they will never be bringing new members into the taxation system. So, since they never will bring new children into the system, it is to the government’s benefit to keep them at a higher [single] rate. It is the government’s little ploy to try to get gay people to be straight and procreate to get more members.

So there you have it, that is why gay people are not treated equally under the tax laws.

AZDOR: Just Because You Work, Doesn’t Mean You Are An Employee

From a very young age we are taught that everyone pays taxes. Later on in our lives when we start working we are told that when you work, you pay taxes. We are told that the 16th Amendment allows the government to tax any “income” you may have. You are a worker, then you are an employee. You pay someone for work, then you are an employer. You pay someone for work, and that money is a wage. Someone does work for you, and that work is considered a service provided.

But, what happens when you have someone in power admit that these are not necessarily true?

I asked the Arizona Department of Revenue 4 very simple questions, which to me their answers are surprising.

1. According to Arizona law, is every individual that works considered an “employee”?

2. According to Arizona law, is every individual that pays someone else for work completed considered to be an “employer”?

3. According to Arizona law, is every payment made for work completed considered to be a “wage”?

4. According to Arizona law, is all work completed considered to be a “service”?

Their answers were as follows.

The Sixteenth Amendment Did Not Allow the Government to Tax You!

So guess what time it is – TAX TIME! For many of you it is a viewed as a time to “get a refund.” Of course, this completely ignores the fact that the government has been taking your money, interest free mind you, for the entire year. That money never even hit your wallet (or purse for you ladies) so it never really seemed like yours in the first place.

But, what is the justification for the government to take 20 or so percent of your paycheck? If you listen to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) then they will tell you that they do.

The Law: The constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment has invariably been upheld when challenged. And numerous courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non‑apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid. In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991), the court cited to Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916), and noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the “sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation.” (link)

So POOF there you have it – the courts have undoubtedly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment allows a direct income tax on [all] United States citizens. If you are a United States citizen, then you are taxable.

United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 950 (1991)

the court found defendant’s argument that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct, non-apportioned tax on United States citizens similarly to be “devoid of any arguable basis in law.”

Broughton v. United States, 632 F.2d 706 (8th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 930 (1981)

the court rejected a refund suit, stating that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes imposition of an income tax without apportionment among the states.

United States v. Hockensmith, 104 A.F.T.R.2d 2009-5133, 2009 WL 1883521 (M.D. Pa. Jun. 30, 2009)

the court rejected the taxpayer’s arguments that no law created an income tax and that the taxpayer was outside the government’s taxing authority. The court held that the Sixteenth Amendment allows for the taxation of income and eliminates the requirement for apportionment among the states.

IRS Publication 2105 entitled “Why Do I Have to Pay Taxes” also states,

Congress used the power granted by the Constitution and Sixteenth Amendment, and made laws requiring all individuals to pay tax.

So there you have it. There is nothing unconstitutional about the Sixteenth Amendment so you are taxable. The Sixteenth Amendment reads as follows.

The 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.

But wait…

The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified on February 3, 1913, so if it is what allowed the government to tax “incomes, from whatever source derived” then we should have an influx of people start filing starting around 1913 or 1914. Please review the chart below as I have compiled a list of the number of returns from 1913 to 2005 as well as a corresponding population. I have also added a category of the percentage of the American public filing as well as a percent increase of filings from the previous year.

Year	Number of Returns	Population	% of Population Filing	% Increase
1913	358,000	97,225,000	0.37%	NULL
1914	358,000	99,111,000	0.36%	0.00%
1915	337,000	100,546,000	0.34%	-5.87%
1916	437,000	101,961,000	0.43%	29.67%
1917	3,473,000	103,268,000	3.36%	694.74%
1918	4,425,000	103,208,000	4.29%	27.41%
1919	5,333,000	104,514,000	5.10%	20.52%
1920	7,260,000	106,461,000	6.82%	36.13%
1921	6,662,000	108,538,000	6.14%	-8.24%
1922	6,787,000	110,049,000	6.17%	1.88%
1923	7,698,000	111,947,000	6.88%	13.42%
1924	7,370,000	114,109,000	6.46%	-4.26%
1925	4,171,000	115,829,000	3.60%	-43.41%
1926	4,138,000	117,397,000	3.52%	-0.79%
1927	4,102,000	119,035,000	3.45%	-0.87%
1928	4,144,000	120,509,000	3.44%	1.02%
1929	4,133,000	121,767,000	3.39%	-0.27%
1930	3,852,000	123,076,741	3.13%	-6.80%
1931	3,411,000	124,039,648	2.75%	-11.45%
1932	4,083,000	124,840,471	3.27%	19.70%
1933	3,892,000	125,578,763	3.10%	-4.68%
1934	4,198,000	126,373,773	3.32%	7.86%
1935	4,670,000	127,250,232	3.67%	11.24%
1936	5,486,000	128,053,180	4.28%	17.47%
1937	6,350,000	128,824,829	4.93%	15.75%
1938	6,251,000	129,824,939	4.81%	-1.56%
1939	7,652,000	130,879,718	5.85%	22.41%
1940	14,711,000	132,122,446	11.13%	92.25%
1941	25,870,000	133,402,471	19.39%	75.85%
1942	36,619,000	134,859,553	27.15%	41.55%
1943	43,722,000	136,739,353	31.97%	19.40%
1944	47,111,000	138,397,345	34.04%	7.75%
1945	49,932,000	139,928,165	35.68%	5.99%
1946	52,817,000	141,388,566	37.36%	5.78%
1947	55,099,000	144,126,071	38.23%	4.32%
1948	52,072,000	146,631,302	35.51%	-5.49%
1949	51,814,000	149,188,130	34.73%	-0.50%
1950	53,060,000	152,271,417	34.85%	2.40%
1951	55,447,000	154,877,889	35.80%	4.50%
1952	56,529,000	157,552,740	35.88%	1.95%
1953	57,838,000	160,184,192	36.11%	2.32%
1954	56,747,000	163,025,854	34.81%	-1.89%
1955	58,250,000	165,931,202	35.10%	2.65%
1956	59,197,000	168,903,031	35.05%	1.63%
1957	59,825,000	171,984,130	34.79%	1.06%
1958	59,085,000	174,881,904	33.79%	-1.24%
1959	60,271,000	177,829,628	33.89%	2.01%
1960	61,028,000	180,671,158	33.78%	1.26%
1961	61,499,000	183,691,481	33.48%	0.77%
1962	62,712,000	186,537,737	33.62%	1.97%
1963	63,943,000	189,241,798	33.79%	1.96%
1964	65,376,000	191,888,791	34.07%	2.24%
1965	67,596,000	194,302,963	34.79%	3.40%
1966	70,160,000	196,560,338	35.69%	3.79%
1967	71,651,000	198,712,056	36.06%	2.13%
1968	73,729,000	200,706,052	36.73%	2.90%
1969	75,834,000	202,676,946	37.42%	2.86%
1970	74,280,000	205,052,174	36.22%	-2.05%
1971	74,576,000	207,660,677	35.91%	0.40%
1972	77,573,000	209,896,021	36.96%	4.02%
1973	80,693,000	211,908,788	38.08%	4.02%
1974	83,340,000	213,853,928	38.97%	3.28%
1975	82,229,000	215,973,199	38.07%	-1.33%
1976	84,670,000	218,035,164	38.83%	2.97%
1977	86,635,000	220,239,425	39.34%	2.32%
1978	89,772,000	222,584,545	40.33%	3.62%
1979	92,694,000	225,055,487	41.19%	3.25%
1980	93,902,000	227,224,681	41.33%	1.30%
1981	95,396,000	229,465,714	41.57%	1.59%
1982	95,337,000	231,664,458	41.15%	-0.06%
1983	96,321,000	233,791,994	41.20%	1.03%
1984	99,439,000	235,824,902	42.17%	3.24%
1985	101,660,000	237,923,795	42.73%	2.23%
1986	103,045,000	240,132,887	42.91%	1.36%
1987	106,996,000	242,288,918	44.16%	3.83%
1988	109,708,000	244,498,982	44.87%	2.53%
1989	112,136,000	246,819,230	45.43%	2.21%
1990	113,717,000	249,438,712	45.59%	1.41%
1991	114,730,000	252,127,402	45.50%	0.89%
1992	113,605,000	254,994,517	44.55%	-0.98%
1993	114,602,000	257,746,103	44.46%	0.88%
1994	115,943,000	260,289,237	44.54%	1.17%
1995	118,218,000	262,764,948	44.99%	1.96%
1996	120,351,000	265,189,794	45.38%	1.80%
1997	122,422,000	267,743,595	45.72%	1.72%
1998	124,771,000	270,298,524	46.16%	1.92%
1999	127,075,000	272,690,813	46.60%	1.85%
2000	129,374,000	281,421,906	45.97%	1.81%
2001	130,255,000	285,081,556	45.69%	0.68%
2002	130,076,000	287,803,914	45.20%	-0.14%
2003	130,424,000	290,326,418	44.92%	0.27%
2004	132,226,000	290,045,739	45.59%	1.38%
2005	134,373,000	295,753,151	45.43%	1.62%

We will notice that there are a few years where there was a big jump over the previous year. The biggest one is from 1916 to 1917 going from 437000 returns filed to 3,473,000 returns filed respectively. The second big jump is from 1939 to 1940 with 7,652,000 and 14,711,000 returns filed respectively. For the first example, 1916 to 1917 there was a whopping 3,036,000 extra returns filed for a total jump of nearly 695%. Why in the world would we have that big of a jump and later a 92% jump in 1939 to 1940? If the Sixteenth Amendment was what made us liable, then what happened in 1913, 1914, 1915, and 1916 where less than 0.43% of the American public filed? Was the government (IRS) so inept that it couldn’t wrangle in millions of righteous returns? Please… give me a break.

Take a minute and think about all your friends and family. Who files? If my life, everyone I know files (with the exception of children). I would venture to say that this is true for you as well. But look at the above table. Up until 1939 less than 6% of the public filed! For our purposes we will say that only 45% of the people file taxes today – the rest are underage or wholy exempt. By using this logic we still have a gap of 39% of the public not filing. That means that almost 4 of 10 people never filed up until 1939. And when I say they didn’t file, I mean they didn’t even fill out and sign a 1040 and of course didn’t pay taxes.

WHY!?

If you are more of a visual person let’s take a look at a graph. (Click on the graphic to see full view).

This graph was made from data from the IRS SOI report found here. The population data was found from Census.gov or other websites that derived their data from the Census Bureau. All data from the above table also was derived from these sites.

So seriously. Check that graph out. The part in orange is the number of returns filed and the yellow part is the population. Why is it that up until 1939 the number of returns generally did not change? But after about 1946 the amount of returns filed tracked with the population?

Look, it is pounded into our heads that we have to pay taxes. People always have and always have ever since the conception of government. This is true and I do not question this. Tax law has been around in America since it was founded – it is in the Constitution. However, America was founded on a unique idea that there were to be rules for how people were to be taxed. You know, the whole no tax without representation? No longer was it the will of the king or queen or dictator for what they wanted. No, for the first time the We the People were to have a say in how we were to be taxed.

Along the line something changed in America. I don’t know exactly what happened but I can speculate. I do know a few things though. The Sixteenth Amendment that was passed in 1913 did not make it so that I was taxable. If it was, then how do you explain the less than 6% of the population filing before 1939? Did it really take 26 years for them to finally enforce the Sixteenth Amendment? Certainly not the IRS I know.

The better answer is that in 1939 World War II started with the United States of America entering on December 8, 1941. Later in 1942 the American government signed into law what was called the Victory Tax of 1942. What it did was “There shall be levied, collected, and paid for each taxable year beginning after December 31, 1942, a victory tax of 5 per centum upon the victory tax net income of every individual (other than a nonresident alien subject to the tax imposed by section 211(a)).” So if you wern’t paying taxes before, then you were now. This was later repealed by the Income Tax Act of 1944. But alas, two years was enough for people to get used to the government mandating that they have money taken out of their paycheck to give to the “good of the government,” which at the time of the bill was to fight the Axis of Evil.

But this still doesn’t explain why we had massive increases in people filing from 1939 to 1942 – 7,652,000 to 36,619,000 filings respectively. I have a theory but I believe it was because of the Social Security Act of 1935. Prior to this America had gone through the Great Depression – 1929 to 1939. During these times people’s lives were ruined. Their savings depleted and many were looking for help. The government has always take care of it’s people with retirement plans, unemployment benefits, temporary assistance, and other programs to help its workers out. Essentially what the Social Security Act of 1935 did was open up these programs to the general public, even if they were not working for the government. In other words, people could purchase “insurance” through the government.

I would assume that the support grew quite rapidly in the following years for the program. After all, people had just got done starving on the streets and living in the gutter – they wanted help. Of course, good old Uncle Sam was there to lend them a helping hand! In 1940 the government did a major overhaul to the tax law. The major addition was the Subtitle C taxes, called employment taxes. The language of Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Act of 1940 is almost, if not, word for word taken from the Social Security act of the 1935. What am I saying here? I am saying that if you wanted to participate in Social Security then you had to be treated in a different manner than you were before so you could be eligible. This is why there was an increase in taxes filed from 1935 to 1939. Look at the filings from 1925 to 1935. In general the amount of people filing is 4 million. There is very little deviating in these ten years. However when Social Security became an option (1935) about 1 million people voluntarily signed up every year until 1939 – then it was coded into law and then concreted into people’s minds that their “employer” took out money via the Victory Tax. It became commonplace. It became expected.

I am not really sure if I am making sense here. We will never know exactly how or what happened with the history of taxes. I do hope that by this table and chart that I have made you DO question what the government says about “why you must pay” though. They cite the Sixteenth Amendment as the precedent for being able to tax you but it can be clearly seen that it did not. Less than 6% of people filed taxes, much less paid taxes, before 1939.

Why? Why? WHY?!

Nothing has changed with laws. If you were not taxable back in 1920 then you are not taxable today. The Code has not changed in substance, only structure of how it was written. The courts, including the Supreme Court and Tax Court, have ruled that the Sixteenth did not expand the taxation power of the government.

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. , 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

… it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed [240 U.S. 103, 113]in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed. (link)

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co. 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation — that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.

[...]

…they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states. This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.” (link)

Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitation upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished:

“The 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.”

As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U. S. 103, 240 U. S. 112 et seq.; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 165, 247 U. S. 172-173. (link)

Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926)

The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. (link)

Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner, 32 T.C. 653 at 659 (1959), aff’d, 277 F.2d 16, 60-1 U.S. Tax Cas

In dealing with the scope of the taxing power the question has sometimes been framed in terms of whether something can be taxed as income under the Sixteenth Amendment. This is an inaccurate formulation [ . . . ] and has led to much loose thinking on the subject. The source of the taxing power is not the Sixteenth Amendment; it is Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. (link, sorry I had to use wiki as I could not find a free link to the TC case)

Emphasis mine. So what is it besides the fear of the IRS that makes you eligible for taxes? Is it really the 16th like the government tells us? I’d like to know your thoughts.

When Your Government Ignores You

There is an underlying presumption that if you are an American, you are free. Or, at least that is what we used to believe in, say to everyone, and go to war over. However, are we really free? What makes one free and one enslaved? Could freedom simply be American propaganda?

I wrote previously in I Can Prove That You Are a Slave in America that I think that we are enslaved while Josh S. argued that we were being theived from. I believe we are both right (maybe agree with Josh a little more now than before). Even if either case is true – we live here and are enslaved to the State by taxes or we live here and have to endure being stolen from every paycheck via taxes – I cannot truly say that I am free. Can you? In either of these cases we are forced to either not work (live in poverty) or work and give up money.

What or who gives our government the right to enslave or steal from its people? This surely wasn’t how America was envisioned to be when America was made was it? Wasn’t it the pilgrims that came here because they sought a more free life – free of government telling them what religion to practice, free from government telling them to give money to the king, free from the government quartering the army in their homes, free from the government tossing them in jail without due process, and free from being taxed without representation (among other things they tried to be free from).

So what then are we supposed to do in 2010 when we realize that we are not free? Sure, we have Representatives in the House of Representatives, but they not only don’t represent us… they don’t even listen to us. For the last two years I have written my Representatives (and Senators) and the most response I’ve received is a canned letter. More recently with my problems with a government agency, my Representative ignores me. So now the government agency ignores me and so does all three of my Congressmen.

So what is it that a “free” citizen to do when they realize that they are not free and ignored by their government? I assure you, a government that does not listen to it’s people is a government that is on the road that leads to absolute tyranny – and this is where I am afraid we are squarely heading.

This raises another point – where is everyone else? Where are my fellow countrymen? Why do I never hear anyone getting upset? Why do I feel like I am one of the few people who actually tries to communicate with my government (whether they listen or not is a different story)? I have been in numerous conversations with people over the ever increasing government encroachment in our lives and I never even get the time of day. People, in general, don’t care. It is obvious to me that the complacency of my neighbors is not only what allowed government to not care, it is what allows our government to continue to become more and more tyrannical.

When is it that you, my neighbor, says enough is enough? When is it when you say that your government can’t take 20% of your paycheck and give it to someone else or some company that failed to operate correctly? When is it that you stand up and say that it is your right to defend yourself by any means (gun rights)?

I know that I am personally tired of being beat down by my government and being ignored. I am tired of them calling me a fraud and then me asking what I’ve done to be a fraud and they only reiterate that I am a fraud (how is that for being constructive, fair, and logical?). I am tired of trying to read law that nearly makes no sense. How can I be a law abiding citizen if the law is written in such a convoluted way that only the loopholed politicians know what it truly means? Shouldn’t the law say what it means and mean what it says? YES!

What am I supposed to do when I am being hassled and have no way to get answers? Me vs government… and the government has the guns.

Carrington Automotive

I believe that this is a fictional story, but this fictional story is based on truth. I hope you can enjoy it like I did.

The Employee Meeting: I would like to start by thanking you for attending this meeting, though it’s not like you had much of a choice. After all, attendance was mandatory. I’m also glad many of you accepted my invitation to your family members to be here as well. I have a few remarks to make to all of you, and then we’ll retire to the ballroom for a great lunch and some employee awards.

I felt that this meeting was important enough to close all 12 of our tire and automotive shops today so that you could be here. To reassure you, everybody is being paid for the day — except me. Since our stores are closed we’re making no money. That economic loss is mine to sustain. Carrington Automotive has 157 full time employees and around 30 additional part-timers. All of you are here. I thank you for that.

When you walked into this auditorium you were handed a rather thick 78-page document. Many of you have already taken a peek. You were probably surprised to see that it’s my personal tax return for 2008. Those of you who are adept at reading these tax returns will see that last year my taxable income was $534,000.00. Now I’m sure this seems rather high to many of you. So… let’s talk about this tax return.

Republicans: Stop mailing me

It is almost every day that I get something from the Republicans or some sort of Republican group. They always want to know what they can do to have me continue my support or what issues to tackle.

I don’t think they get it at all.

First off, I am not even a registered Republican. I registered Republican during the primary to try to get Ron Paul (TX) the nod. He did not, so I moved my political affiliation back to Independent. I am not the only one that has done this. In fact, I hate much of the Republican party today.

I get told a lot that Ron Paul is a Libertarian and that they don’t understand why he ran on a Republican ticket. I think that Ron Paul is a Republican, it just happens that all the Republicans are no longer Republicans – they are Lite-Democrats. Maybe this is all unfair to say. Maybe I can’t say who is and who is not a Republican so maybe it is more fair to say that Ron Paul is a traditional or Constitutional Republican. Who knows. All I know is that Republicans today are not Conservatives, with a few exceptions of course.

This is not the base of this article though. What I really want to say is… quit wasting your money sending me stupid mail when you really have no intention of being a Conservative, Constitutional Republican.

What does this mean? I means things like reforming health care to get government out of health care. It does not mean reforming heal care to comprimise on how much extra government intervention we are going to have. It means lowering taxes or eliminating taxes so that people have more to spend and businesses have more money to hire people and expand their ideas. It does not mean deciding on who gets a tax break and who gets their taxes raised – everyone gets a break. It does not mean that we decide on what failing businesses we prop up and which we do not “because if we don’t then they all will fall.” It does not mean that we have to superman the climate.

C’mon… be a real Conservative like I want.

Homeless Advocates Must Face Facts

by C.J. Carnacchio (Original here)

Back in the 1980s, homeless advocates were often fond of telling their media lapdogs that there were anywhere from two to three million homless in the United States. But, both the Urban Institute and the U.S. Census Bureau estimate the number of homeless to be in the neighborhood of 300,000 to 600,000. Despite this hard evidence, many American still believe that there are millions of homeless and consequently there is a “homeless crisis” in the U.S.

Liberals and homeless advocates have succeeded in manufacturing this so-called crisis not only by exaggerating numbers but also by distorting the truth about the roots of homelessness. The media has served as an all too willing accomplice in the advocates Machiavellian charade. In his book Rude Awakenings, Richard W. White Jr. points out that “homelessness became a crisis to most Americans after the media introduced the term and labeled it a crisis. Before then it was not a crisis or even a problem.” Reporters never questioned the statisitic or the claims of the homeless advocacy’s propaganda.

Both advocates and the media portray the homeless as simply ordinary Americans down on their luck; victims of cruel economic forces and a housing crisis. They delight in telling us that we are all just one paycheck away from living ont he streets. But the pure down-on-my-luck group is relatively small; about 15 percent. They are highly visible in media stories about the homeless because advocates learned long ago that this group elicts the most support for their cause.

Ignored is the prominence of substance abuse, criminal behavior, and mental illness which highlights the majority of the homeless. Advocates and the media neglect to tell us that seven out of ten homeless have been institutionalized at one time or another; this includes mental hospitals, detoxification centers, and prison.

Advocates and the media always argue that it is external forces, not individual choices, that lead to homelessness. Personal repsonsibility is never an issue. They place the blame on face-less corporations, evil Republicans, and a selfish society.

Consequently, many homeless have become more offensive and even violent in their behavior as they have come to believe that everyone who passes them owes them something. They used to beleive that their plight was their own fault but as White observes, “Now, because of what they [homeless] hear in protest songs, read in newspapers, see on television, hear from advocates, or learn from the social system, they think that their condition is someone else’s fault. Some act as if they are morally superior to people who work and raise a family.” But, the fact is, that in the majority of cases, the homeless are either directly repsonsible for their plight or some individual-based problem is at work.

Advocates refuse to acknowledge that there is a certain percentage of homeless who CHOOSE to live that way. They are not willing to assume the responsibilities associated with maintaining a job and a permanent residence. They prefer the mythical “freedom” of the streets and turn down shelter even when its offered to them.

Next, current estimates indicate that roughly a third or more of the homeless are drug addicts or alcoholics. Homeless advocates argue that substance abuse is a result, not a cause, of homelessness. They reason that such substances are used by the homeless to escape the reality of their wretched lives thereby absolving them of any responsibility or blame.

But, as White points out, “In Los Angeles’ inner city, Paul Koegel and M. Audrey Burnam found that nearly 80 percent of alcoholics in their sample of homeless adults ‘reported that their first alcoholic symptom occurred before they were first homeless’ and that in 57 percent of the cases this occurred at least five years before their first episode of homelessness.”

Alcoholism and drug abuse are the result of individual choices such as a willingness to sacrifice career, family, and health in favor of getting high. Human beings are capable of both good and bad decisions, but no matter which road is taken, responsbility must always be assigned to the individual choice-maker.

Many homeless advocates have failed to see that their aid programs have in fact perpetuated substance abuse. As Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, a clinical and research psyciatrist, pointed out, “When one is addicted to alcohol or drugs, the highest priority is to save as much money as possible to feed that addiction. Present homeless policies, which in some cities have guaranteed free beds and food for everyone who asks, have probably exacerbated rather than relieved the problem of homeless substance abuse.” These free services coupled with the homeless’ panhandling incomes (and in some cases welfare benefits) allow them to fund their self-destructive habits and perpetuate a cycle of dependency.

The frequency of criminal behavior is another aspect of the homeless population advocates fail to mention. In his book Without Shelter: Homelessness in the 1980s, Peter H. Rossi found that 42 percent of the homeless, catalogued in 16 studies, spent some amount of time in jail or prison. Again, advocates argue that desperation forces the homeless into criminal activity. But a 1986 study conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 61 percent of homeless’ jail time occurred before their homelessness and even “suggested that [unsuccessful] crime leads to homelessness.”

Experts also estimate that another third of the homeless suffer from severe mental illness. While clearly this is not the result of bad individual choices, it is still a problem confined to the individual and not in anyway society’s fault. But, advocates argue that it is the stress of homeless life which causes these mental problems. But, in the book Homelessness, Health, and Human Needs, the Institute of Medicine found that severe mental illnesses “are unlikely to result from the trauma of homelessness.” In fact, few psychiatrists still subscribe to the notion that menatal illnesses such as schizophrenia can happen to anyone given the right environmental conditions; no matter how stressful.

The mentally ill homeless should either be institutionalized, put into the care of family members or legal guardians, or forced, as a condition of being allowed into society, to take the necessary medications to control their illness. Many of the homeless could function in society if only they took their medication. But groups like the American Civil Liberties Union will not allow these measures because they would infringe upon the homeless’ civil rights.

But, as psychiatrist/columnist Charles Krauthammer retorted, “For the severely mentally ill, however, liberty is not just an empty word nut a cruel hoax. Free to do what? What does freedom mean for a paranoid schizophrenic who is ruled by voices commanded by his persecutors and rattling around in his head?” The ACLU is more interested in defending their right to sleep in parks and bus terminals than actiully salvaging their lives. It is precisely this kind of feeble thinking that has led to the idiocy of the “homeless rights” movement.

People who pay taxes to support the streets and parks ought to be able to enjoy them in relative safety and comfort. But Supreme Court decisions such as Papachristu v. United States, which delcared vagrany laws unconstitutional, and a New York City judge’s protection of panhandling as a form of free speech have taken away the ability to maintain order. Public places have been surrendered to people who take no responsibility for them or themselves. New York columnist John Leo observed the result: “Sandboxes become urinals. Swings are broken. Evey park bench seems to be owned by a dozing schizophrenic. When the cycle is complete, the community withdraws, serious druggies and criminals move in.”

Contray to popular belief, it is not selfish to demand the unharassed use of public facilities. The exercise of individual liberties in public places is not unlimited. It is in fact contingent upon the maintenance of public order. Others must be free to enjoy the commons in peace. But, groups like the ACLU have shown little interest in relating rights to responsibilites.

As William Donohue stated in his book The New Freedom, “Push one person’s rights too far and the result is the emasculation of someone else’s rights. Elevate rights to a status of an absolute and the result is the destruction of other values.” Rights must always be balanced by responsibilities; individual liberties with the commonweal.

One last point that homeless advocates and the media fail to mention, is that much of the homeless population is a testament to the failure of liberal government housing policies. These so-called reform have destroyed the majority of the single-room-occupancy-hotels or “flophouses” the homeless used to live in.

While these places sometimes lacked bedding, heat, and water and were not very comfortable, they did provide a night’s shelter for a very low cost. Sociologist Ernest van den Haag summed up the reforms’ results: “Policians, bureaucrats, and bleeding hearts waxed indigant about the deprivations people suffered in cheap lodgins which lacked amenities. Their solution? Get rid of these cheap lodgings. The former customers, unable to afford more expensive lodgings, now have to sleep on the streets. In effect the government decided that it was better for people to have no roof over their head than to live in places that do not have hot water.”

All things considered, the Left has no real interest in an honest and frank discussion about the true roots of homelessness or the role of personal responsibility. Why should they? The homeless provide them with living political symbols of what they claim is the failure and injustice of capitalism coupled with the cruelty of the wealthy. They are paraded before the media as vicitims of evil Republican policies. Such images fuel feelings of guilt in many voters who consider themselves well off by comparison. This guilt transaltes into calls for increased State action which in turn generates a larger electoral base for the Democrats and the further growth of the behemoth State. By all accounts it is to the Left’s advantage that the homeless stay homeless. Compassion indeed.

Are You An Employee?

What would you do if someone told you for the purposes of taxation, you were not an employee when you went to work as a private-sector worker? Would you believe them?

26 USC § 3401(c) defines an “employee” as follows:

Employee For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

Admittedly, at first glance you read the word “employee” and go, oh yeah, I’m an employee. But let’s break out some old school grammar and get down to what this says.

The first part of the sentence are the people eligible – “officer, employee, or elected official.” The second part of the sentence are the location limiters – “United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing”

So what we have is…
Officer, employee, or elected official of… the United States
Officer, employee, or elected official of… a State
Officer, employee, or elected official of… any political subdivision thereof
Officer, employee, or elected official of… District of Columbia
Officer, employee, or elected official of… any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing

Are you any of those?

You may be going, “well, it says that the definition ‘includes’!” Of course. In laymen’s thought, why would congress name “Employees of… whatever” if the term “employee” includes all these employees already. If you are an employee of the United States (think, FBI agent or something), then aren’t you already an “employee” by common definition. Of course you are. So why define it again?

The answer is simple, because when words are defined in law, they ignore all common definitions. For instance if Congress decided to say “for the purpose of this chapter, ‘gas’ is to be defined as natural gas” then whenever you read the word “gas” then you would know that the law was not referring to gas that you pump at BP or QuickTrip, but rather natural gas.

Likewise, for Title 26 (tax law) the word “includes” is specifically defined. So, we can conclude that the word “includes” no longer means “in addition to” but rather whatever they defined it to be. In this case, in horrible wording, they defined it to mean inclusive of things within the same scope. Confusing right?

Let’s try to make an example. “For the purposes of this chapter ‘gas’ includes natural gas and bio gas.” So for this, we would conclude that natural gas and bio gas are “gasses” but we could also conclude that gas from landfills is included as well because landfill gasses are a type of bio gas. We could also say that town gas is included because it is a sub-type of natural gas. However, we could not conclude that gas put in your car to be a “gas” under this law.

So, who cares if you are or are not an employee? Well, everyone should! Only these select “employees” are the ones that make “wages” (also a custom term) and wages are taxable. Title 26 does not specify how to handle your money if you are not making “wages.” So if you are not an “employee” and you don’t make “wages” then you are probably paying more taxes then you should, permitting that you read and know the law.

Check it out. You might be surprised.

 

H.R. 1919: Federal Withholding Tax Repeal Act of 2009

As our government spends more and more it seems wise to have more control over the money we have to give them.

There is a new bill out, HR1919, that will make it possible to stop the withholding of money from your paycheck (No more mandatory W-4).

I love this for multiple reasons. First, it will allow you to keep your money and spend it on things you want and need. If you want to, you can invest it and make some money with it. This is versus giving it to the government and earning nothing off of it. (In other words, $500 in your bank account earning interest for a year is better than paying $500 to the government and earning no interest).

Secondly, it will cause the government to be more responsible. It is easier for us to ignore the fiscal doings of government when the money never even hits our pocket. If it is in our pocket and we have to cut a check at the end of the year, we are more likely to wonder where that money is going. I also think that it will make people more aware of how wasteful the government is and how much we TRULY do give up to the government.

Third, and this may not make sense to some of you, it will cut the presumption that we are voluntarily indulging in taxable activities. What is and what is not a taxable activity.

111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1919
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the withholding of income and social security taxes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 2, 2009
Ms. FOXX (for herself, Mr. PAUL, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. BARTLETT, Mrs. MYRICK, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. PENCE, Mr. KINGSTON, and Mr. WILSON of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means——————————————————————————–
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the withholding of income and social security taxes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Federal Withholding Tax Repeal Act of 2009’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) At the onset of the Civil War, Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861, which imposed a tax on personal incomes and to assure timely collection, taxes were ‘withheld at the source’ by employers.
(2) The need for Federal revenue declined sharply after the war and in 1872, the income tax was abolished and along with it, the Federal withholding mandate.
(3) With passage of the 16th amendment to the Constitution, Congress swiftly passed legislation creating a Federal income tax, withheld before employee salaries were paid.
(4) In response to growing taxpayer criticism of the withholding mandate, Treasury Secretary William G. McAdoo stated that ‘it would be very advantageous to . . . do away with the withholding of income tax at the source’ because it would ‘eliminate a great deal of criticism which has been directed against the law’; a statement reflecting the sentiment which ultimately led to the repeal of Federal withholding authority in 1917.
(5) In the 1920s and 1930s, income taxes were due on March 15 following the end of the tax year and could be paid either in one lump sum on that date or in quarterly installments.
(6) With the onset of World War II, fearing that taxpayers might refuse to pay the higher tax rates and surcharges associated with funding the war effort, Federal officials, lawmakers, and political leaders such as President Franklin D. Roosevelt used the military crisis to draw on Americans’ sense of patriotism and resurrect the Federal withholding authority as a ‘temporary wartime measure’.
(7) The campaign to reinstitute a permanent system of withholding overcame public hostility with the passage of the Withholding Tax Act of 1943 which incorporated suggestions proffered by Beardsley Ruml to eliminate individuals’ 1942 tax liabilities by counting amounts paid or withheld in 1943 as tax payments for that year.
(8) Since that time, Congress has stubbornly refused to repeal the Federal withholdings mandate contained in the Withholding Tax Act.
(9) In fiscal year 2007, the Internal Revenue Service refunded overpayments amounting to over $248,625,001,000 more than actual individual income tax liabilities, effectively denying interest payments otherwise owed to taxpayers and amounting to a hidden tax.
(10) These overpayments are returned annually in the form of tax refunds to taxpayers who often confuse the payments as a reward.
(11) According to an April 2007 report released by the Joint Economic Committee, millions of families, many in the bottom fifth income percentile, have either zero tax liability or receive a net transfer from the Government due to the refundable portion of the Earned Income Tax Credit or the Child Tax Credit. Those without Federal tax liability would benefit the most from keeping their entire paycheck, rather than temporarily surrendering portions to the Government.
(12) The absence of the Federal withholdings mandate leaves employers and employees free to negotiate alternative, private means of collecting and paying Federal income taxes, thereby allowing individuals to voluntarily earn interest on their withhholdings.
(13) The Federal withholdings mandate allows the Federal Government to disguise tax increases and hampers Federal accountability and transparency by requiring the assistance of an intermediary tax collector.
(14) Complying with the Federal withholdings mandate imposes costly burdens and legal liabilities on employers forced to act as de facto IRS agents, without compensation for lost time and resources.
(15) Referring to the Federal withholding mandate in his work Public Finance in Democratic Process: Fiscal Institutions and Individual Choice, 1986 Nobel Prize winning economist James Buchanan stated that ‘The individual who does not have possession of income before paying it out cannot’ sense ‘the real cost of public services in a manner comparable to that experienced in a genuine act of outpayment.’.
(16) In CATO Institute study, Charlotte Twight has noted that ‘[W]ithholding is the paramount administrative mechanism enabling the Federal Government to collect, without significant protest, sufficient private resources to fund a vastly expanded welfare state.’
(17) The Federal tax withholding mandate was listed by Human Events in 2005 as the fourth ‘Most Harmful Government Program’ and seventh ‘Worst Tax Law’ in 2006.
(18) The National Taxpayers Union notes that the incremental nature of withholding masks the true cost of Federal income taxes, which would be much more apparent if individuals had to write monthly, quarterly, or annual checks to the Federal Government.
SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

The purposes of this Act are–

(1) to increase transparency and accountability in the Federal tax system by providing the public with a more accurate account of–

(A) the annual tax burden; and
(B) the Federal budget deficit;
(2) to decrease the overall tax burden and increase the personal wealth of taxpayers by allowing for the personal collection of interest during the fiscal year on overpayments that are otherwise used by the Federal Government to partly avoid interest payments;
(3) to decrease the burden on employers by freeing them from the task of collecting income tax withholdings from their employees; and
(4) to end the deceptive practice of masking higher tax rates from taxpayers.
SEC. 4. REPEAL OF FEDERAL INCOME AND SOCIAL SECURITY TAX WITHHOLDING MANDATE.

(a) In General- The following sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are hereby repealed:

(1) Section 3102 (relating to deduction of social security tax from wages).
(2) Section 3202 (relating to deduction of railroad retirement tax from compensation).
(3) Chapter 24 (relating to income tax withholding).
(b) Requirement of Estimated Tax Payments for Employee Social Security Taxes- Subsection (f) of section 6654 of such Code is amended by striking ‘minus’ at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting ‘plus’, by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4), and by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:

‘(3) the taxes imposed by section 3101(a) and 3201(a), minus’.
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to amounts paid on or after the first January 1 occurring after 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. CONTINUED VOLUNTARY TAX WITHHOLDING.

(a) Authority of the IRS- Nothing in this Act may be construed to limit the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to accept voluntary tax payments from employers electing to continue collecting Federal income taxes from employees.
(b) Voluntary Employer Participation- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent voluntary employer sponsored withholding of Federal income taxes on behalf of employees.
(c) Voluntary Employee Participation- Nothing in this Act shall be construed–

(1) to require any employee to participate in an employer Federal income tax withholding system, or
(2) to prevent any election of an employee to opt in to an employer Federal income tax withholding system, with all terms and conditions for participation being negotiable between the employee and employer.

If you support such an idea, I urge you to write your Representative.