Let's see how far this tax protestor/ evader goes with arguments

[Enforcer]

Let me take a swag and see if I can answer onlyrp and his cheering section:

Ron Paul supporters are made to look like complete idiots - if you buy the Hollywood created image AND look at a minority of kooks that would get the spotlight shown on them. Still, Ron Paul supporters keep plugging away for the cause. Ditto for those who are protesting taxes.

So, instead of condemning their efforts, you might be well advised to study the issue and then become a defender of the cause, even when you disagree with the people bold enough to act on their convictions. onlyrp has kept this incessant pissing match alive while avoiding discussing the actual legal and historical issues involved.

Let me explain something to onlyrp:

Where I live at, a sufficiently large enough contingent of people have protested taxes. As I told you, the courts won't even entertain the legal issues involved. The courts have basically said that laws illegally passed are okay and that's the end of the story. We lost and that's the way it is. onlyrp agrees and is basically saying to us 'throw in the towel."

But wait... the former U.S. Congressman in my district championed the cause and proposed a law to eliminate the income tax and get rid of the IRS. Books were written about that law that got on the New York Times Bestseller List. Rallies producing thousands of participants per rally, all across the country have been held. When my congressman retired, the guy that took his spot, reintroduced that bill and is fighting to do away with the income tax. Don't try to tell me the efforts don't work.

Where I live, it took people not paying taxes and then running for public office with that as their main theme. People have gone to jail. People have been murdered for refusing to pay the income tax. Congressmen have been put in prison on trumped up charges for their efforts to expose the income tax (Congressman George Hanson is an example.)

Just like the civil rights era and the victims that it claimed, we will not win without a demand; we will not win without controversy; we will not win without a fight.

This country can do well and good without an income tax. The only thing the income tax does is to redistribute the wealth. The American people have allowed the government to pass unconstitutional laws and to uphold them. Then, those brave enough to fight them have to face the scorn and ridicule of cowardly people that hide within our ranks. If the fight is a little nasty or someone pays a price, they have some smart ass comment to make about it.

Early in my life, I was inspired by stories of heroes like Nathan Hale. Hale was arrested for being an enemy combatant and hanged for "spying" at the ripe old age of 21. It was sacrifices like that which made our Freedom and Liberty possible today. Thomas Jefferson knew the risks as well when he was quoted as having stated:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Lastly along these lines, the primary reason that people are "winning" their cases is because the government cannot make the case that they had willful intent to break the law. It's a very simple equation. IRS agents, historians, lawyers, citizens, etc. all read the laws and cannot come to the conclusion, after reading the law, that they are supposed to pay an income tax. The courts will not entertain the legal arguments. So, in reality, the income tax is on the ropes. Ron Paul has benefited off of this fight... and that is what helped build the case against the Federal Reserve.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." (from the Declaration of Independence)

 

[dude58677]

I thought we just established here that the federal government can and does violate their own law?

You are correct that the IRS never thought of that, what's your point? Like Steve said, it's not a gold standard, as it's not a new currency.
I don't care what is the "cornerstone" of your movement or belief, when was the last time State Nullification was exercised?
And you didn't even challenge my point, that medical marijuana raids have never been protected by state agencies.

You are NOT a Ron Paul supporter otherwise you wouldn't be so oblivious to what we have been doing, what we stand for, or use the term "your movement". You want to tell me still you are libertarian? Don't! It isn't what you claim to be, it is what you believe.

You are INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST! Gold is allowed to be used in the market and this is done for the first time in 80 years therefore it is a new currency. The author of the legislation intended for it to be a gold standard. This is also State Nullification and you ask when was the last time it was used when I mentioned that before?

The point of the IRS never expecting Utah to have a gold standard shows that they never passed a law stating that gold currencies in
State are subject to inocme. You tell me where this is said then I will agree with you.

 

[Steven Douglas]

I think it's important to remember that Ron Paul supporters are all individuals, not party members with an homogeneous ideology who are swallowing an entire platform en masse. Each of these individuals (respect for individuals being the hallmark of independence and Libertarianism in all its forms) come from a wide spectrum of political and ideological positions and personal interests, only some of which may be shared in common. I would argue that there is not only nothing wrong with that, but that there is everything right with it, because Ron Paul is the only candidate that carves out a huge swatch of support from people who are completely disaffected, not by what the traditional left and right disagree on, but by what they are in full, often silent, agreement on, much of which is destroying our country, as both "houses" set fire to the economy, and select individual homes therein, from three different sides (commerce, warfare and welfare).

onlyrp ("Only Ron Paul"?) has declared support for Ron Paul, and has stated his personal reasons for so doing. Not that he needed to, as the only valid test for support of any candidate is found within the individual supporter. Nobody dictates that but the sovereign individual, who has sole despotic dominion over self. Reasons for support is a decidedly individual thing, and that was always true of supporters of any party or candidate.

Most importantly, I have successfully made Ron Paul supporters out of otherwise "staunch" liberals and "staunch" conservatives - by appealing to what Ron Paul stands for, but for which their party or candidates have failed. It would KILL me to see these individuals, who are new to a different way of thinking, chased away or abused for having thoughts that don't "toe the party line". There are Ron Paul supporters who support him for NO OTHER REASON than his foreign policy. There are other Ron Paul supporters who support him FOR NO OTHER REASON than his position on taxes and small government. Is that a bad thing? Not good enough? Should we chase either of these supporters away, for not being possessed of sufficiently broad Ron Paul Support Credentials?

I cannot claim to support Ron Paul on one hand, while chasing away those who claim to support Ron Paul for different reasons. That is "anti-support" - a house divided - and not support for anything but a small choir in the end. Even if I really thought someone was not "true" supporter at all, but only trolling - who am I to make that distinction? As individuals, we all have different understanding, and different reasons - even those who appear on the surface to be in absolute agreement on virtually everything.

If I split hairs enough, and successfully repelled anyone who does not support Ron Paul for ALL of my particular reasons and my individual understanding, in the end Ron Paul would have ONE supporter - me alone. That isn't support at all.

 

[dude58677]

I think it's important to remember that Ron Paul supporters are all individuals, not party members with an homogeneous ideology who are swallowing an entire platform en masse. Each of these individuals (respect for individuals being the hallmark of independence and Libertarianism in all its forms) come from a wide spectrum of political and ideological positions and personal interests, only some of which may be shared in common. I would argue that there is not only nothing wrong with that, but that there is everything right with it, because Ron Paul is the only candidate that carves out a huge swatch of support from people who are completely disaffected, not by what the traditional left and right disagree on, but by what they are in full, often silent, agreement on, much of which is destroying our country, as both "houses" set fire to the economy, and select individual homes therein, from three different sides (commerce, warfare and welfare).

onlyrp ("Only Ron Paul"?) has declared support for Ron Paul, and has stated his personal reasons for so doing. Not that he needed to, as the only valid test for support of any candidate is found within the individual supporter. Nobody dictates that but the sovereign individual, who has sole despotic dominion over self. Reasons for support is a decidedly individual thing, and that was always true of supporters of any party or candidate.

Most importantly, I have successfully made Ron Paul supporters out of otherwise "staunch" liberals and "staunch" conservatives - by appealing to what Ron Paul stands for, but for which their party or candidates have failed. It would KILL me to see these individuals, who are new to a different way of thinking, chased away or abused for having thoughts that don't "toe the party line". There are Ron Paul supporters who support him for NO OTHER REASON than his foreign policy. There are other Ron Paul supporters who support him FOR NO OTHER REASON than his position on taxes and small government. Is that a bad thing? Not good enough? Should we chase either of these supporters away, for not being possessed of sufficiently broad Ron Paul Support Credentials?

I cannot claim to support Ron Paul on one hand, while chasing away those who claim to support Ron Paul for different reasons. That is "anti-support" - a house divided - and not support for anything but a small choir in the end. Even if I really thought someone was not "true" supporter at all, but only trolling - who am I to make that distinction? As individuals, we all have different understanding, and different reasons - even those who appear on the surface to be in absolute agreement on virtually everything.

If I split hairs enough, and successfully repelled anyone who does not support Ron Paul for ALL of my particular reasons and my individual understanding, in the end Ron Paul would have ONE supporter - me alone. That isn't support at all.

I'm going to have to disagree with you. This kind of thinking has led to the Republican Party being hijacked by leftists and the Tea Party being hijacked by neocons which are neocons. You don't know if this person really works for another campaign or works for the IRS but pretends to support Ron Paul.

 

[Steven Douglas]

You don't know if this person really works for another campaign or works for the IRS but pretends to support Ron Paul.

I don't care if he does. And the Republicans and Democrats, as parties, have been hijacked almost from their inception anyway (e.g., war-mongering Republican Lincoln started the Greenbacks that led to the Fed, while Democrats were the "Hard Money" advocates of yore). Independents like us are worse than a herd of cats. We CANNOT be hijacked.

The bigger reason why I don't care if he does - he still has arguments to advance, and free speech to engage in. Disagreement is always good, as it hones your ability to spot subtlety (for yourself), as you hone your own understanding by researching and advancing your own arguments - assuming they aren't ad hominem, but actually engage the issue at hand.

As far as I'm concerned, let an Obama supporter, neocon, IRS agent, or anyone else in. Which they can do anyway. I have no problems taking them on. They're not wiser or smarter than me by default, so they are no threat to any but the weakest minded - who have to learn for themselves anyway. So whether they openly declare themselves or hide under a cloak of distortion makes no difference to me. The arguments are the same, and this is NOT a secret society of some kind. No secret handshakes required, no credentials to show.

And I WANT an audience with leftists, neocons, etc., anyway. Nobody was born a Ron Paul supporter save perhaps his own children, and even that's not a guarantee.

 

[donnay]

I don't care if he does. And the Republicans and Democrats, as parties, have been hijacked almost from their inception anyway (e.g., war-mongering Republican Lincoln started the Greenbacks that led to the Fed, while Democrats were the "Hard Money" advocates of yore). Independents like us are worse than a herd of cats. We CANNOT be hijacked.

The bigger reason why I don't care if he does - he still has arguments to advance, and free speech to engage in. Disagreement is always good, as it hones your ability to spot subtlety (for yourself), as you hone your own understanding by researching and advancing your own arguments - assuming they aren't ad hominem, but actually engage the issue at hand.

As far as I'm concerned, let an Obama supporter, neocon, IRS agent, or anyone else in. Which they can do anyway. I have no problems taking them on. They're not wiser or smarter than me by default, so they are no threat to any but the weakest minded - who have to learn for themselves anyway. So whether they openly declare themselves or hide under a cloak of distortion makes no difference to me. The arguments are the same, and this is NOT a secret society of some kind. No secret handshakes required, no credentials to show.

And I WANT an audience with leftists, neocons, etc., anyway. Nobody was born a Ron Paul supporter save perhaps his own children, and even that's not a guarantee.

Well said! +rep

 

[dude58677]

I don't care if he does. And the Republicans and Democrats, as parties, have been hijacked almost from their inception anyway (e.g., war-mongering Republican Lincoln started the Greenbacks that led to the Fed, while Democrats were the "Hard Money" advocates of yore). Independents like us are worse than a herd of cats. We CANNOT be hijacked.

The bigger reason why I don't care if he does - he still has arguments to advance, and free speech to engage in. Disagreement is always good, as it hones your ability to spot subtlety (for yourself), as you hone your own understanding by researching and advancing your own arguments - assuming they aren't ad hominem, but actually engage the issue at hand.

As far as I'm concerned, let an Obama supporter, neocon, IRS agent, or anyone else in. Which they can do anyway. I have no problems taking them on. They're not wiser or smarter than me by default, so they are no threat to any but the weakest minded - who have to learn for themselves anyway. So whether they openly declare themselves or hide under a cloak of distortion makes no difference to me. The arguments are the same, and this is NOT a secret society of some kind. No secret handshakes required, no credentials to show.

And I WANT an audience with leftists, neocons, etc., anyway. Nobody was born a Ron Paul supporter save perhaps his own children, and even that's not a guarantee.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. I don't mind him disagreeing but I would respect him more if he was honest about his views. I can't stand posers.

 

[onlyrp]

I think it's important to remember that Ron Paul supporters are all individuals, not party members with an homogeneous ideology who are swallowing an entire platform en masse. Each of these individuals (respect for individuals being the hallmark of independence and Libertarianism in all its forms) come from a wide spectrum of political and ideological positions and personal interests, only some of which may be shared in common. I would argue that there is not only nothing wrong with that, but that there is everything right with it, because Ron Paul is the only candidate that carves out a huge swatch of support from people who are completely disaffected, not by what the traditional left and right disagree on, but by what they are in full, often silent, agreement on, much of which is destroying our country, as both "houses" set fire to the economy, and select individual homes therein, from three different sides (commerce, warfare and welfare).

onlyrp ("Only Ron Paul"?) has declared support for Ron Paul, and has stated his personal reasons for so doing. Not that he needed to, as the only valid test for support of any candidate is found within the individual supporter. Nobody dictates that but the sovereign individual, who has sole despotic dominion over self. Reasons for support is a decidedly individual thing, and that was always true of supporters of any party or candidate.

Most importantly, I have successfully made Ron Paul supporters out of otherwise "staunch" liberals and "staunch" conservatives - by appealing to what Ron Paul stands for, but for which their party or candidates have failed. It would KILL me to see these individuals, who are new to a different way of thinking, chased away or abused for having thoughts that don't "toe the party line". There are Ron Paul supporters who support him for NO OTHER REASON than his foreign policy. There are other Ron Paul supporters who support him FOR NO OTHER REASON than his position on taxes and small government. Is that a bad thing? Not good enough? Should we chase either of these supporters away, for not being possessed of sufficiently broad Ron Paul Support Credentials?

I cannot claim to support Ron Paul on one hand, while chasing away those who claim to support Ron Paul for different reasons. That is "anti-support" - a house divided - and not support for anything but a small choir in the end. Even if I really thought someone was not "true" supporter at all, but only trolling - who am I to make that distinction? As individuals, we all have different understanding, and different reasons - even those who appear on the surface to be in absolute agreement on virtually everything.

If I split hairs enough, and successfully repelled anyone who does not support Ron Paul for ALL of my particular reasons and my individual understanding, in the end Ron Paul would have ONE supporter - me alone. That isn't support at all.

Thanks Steve, did I misinterpret you or take your words out of context? Is it accurate to say Utah has a gold standard? Doesn't a gold standard effectively require use of a new currency unit?

 

[onlyrp]

We are going to have to agree to disagree. I don't mind him disagreeing but I would respect him more if he was honest about his views. I can't stand posers.

what do you think I am not honest about?

 

[dude58677]

what do you think I am not honest about?

That you support Ron Paul. Why would you say "I don't care about your movement"? Why would you laugh at someone who goes to jail for tax evasion? How do I know you are not working for ANOTHER CAMPAIGN?

Even if you are a real Ron Paul supporter, you are still wrong. Where in the entire IRC does it say that "If A State allows gold and silver currency, it must be reported on form.."?

Arguing with you is a waste of time. Hypothetically, If Ron Paul becomes President and pardons everyone for tax evasion, you would say that Ron Paul supporters are taking the executive order is taken out of context.

 

[Steven Douglas]

Thanks Steve, did I misinterpret you or take your words out of context? Is it accurate to say Utah has a gold standard? Doesn't a gold standard effectively require use of a new currency unit?

Technically, "gold standard" just means that a UNIT of currency is equal to a certain weight and purity of gold - as a standard. It's really no different than a "metric" standard (e.g., 1 liter = 0.26 US gallons). Whatever you say it is becomes a standardized unit.

The US Coinage Acts declared that each coin minted by the US government was based on standards declared by Congress, as mandated by the Constitution. So we have a silver standard for silver coins, and a gold standard for gold coins (among others, as we also have a copper standard and a nickel standard for coins). As such, by declaring gold and silver coins legal tender in that state, and only those minted by the US government, Utah did technically return, not just to a gold standard, but to both a gold and a silver standard.

 

[onlyrp]

Technically, "gold standard" just means that a UNIT of currency is equal to a certain weight and purity of gold - as a standard. It's really no different than a "metric" standard (e.g., 1 liter = 0.26 US gallons). Whatever you say it is becomes a standardized unit.

The US Coinage Acts declared that each coin minted by the US government was based on standards declared by Congress, as mandated by the Constitution. So we have a silver standard for silver coins, and a gold standard for gold coins (among others, as we also have a copper standard and a nickel standard for coins). As such, by declaring gold and silver coins legal tender in that state, and only those minted by the US government, Utah did technically return, not just to a gold standard, but to both a gold and a silver standard.

So basically all Utah did was, make US minted silver coins and gold coins legal tender for their face value. Meaning a coin of silver 1 ounce, which as a fair market metal value of $35 today, is legal tender for $1. is that right? But that hardly requires a law or mandate, because ANYBODY (almost), would accept a coin they can sell for $35, as $1.

 

[Steven Douglas]

So basically all Utah did was, make US minted silver coins and gold coins legal tender for their face value. Meaning a coin of silver 1 ounce, which as a fair market metal value of $35 today, is legal tender for $1. is that right? But that hardly requires a law or mandate, because ANYBODY (almost), would accept a coin they can sell for $35, as $1.

Partly, but not quite, since "face value" now has two entirely different meanings. The Fed fiat dollar has no intrinsic value, since its value is undeclared (i.e., not "valued in", or "backed by", or "redeemable for" anything but the same). The US Silver Dollar value, on the other hand, as declared by the Coinage Act of 1792 (which has not changed since) has a PHYSICAL VALUE - not a price - the value being 371 4/16 grain (24.1 g) pure or 416 grain (27.0 g) standard silver. That is its "intrinsic value". That is quite separate from "fair market value", which is just another way of saying "price", or exchange value with Fed notes or other medium of exchange.

Mocking morons in the media came out after Utah passed the Act, saying, in essence, "So what? If you're stupid enough to buy a Snickers bar for a $10 gold coin, I'll be more than happy to give you paper and base metal change!" (hyuck hyuck - cue the wiping of snot onto the clever sleeve). But that's not how it works at all.

Because gold and silver coin is legal tender in Utah, AS ALTERNATE COMPETING CURRENCIES, you can price things in gold and/or silver coin, and people can freely exchange fiat notes into gold and silver coin to save for and buy them. I can declare that a loaf of bread is $4 in fiat notes, but $.10 cents in silver coin. It is still a taxable transaction, and since not even Utah is yet equipped to accept gold and silver coin in payment of taxes (a problem they are wrestling with now), the transaction still leads back to "fair market value" of the transaction - in Fed notes. In other words, accepting payment in gold and silver at THEIR face value does not mean tendering payment of taxes at direct one-to-one face value of fiat notes - as a tax-avoidance trick. It really is three different competing currencies.

The only REAL advantage, at this point, is that you can, without penalty, start saving and freely transacting in gold and silver coin in Utah. That is no small advantage, because it means the price of everything that is priced in those currencies WILL GO DOWN - as the fiat currency value goes down. You aren't penalized by any so-called "capital gains" (read=fiat currency loss). But what you are saving in will maintain its value, and even increase in value as its scarcity is better known. And if there is no paper trail leading to the original acquisition of the coins (e.g., you're just pulling them out of the attic to spend), there is no "capital gain" on the federal level either.

EDIT: One last part, and brilliant on the part of Utah. Since nobody can be forced to pay OR receive payment in gold or silver coin, the stupidity of the so-called "bi-metallic" standard (where gold coin value is "pegged" to silver by legislative fiat) is NULLIFIED. You can price things in gold coins, and have a separate price in silver coins - one cannot automatically be considered change for the other.

 

[BKom]

I file and pay taxes. But just for the heck of it, the crime of not filing a tax return is never charged. The government charges people with "willful failure to file." That means you know you have a duty to file, but you don't file. See the difference? The feds will charge you with a thought crime rather than charging you with the actual act of committing a crime.

Do they charge murder suspects with "willful" murder. They don't. They know there are laws against murder and merely the act of murdering someone is a crime.

So, why the difference? I'd guess it's because you're not really required to file a return. That's probably how Tommy Cryer got a not guilty verdict. He didn't file, but he was not "willful" because he believed there was no duty to file. See how the game is played by the government?

 

[onlyrp]

Partly, but not quite, since "face value" now has two entirely different meanings. The Fed fiat dollar has no intrinsic value, since its value is undeclared (i.e., not "valued in", or "backed by", or "redeemable for" anything but the same). The US Silver Dollar value, on the other hand, as declared by the Coinage Act of 1792 (which has not changed since) has a PHYSICAL VALUE - not a price - the value being 371 4/16 grain (24.1 g) pure or 416 grain (27.0 g) standard silver. That is its "intrinsic value". That is quite separate from "fair market value", which is just another way of saying "price", or exchange value with Fed notes or other medium of exchange.

Mocking morons in the media came out after Utah passed the Act, saying, in essence, "So what? If you're stupid enough to buy a Snickers bar for a $10 gold coin, I'll be more than happy to give you paper and base metal change!" (hyuck hyuck - cue the wiping of snot onto the clever sleeve). But that's not how it works at all.

Because gold and silver coin is legal tender in Utah, AS ALTERNATE COMPETING CURRENCIES, you can price things in gold and/or silver coin, and people can freely exchange fiat notes into gold and silver coin to save for and buy them. I can declare that a loaf of bread is $4 in fiat notes, but $.10 cents in silver coin. It is still a taxable transaction, and since not even Utah is yet equipped to accept gold and silver coin in payment of taxes (a problem they are wrestling with now), the transaction still leads back to "fair market value" of the transaction - in Fed notes. In other words, accepting payment in gold and silver at THEIR face value does not mean tendering payment of taxes at direct one-to-one face value of fiat notes - as a tax-avoidance trick. It really is three different competing currencies.

The only REAL advantage, at this point, is that you can, without penalty, start saving and freely transacting in gold and silver coin in Utah. That is no small advantage, because it means the price of everything that is priced in those currencies WILL GO DOWN - as the fiat currency value goes down. You aren't penalized by any so-called "capital gains" (read=fiat currency loss). But what you are saving in will maintain its value, and even increase in value as its scarcity is better known. And if there is no paper trail leading to the original acquisition of the coins (e.g., you're just pulling them out of the attic to spend), there is no "capital gain" on the federal level either.

EDIT: One last part, and brilliant on the part of Utah. Since nobody can be forced to pay OR receive payment in gold or silver coin, the stupidity of the so-called "bi-metallic" standard (where gold coin value is "pegged" to silver by legislative fiat) is NULLIFIED. You can price things in gold coins, and have a separate price in silver coins - one cannot automatically be considered change for the other.

wait, doesn't legal tender mean you are forced to accept it?

 

[onlyrp]

I file and pay taxes. But just for the heck of it, the crime of not filing a tax return is never charged. The government charges people with "willful failure to file." That means you know you have a duty to file, but you don't file. See the difference? The feds will charge you with a thought crime rather than charging you with the actual act of committing a crime.

Do they charge murder suspects with "willful" murder. They don't. They know there are laws against murder and merely the act of murdering someone is a crime.

So, why the difference? I'd guess it's because you're not really required to file a return. That's probably how Tommy Cryer got a not guilty verdict. He didn't file, but he was not "willful" because he believed there was no duty to file. See how the game is played by the government?

No, "willful failure" means you both failed, and did it intentionally, rather than out of ignorance or negligence. It's not the thought that's the crime, it's still the act itself, willful is just to make it clear, you didn't do it by accident.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/belief.htm
It's not a crime if you actually believe you are not liable, however, people who have experience in law and taxes are less likely to be believed. And as this page states, you won't be automatically believed, so try your luck with the jury.

 

[unknown]

All jokes aside, everyone needs to stop paying their income taxes.

Property tax is insane as well.

You cannot own property in the US. You have to rent it from the government indefinitely.

 

[Enforcer]

I file and pay taxes. But just for the heck of it, the crime of not filing a tax return is never charged. The government charges people with "willful failure to file." That means you know you have a duty to file, but you don't file. See the difference? The feds will charge you with a thought crime rather than charging you with the actual act of committing a crime.

Do they charge murder suspects with "willful" murder. They don't. They know there are laws against murder and merely the act of murdering someone is a crime.

So, why the difference? I'd guess it's because you're not really required to file a return. That's probably how Tommy Cryer got a not guilty verdict. He didn't file, but he was not "willful" because he believed there was no duty to file. See how the game is played by the government?

You have the answer right. onlyrp sounds like an IRS agent.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

 

[Enforcer]

All jokes aside, everyone needs to stop paying their income taxes.

Property tax is insane as well.

You cannot own property in the US. You have to rent it from the government indefinitely.

I feel the same way as you regarding property taxes. Retired people who have put their children through school and have no dependents have to pay property taxes while apartment dwellers rely on elderly people to finance their children's education.

You could do away with property taxes and income taxes, relying on the basic tax structure already in place: sales taxes, sin taxes, ad valorem taxes, fines, fees, permits, etc., etc. ad infinitum.

 

[onlyrp]

You have the answer right. onlyrp sounds like an IRS agent.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

I don't work for any government agency, but I don't care if you think I do, at least you're not suspecting me of any crimes. What I sound like is a person who doesn't want anybody who gets in trouble with the law or law enforcers, even if the law enforcers are wrong. If you want to play with fire, go ahead, don't say nobody warned you.