You answered a question with a question, that isn't how this works.
Texas more than Happy to Take Federal Dollars if it's for them
- Thread starter BendBrewer
- Start date
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
While the SC has said that the IRS code is Constitutional, that doesn't mean that what the IRS practices is Constitutional. I started a thread a while back and included some of the US Supreme Court decisions that confirm that most US citizens are liable to pay an income tax.
There is still a $50K reward out there for the first person to come up with the law that says US citizens must pay taxes on wages earned in exchange for labor in the US. IRS agents have attempted to collect on this reward but some of them had to resign from the agency when they could not find it and in the process, discovered an ugly secret about our government.
There is still a $50K reward out there for the first person to come up with the law that says US citizens must pay taxes on wages earned in exchange for labor in the US. IRS agents have attempted to collect on this reward but some of them had to resign from the agency when they could not find it and in the process, discovered an ugly secret about our government.
wait a second. the rules the IRS follow are constitutional, but the rules the IRS follows aren't constitutional?? is that what you are trying to say??
you call them wages, it's really called INCOME. and it is perfectly legal for the IRS to collect taxes on it. you say it yourself... i'm lost...
you call them wages, it's really called INCOME. and it is perfectly legal for the IRS to collect taxes on it. you say it yourself... i'm lost...
dukeanthony
New Member
Nodrama will ask you where its written in the constitution then pick at you all day. If you corner him He will refer back to his original question all the while ignoring that the Supreme court already ruled its constitutional
Its called the Go fetch it argument.
He will never answer your questions only have you go fetch the answer so he can tell you that isnt it and to go fetch again
Just ignore him till he returns to the debate
budlover13
King Tut
It's called the 10th Ammendment and the entitlement attitude fostered by paying so much to the government.
Same reason i had no issues filing for UI. i paid in.
At least Ron Paul followed his constituent's will.
budlover13
King Tut
THEN we debate the legitimacy of the Supreme Court imo. Checks and balances.
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
I know it's a complicated issue and not easy to understand. That's how they have gotten away with perpetuating this fraud for so long.
*What is the legal definition of income? hint: see Eisner vs McCumber
*The Supreme Court has ruled that "the 16th Amendment did not empower the federal government to levy a new tax".
*In 2003, US District Court Judge James C Fox said, "If you... examined carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment."
*Based on research... by the Congressional Research Service, there is no provisions which require an individual to pay an income tax.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry said "the state should not be threatened with a federal takeover over of its air quality program, but instead be lauded as the poster child for regulating pollution."
At a news conference in the Houston suburb of Deer Park, Perry said the federal government should stop what he called a "power grab" by the Environmental Protection Agency whose regional director threatened last week to remove Texas' regulatory authority by midsummer if the state fails to comply with the Clean Air Act.
The state and EPA disagree over the way Texas issues emissions permits.
Standing inside a warehouse that makes fluid sealing products for the petrochemical industry, Perry said the Texas program for permitting pollutants from petrochemical plants has helped improve air quality.
“The EPA seems to believe that federal controls and bureaucracy are more important than clean air results.” Perry said.
“Texas’ common-sense approach to air quality permitting works because it avoids the damage caused by Washington’s command and control approach, while cleaning the air, helping create jobs and growing our state economy.”
At a news conference in the Houston suburb of Deer Park, Perry said the federal government should stop what he called a "power grab" by the Environmental Protection Agency whose regional director threatened last week to remove Texas' regulatory authority by midsummer if the state fails to comply with the Clean Air Act.
The state and EPA disagree over the way Texas issues emissions permits.
Standing inside a warehouse that makes fluid sealing products for the petrochemical industry, Perry said the Texas program for permitting pollutants from petrochemical plants has helped improve air quality.
“The EPA seems to believe that federal controls and bureaucracy are more important than clean air results.” Perry said.
“Texas’ common-sense approach to air quality permitting works because it avoids the damage caused by Washington’s command and control approach, while cleaning the air, helping create jobs and growing our state economy.”
Red1966
Well-Known Member
GE's choice to move jobs to China is their right. Current law doesn't allow government to stop them. I'd be more concerned that GE paid NO taxes last year. And expecting Texas to reject their share of Federal dollars is really asking too much.
what we should really be concerned about is companies paying more money to it's executives than it paid in federal income taxes.
GE is one of them.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
If they didn't pay any taxes, then his pay could be $0.01 a year an still meet that standard. But you are correct that some CEOs are paid excessively. Quite often their bonuses far exceed their salaries, also. Even when they run the company into bankruptcy!!
Don't worry the EPA has a very busy agenda. We will be hearing from them again very soon I'm sure
This is a political thread, have you noticed people's responses in this forum are almost always politically motivated? The title alone suggests a bi-partisan debate.
it's a lot less busy than I would've liked.
EPA regulations like it or not protect our environment. and these regulations promote job growth. it might not help the bottom line of certain few corporations and individuals (namely the ones on the NYSE, NASDAQ, etc) but forcing companies to comply with environmental regulations usually means more work has to be put into disposing of waste correctly, which increases costs by creating J -O - B- S.....
you want to see what an EPA-less country does??
http://www.goablog.org/posts/peoples-power-prevails-in-india-goas-pollution-issue-abstract-by-armstrong-vaz/
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Looked at your link. The have a "Pollution Control Board". The three offending factories have been closed. So even with governmental oversight things go to Hell in a hurry. I don't think environmental regulations have a net increase in jobs. The main expense is equipment, not employees. If a plant is closed, all the jobs are lost. But pollution MUST be limited. We have to do so in a practical manner or we will have to give up some of our goodies, and/or pay more for them.
Natural disasters cause a lot more damage than man does. And mother nature does damage fast and in a hurry. No ammount of tax dollars in the world is going to protect liberals from that.And then after the disaster, not even FEMA works the way its supposed to. AND they are broke. Wow. What a shocker
With more than 2.5 million additional Americans without jobs since he moved into the White House, President Obama would do better on jobs if he cancelled the bus, saved the gas, and just stayed put in the Oval Office to work on reversing the policies he’s promoted that have only made things worse, starting with ObamaCare.
Freshman in Economics-101 learn that price hikes reduce demand. That applies to how many steaks we buy and to how many workers are added to payrolls by employers.
ObamaCare weakens job growth by increasing the cost of labor for businesses via mandated taxes and new compliance regulations.
It would be nice if every employer had the money to pay for every employee’s health insurance, and if everyone could start off at a minimum wage of $20 per hour, but Congressmen pushing a button to vote in favor of such things won’t make it happen.
Double the minimum wage or cut the price of apartments in half via rent control — with the policy goal, let’s say, of raising the standard of living at the bottom — and the result will be fewer jobs and fewer apartments.
Good intentions, in short, aren’t enough.
ObamaCare imposes taxes on companies with over 50 full-time employees that do not provide “acceptable” levels of health insurance coverage. The effect is anti-growth and anti-jobs, providing a clear disincentive for companies with fewer than 50 workers to expand and add new employees.
With healthcare costs projected to rise by 8 percent annually in the coming years, there can be little confidence among employers that the cost per employee of ObamaCare mandates won’t escalate out of control — and little confidence that the politicians will care if their mandates and taxes have the effect of forcing businesses into bankruptcy.
We saw the response of Hillary Clinton in 1993 when she was asked what could be done to ease the burden of her healthcare mandates on small businesses.
“I can’t go out and save every under-capitalized entrepreneur in America,” she retorted in her best let-'em-eat-cake style, refusing to acknowledge the role her mandates would play in producing the under-capitalization and destroying jobs.
The message from central planning was clear: Go out of business if you can’t pay for our vision.
President Obama has expressed the same anti-business haughtiness. “What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there,” said candidate Obama to the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle on January 17, 2008.
That means that “every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter,” he explained, and every year he hoped to escalate the burden on businesses as “ratched down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.”
The impact on jobs? Said Obama, “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
It’s that flawed economic thinking and anti-business stance, so common in the Democratic Party, that has increased uncertainty, reduced investment, and killed job creation.
Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics and the B. Kenneth Simon professor of free enterprise at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh.
Freshman in Economics-101 learn that price hikes reduce demand. That applies to how many steaks we buy and to how many workers are added to payrolls by employers.
ObamaCare weakens job growth by increasing the cost of labor for businesses via mandated taxes and new compliance regulations.
It would be nice if every employer had the money to pay for every employee’s health insurance, and if everyone could start off at a minimum wage of $20 per hour, but Congressmen pushing a button to vote in favor of such things won’t make it happen.
Double the minimum wage or cut the price of apartments in half via rent control — with the policy goal, let’s say, of raising the standard of living at the bottom — and the result will be fewer jobs and fewer apartments.
Good intentions, in short, aren’t enough.
ObamaCare imposes taxes on companies with over 50 full-time employees that do not provide “acceptable” levels of health insurance coverage. The effect is anti-growth and anti-jobs, providing a clear disincentive for companies with fewer than 50 workers to expand and add new employees.
With healthcare costs projected to rise by 8 percent annually in the coming years, there can be little confidence among employers that the cost per employee of ObamaCare mandates won’t escalate out of control — and little confidence that the politicians will care if their mandates and taxes have the effect of forcing businesses into bankruptcy.
We saw the response of Hillary Clinton in 1993 when she was asked what could be done to ease the burden of her healthcare mandates on small businesses.
“I can’t go out and save every under-capitalized entrepreneur in America,” she retorted in her best let-'em-eat-cake style, refusing to acknowledge the role her mandates would play in producing the under-capitalization and destroying jobs.
The message from central planning was clear: Go out of business if you can’t pay for our vision.
President Obama has expressed the same anti-business haughtiness. “What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there,” said candidate Obama to the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle on January 17, 2008.
That means that “every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter,” he explained, and every year he hoped to escalate the burden on businesses as “ratched down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.”
The impact on jobs? Said Obama, “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
It’s that flawed economic thinking and anti-business stance, so common in the Democratic Party, that has increased uncertainty, reduced investment, and killed job creation.
Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics and the B. Kenneth Simon professor of free enterprise at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh.