Remember me
▼ Content

Nothing to do with climate anywhere



Page 1 of 3123>
Nothing to do with climate anywhere03-02-2018 03:48
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(979)
The other threads are so far down the toilet, I thought now might be a good time to ask some opinions on something I'm interested in. Nothing to do with global cooling, so if your not interested quit reading now. We talk a lot about Earth and science here and always seem to swerve into some kind of politics, so I thought what the hell....I'll throw this out and maybe we'll swerve into climate somehow.

I am really curious about everyone's opinion about a consumption tax. I don't honestly know this subject in depth, but every year as a self employed individual I get so damn pissed off writing that check to Uncle Sam. I see so much waste in Washington, both side of the isle. In the end, the biggest job of elected officials is not leadership. It is voting on the spending of OUR money. A few guys who know how to say no would sure be nice. But now I've swerved off topic....

I hate the IRS. They shove a bill in your face and make it nearly impossible to speak with them to resolve issues. They charge interest and late fees and apply payments in ways that would be illegal for any bank or credit card company. I've had to call them 3 times in the last couple weeks and have totaled 4.5 hours a JUST ON HOLD TIME! How many of my dollars are they spending to run that POS agency?!! Anyway, I just keep wishing they would abolish the IRS and go to a consumption tax. I know, it'll probably never happen. The IRS has done well at justifying their existence.

I know we have the full political spectrum here so any opinions welcome. Thanks!
03-02-2018 06:08
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(979)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' stutterin' stutterin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzling" gushed: The other threads are so far down the toilet.....
That is the reason why "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' stutterin' stutterin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzling" continues on this webcyst(sp. correctly).


ignored
03-02-2018 15:50
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
GasGuzzler wrote:
The other threads are so far down the toilet, I thought now might be a good time to ask some opinions on something I'm interested in. Nothing to do with global cooling, so if your not interested quit reading now. We talk a lot about Earth and science here and always seem to swerve into some kind of politics, so I thought what the hell....I'll throw this out and maybe we'll swerve into climate somehow.

I am really curious about everyone's opinion about a consumption tax. I don't honestly know this subject in depth, but every year as a self employed individual I get so damn pissed off writing that check to Uncle Sam. I see so much waste in Washington, both side of the isle. In the end, the biggest job of elected officials is not leadership. It is voting on the spending of OUR money. A few guys who know how to say no would sure be nice. But now I've swerved off topic....

I hate the IRS. They shove a bill in your face and make it nearly impossible to speak with them to resolve issues. They charge interest and late fees and apply payments in ways that would be illegal for any bank or credit card company. I've had to call them 3 times in the last couple weeks and have totaled 4.5 hours a JUST ON HOLD TIME! How many of my dollars are they spending to run that POS agency?!! Anyway, I just keep wishing they would abolish the IRS and go to a consumption tax. I know, it'll probably never happen. The IRS has done well at justifying their existence.

I know we have the full political spectrum here so any opinions welcome. Thanks!


Gasguzzler,
I once watched a news type show on t.v. where they took a tax return to 6 different CPA's. Once they finished the tax returns they took them to the IRS.
The IRS found all 6 to be wrong.
Also the IRS now has a tax forgiveness program where if you were to owe the IRS more than $10,000 then they'll offer to settle with you.
I had a sister-in-law throw away an important tax document of mine so I accidentally filed an erroneous tax return. The IRS sent me a letter 7 years later letting me know this and that they usually find such mistakes in 2 years.
I pointed out their tax forgiveness program for people who owe a lot and if they looked at my income, what I owed them was more than I could afford to repay.
We do need a simpler tax code. This would reduce loopholes that the rich can exploit.
Since you are self employed you might try explaining your situation while mentioning how large amounts of tax debt is forgiven to people or businesses that realize more income than you.
And if all else fails ask the ACLU for help. This is because you could claim discrimination based on you need to owe more for the IRS to be willing to work with you. And that you're being singled out for being in a lower tax bracket or for not having filed erroneous returns for enough years.
It is actually illegal for the IRS to have different standards in determining who is eligible for a tax break outside of what your return allows for.
03-02-2018 16:32
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1115)
GasGuzzler wrote:
The other threads are so far down the toilet, I thought now might be a good time to ask some opinions on something I'm interested in. Nothing to do with global cooling, so if your not interested quit reading now. We talk a lot about Earth and science here and always seem to swerve into some kind of politics, so I thought what the hell....I'll throw this out and maybe we'll swerve into climate somehow.

I am really curious about everyone's opinion about a consumption tax. I don't honestly know this subject in depth, but every year as a self employed individual I get so damn pissed off writing that check to Uncle Sam. I see so much waste in Washington, both side of the isle. In the end, the biggest job of elected officials is not leadership. It is voting on the spending of OUR money. A few guys who know how to say no would sure be nice. But now I've swerved off topic....

I hate the IRS. They shove a bill in your face and make it nearly impossible to speak with them to resolve issues. They charge interest and late fees and apply payments in ways that would be illegal for any bank or credit card company. I've had to call them 3 times in the last couple weeks and have totaled 4.5 hours a JUST ON HOLD TIME! How many of my dollars are they spending to run that POS agency?!! Anyway, I just keep wishing they would abolish the IRS and go to a consumption tax. I know, it'll probably never happen. The IRS has done well at justifying their existence.

I know we have the full political spectrum here so any opinions welcome. Thanks!


I am always shocked at the massively right leaning attitude of Americans.

The thing with a consumption tax is that it hits the poor very hard and the rich almost not at all.

This is due to the fact that the poor have to eat just like the rich. The rich will spend just as much as the poor but be able to put some expenses through the company or whatever tax efficent loop hole they wish to.

In the 1960's the burden of tax fell on property. Now it falls on income. This is due to the political power of the baby boomers who have been able to model the world to their advantage all through their lives. When they were young they taxed the property of the rich. Now they are rich they tax the income of the worker.

Taxing property was seen as the only legitimate taxation form before about 1805. That is because the contract between the citizen and the state has it that the state guarantees the property rights of the individual. Taxing income is a disincentive to work. Taxing property is an incentive to invest in a company that does stuff to make the world better by making a profit.

And if you want the IRS to answer the phone quicker then you are asking for higher taxes to make the governmet work better.
03-02-2018 21:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
GasGuzzler wrote:
The other threads are so far down the toilet, I thought now might be a good time to ask some opinions on something I'm interested in. Nothing to do with global cooling, so if your not interested quit reading now. We talk a lot about Earth and science here and always seem to swerve into some kind of politics, so I thought what the hell....I'll throw this out and maybe we'll swerve into climate somehow.

Heh. You already did! The tax climate!
GasGuzzler wrote:
I am really curious about everyone's opinion about a consumption tax. I don't honestly know this subject in depth, but every year as a self employed individual I get so damn pissed off writing that check to Uncle Sam. I see so much waste in Washington, both side of the isle. In the end, the biggest job of elected officials is not leadership. It is voting on the spending of OUR money. A few guys who know how to say no would sure be nice. But now I've swerved off topic....

Even worse, they spend much more money than what they collect in taxes. They either print or borrow the rest.
GasGuzzler wrote:
I hate the IRS.

Join the club. Most people do.
GasGuzzler wrote:
They shove a bill in your face and make it nearly impossible to speak with them to resolve issues. They charge interest and late fees and apply payments in ways that would be illegal for any bank or credit card company.

Only on money you owe them. If they owe YOU money, you don't get paid interest on that loan to the government.
GasGuzzler wrote:
I've had to call them 3 times in the last couple weeks and have totaled 4.5 hours a JUST ON HOLD TIME! How many of my dollars are they spending to run that POS agency?!!

Studies have been done on this, but they were done by the government, so....well, you get the idea.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Anyway, I just keep wishing they would abolish the IRS and go to a consumption tax. I know, it'll probably never happen. The IRS has done well at justifying their existence.

The IRS was effectively created out of the 16th amendment. There are questions on whether that particular amendment was properly ratified. Repealing the 16th amendment would be a good start. We've repealed amendments before.
GasGuzzler wrote:
I know we have the full political spectrum here so any opinions welcome. Thanks!


There are lot of problems with an 'income' tax. The biggest one is simply trying to define what the word 'income' means. This consumes the bulk of tax law.

Is 'income' the gross or the net? If you're a business owner, you calculate your P&L statements and balance sheet at the end of the year (your investors (or you) want to know this information anyway). They describe the net income of a business and the 'book' value of any stock it has issued. Such a business has all the information necessary to figure expenditures, sales, losses by theft or disaster, etc.

On the other spectrum is the professional gambler. He operates a 'business' too (gambling). While records are kept of his major winnings (by the casino, and reported to the IRS), he has no record of any losses. Thus, he is taxed effectively on his gross income, as if he never lost anything in the casino.

There is the theory that 'work' should be taxed, but there is the investor. He makes a commitment to a project or a company, hoping he will be able to profit from the increased value of his investments later. This can take years or even decades. What is income? The increased value of his investment before he sells it? How would the price of that be determined? What if the investment is a painting, diamonds, a house, an old car that is being restored, a stock in a new company?

Say someone dies. A life insurance payment is made. Is that income? What is that compared to the 'loss' of the deceased? How would you monetize that?

How about the government worker? He is paid through taxes. Are taxes income?

How about the State and local taxes you pay. Are they an expenditure used to calculate your net income? Why are some accepted by the IRS and others are not? What about State sales taxes? In Washington that varies depending where you buy your product. You may be charge at the location of the buyer, the location of the seller, or the location of some broker or middleman. Which tax rate do you use? How do you figure the taxes for the IRS?

In brief, the basic problem is the attempt to try to define what 'income' is.

The Federal government used to collect taxes through property tax or various consumption taxes. That's how they funded themselves before the 16th amendment. Government was small. It wasn't overbearing. It wasn't the massive collection of oligarchies that we have today. Indeed, today they STILL collect various consumption taxes (look at your telephone bill sometime, or the amount the government collects on a gallon of gasoline including the drilling, processing, storage, shipping, and pump costs).

Repealing the 16th amendment would be a tremendous shock to government funding. A lot of people depend on that government funding, both bureaucrat and citizen alike. What would such a repeal do to our economy? Personally, the shock would be so punishing that people wouldn't do it. The end result would be a vastly improved economy, but getting there is like stabbing yourself in the heart. I don't think the people of this nation has the guts to do it.


The Parrot Killer
03-02-2018 21:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
The other threads are so far down the toilet, I thought now might be a good time to ask some opinions on something I'm interested in. Nothing to do with global cooling, so if your not interested quit reading now. We talk a lot about Earth and science here and always seem to swerve into some kind of politics, so I thought what the hell....I'll throw this out and maybe we'll swerve into climate somehow.

I am really curious about everyone's opinion about a consumption tax. I don't honestly know this subject in depth, but every year as a self employed individual I get so damn pissed off writing that check to Uncle Sam. I see so much waste in Washington, both side of the isle. In the end, the biggest job of elected officials is not leadership. It is voting on the spending of OUR money. A few guys who know how to say no would sure be nice. But now I've swerved off topic....

I hate the IRS. They shove a bill in your face and make it nearly impossible to speak with them to resolve issues. They charge interest and late fees and apply payments in ways that would be illegal for any bank or credit card company. I've had to call them 3 times in the last couple weeks and have totaled 4.5 hours a JUST ON HOLD TIME! How many of my dollars are they spending to run that POS agency?!! Anyway, I just keep wishing they would abolish the IRS and go to a consumption tax. I know, it'll probably never happen. The IRS has done well at justifying their existence.

I know we have the full political spectrum here so any opinions welcome. Thanks!


Gasguzzler,
I once watched a news type show on t.v. where they took a tax return to 6 different CPA's. Once they finished the tax returns they took them to the IRS.
The IRS found all 6 to be wrong.

Not surprising. CPA's are trained to establish bookkeeping systems and operate them. Only a very few are tax lawyers (my father was an excellent tax lawyer). Tax law is not cut and dried. It is complex, contains confusing definitions for things, and is bulky.
James_ wrote:
Also the IRS now has a tax forgiveness program where if you were to owe the IRS more than $10,000 then they'll offer to settle with you.

True, as long as you promise to pay your taxes properly in the future.
James_ wrote:
I had a sister-in-law throw away an important tax document of mine so I accidentally filed an erroneous tax return. The IRS sent me a letter 7 years later letting me know this and that they usually find such mistakes in 2 years.
Another cost of the IRS...keeping your crap around for umpteen years.
James_ wrote:
I pointed out their tax forgiveness program for people who owe a lot and if they looked at my income, what I owed them was more than I could afford to repay.

The IRS figures that getting blood out of stone is at least SOME blood.
James_ wrote:
We do need a simpler tax code. This would reduce loopholes that the rich can exploit.
This gets down to the definition of the word 'income' again.

Are your house payments or rent payments part of the expenditure you see just by making money at a job somewhere? Why are you different than any other business? How about the cost of your tools and equipment, which you also use for personal use? How do figure THAT expenditure? Make up a number and hope the IRS agrees with you?

You have to eat. Is that an expenditure? What about a company expenditure for a cafeteria that feeds its crew for free as a benefit program?

Many companies do business across national borders. If a profit is made in Canada, is that U.S. income? What about Canadian income taxes? The cost to produce that product is made in the United States. Is that expenditure counted against U.S. income, even though the profit for selling it was made in Canada? What about Canadian companies doing the reverse transaction? Do you consider these tax 'loopholes' for the rich? Most companies of any size have tons of these kinds of transactions every day.

James_ wrote:
Since you are self employed you might try explaining your situation while mentioning how large amounts of tax debt is forgiven to people or businesses that realize more income than you.

Heh. You can always try. You better have a good lawyer with you.
James_ wrote:
And if all else fails ask the ACLU for help. This is because you could claim discrimination based on you need to owe more for the IRS to be willing to work with you. And that you're being singled out for being in a lower tax bracket or for not having filed erroneous returns for enough years.

The ACLU has lawyers both good and horrible. Ya takes yer chances with them.
James_ wrote:
It is actually illegal for the IRS to have different standards in determining who is eligible for a tax break outside of what your return allows for.

Returns don't define tax breaks. The tax law does. The form you fill out is a reflection of that law, and often confusing because the law can't clearly identify what 'income' is, what an 'expenditure' is, what a legitimate tax break would be, etc.

If you ask six IRS agents a question about the tax code, you will get six different answers.

No different from the CPAs, is it?


The Parrot Killer
03-02-2018 21:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
Tim the plumber wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
The other threads are so far down the toilet, I thought now might be a good time to ask some opinions on something I'm interested in. Nothing to do with global cooling, so if your not interested quit reading now. We talk a lot about Earth and science here and always seem to swerve into some kind of politics, so I thought what the hell....I'll throw this out and maybe we'll swerve into climate somehow.

I am really curious about everyone's opinion about a consumption tax. I don't honestly know this subject in depth, but every year as a self employed individual I get so damn pissed off writing that check to Uncle Sam. I see so much waste in Washington, both side of the isle. In the end, the biggest job of elected officials is not leadership. It is voting on the spending of OUR money. A few guys who know how to say no would sure be nice. But now I've swerved off topic....

I hate the IRS. They shove a bill in your face and make it nearly impossible to speak with them to resolve issues. They charge interest and late fees and apply payments in ways that would be illegal for any bank or credit card company. I've had to call them 3 times in the last couple weeks and have totaled 4.5 hours a JUST ON HOLD TIME! How many of my dollars are they spending to run that POS agency?!! Anyway, I just keep wishing they would abolish the IRS and go to a consumption tax. I know, it'll probably never happen. The IRS has done well at justifying their existence.

I know we have the full political spectrum here so any opinions welcome. Thanks!


I am always shocked at the massively right leaning attitude of Americans.

The thing with a consumption tax is that it hits the poor very hard and the rich almost not at all.

It depends on what consumption is being taxed.
Tim the plumber wrote:
This is due to the fact that the poor have to eat just like the rich.

If the consumption is for food, then both will pay the same tax (except the rich will tend to pay more because they like to eat more expensive food). BTW, the growing, processing, and shipping of food is already taxed. Guess who pays that? YOU do! It is part of the price of the food.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The rich will spend just as much as the poor but be able to put some expenses through the company or whatever tax efficent loop hole they wish to.

Only if tax 'loopholes' exist. What is food? Corn? Candy? Alcohol? Wheat? The deer you shot on your last hunting trip? Beef? The chicken you raised from a chick and had for dinner last night? How do you figure the 'price' of food? How do you account for it all? Is the IRS out there watching you hunt and raise chickens? Do you want them to?
Tim the plumber wrote:
In the 1960's the burden of tax fell on property.
Still does.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Now it falls on income.
It falls on both.
Tim the plumber wrote:
This is due to the political power of the baby boomers who have been able to model the world to their advantage all through their lives.
They have certainly encouraged the government to muck with tax law, yes (always to the government's advantage it seems).
Tim the plumber wrote:
When they were young they taxed the property of the rich. Now they are rich they tax the income of the worker.
BOTH are taxed. Property tax didn't go away. Neither did consumption taxes.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Taxing property was seen as the only legitimate taxation form before about 1805. That is because the contract between the citizen and the state has it that the state guarantees the property rights of the individual.

But the government can't make such a guarantee. You can have them fight the wars for you, and you can have it hire the police and fire services to protect your property, but the government can just take your property anytime it wants to at the point of a gun. See recent property disputes involving 'illegitimate uses of property'.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Taxing income is a disincentive to work.
Nope. People gotta eat. The problem is defining what 'income' means. It is WELFARE that is a disincentive to work.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Taxing property is an incentive to invest in a company that does stuff to make the world better by making a profit.
Nope. Companies own property too. So does the apartment complex owner. They just pass these taxes on to YOU.
Tim the plumber wrote:
And if you want the IRS to answer the phone quicker then you are asking for higher taxes to make the governmet work better.

Increasing budgets does not make the government work better. Remember the first purpose of any government agency or organization. It's first purpose is to justify itself. Not be be efficient.


The Parrot Killer
03-02-2018 22:37
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
The other threads are so far down the toilet, I thought now might be a good time to ask some opinions on something I'm interested in. Nothing to do with global cooling, so if your not interested quit reading now. We talk a lot about Earth and science here and always seem to swerve into some kind of politics, so I thought what the hell....I'll throw this out and maybe we'll swerve into climate somehow.

I am really curious about everyone's opinion about a consumption tax. I don't honestly know this subject in depth, but every year as a self employed individual I get so damn pissed off writing that check to Uncle Sam. I see so much waste in Washington, both side of the isle. In the end, the biggest job of elected officials is not leadership. It is voting on the spending of OUR money. A few guys who know how to say no would sure be nice. But now I've swerved off topic....

I hate the IRS. They shove a bill in your face and make it nearly impossible to speak with them to resolve issues. They charge interest and late fees and apply payments in ways that would be illegal for any bank or credit card company. I've had to call them 3 times in the last couple weeks and have totaled 4.5 hours a JUST ON HOLD TIME! How many of my dollars are they spending to run that POS agency?!! Anyway, I just keep wishing they would abolish the IRS and go to a consumption tax. I know, it'll probably never happen. The IRS has done well at justifying their existence.

I know we have the full political spectrum here so any opinions welcome. Thanks!


Yes, I largely agree with you and so, I think, do many economists. It makes good sense to shift the tax burden away from labour and towards consumption, both economically and environmentally. In general, it makes sense to increase tax on things you want to discourage, like fossil fuel consumption, and reduce taxes on things you want to encourage, like work. Increase taxes on fossil fuels (thus reflecting the damage they cause to the environment) and use to proceeds to reduce taxes on wages.

Obviously this would increase fuel prices, so some of the tax would have to go towards helping the poorest to cope, but it would also encourage the development of cleaner energy sources. If you really want to guzzle gas, you still can, but it'll cost you!
04-02-2018 02:06
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(979)
Thanks to all who posted replies, except for litebeer who continues to hide behind jiberish in order to avoid real conversation. Litebeer quote of the week; It's good to be ignored.


James,
I have the same issue. Apparently the IRS didn't like my 2011 return. Said I took too much for deductions. I know I screwed up and took my whole mortgage payment instead of just the interest. Not sure what else they red flagged. I was just getting my business off the ground and didn't understand the importance of a good CPA, so I figured my own taxes. Mistake. Long story short, they threw out ALL my deductions and re figured with NO deductions. Now I have a $27,000 tax bill to try and straighten out! The actual amount owed is around 5K...paid them 4k.....but, they get to keep it secret for 7 years and then charge interest and penalties on an erroneous amount. Then you literally have to schedule days off work to deal with the problem. Several times last week I'd call and the recording actually said "due to high volume, your call will not be answered. Please try back later." Total BS. The Frs can come and take my home, but they can't even answer the phone. BS!!!
I have a friend that got behind on his taxes, around 14K. He got on a payment plan at $250 a month. He made payment every month for 3+ years. Said he called in for something unrelated, but then asked about the balance on his back taxes, wanting to make sure it was going down accordingly. Nope. 100% of his payments were being applied to interest and penalties and none towards the principal, as the penalties and interest continue to accrue. BS! How is that legal??!!

Tim,
Why does a consumption tax have to hit the poor? We have food stamps now, why can't they have it with a CT? Simply swipe your state aid card and away you go. A CT would be structured to target taxes the same way they do now. Buy a 4 door sedan and you pay 8% or whatever federal tax on it. Buy a Lamborghini and you'll pay 25% federal tax. What scares the hell out of people like Litebeer is the fact that they would actually have some skin in this game, and that's what we need. It's not about putting more money in my pocket, it's about getting the 1/2 of Americans that don't pay anything, to start paying something. Money makes people care, and people that care just might starting voting a little differently. Tired of Santa Clause elections where they try to out-promise their opponent's giveaways.
Property taxes...
I built my home with with my own hands and the help of a friend or 2. Wife couldn't do much, she was pregnant with our second. I built when I was 30 and hope to die here. I love the home and I love the land. Currently paying 2,600 a year on a home assessed at 225,000....very reasonable. It's gone up from 1,800 in 12 years. If I live to 85, I will have paid property tax for 55 years. A low guess for and average would be 3,200 per year. I built the house on 5 acres for 155,000. My total property taxes I will pay will be 176,000. You really think more property tax is the way to go?
Last point,
I am not asking the IRS to staff more people to answer the phone. I'm asking them to turn the phones off....permanently. According to the US Gov, it costs about 32 BILLION dollars a year to run the IRS. How many hungry children can you feed a year with 32 bil? About 10 million.

ITN,
All those questions you raise about what is income...
My opinion is that the tax code has gotten so ridiculously confusing, but that's how the IRS and the gov likes it. Like others said, 6 returns, 6 different numbers. Now they have good reason to snoop into your business because they can call it fraud. Not that they will, but they can if they "need: to for some other reason The tax code as it is structured is a weapon in the arsenal of the federal government. As Obama said....
Barack Obama complains that the Constitution is a "charter of negative liberties". That's because the Constitution was intended as a limiting document, to curtail the power of the federal government vis-a-vis the states and the individual.... the Constitution is a flawed document from which we must "break free."
Obama no doubt hates the constitution.

Surface Detail,
Where ya been? Actually good to here from you. Last you wrote you had too much wine and then disappeared.

I would love to see the gas prices skyrocket on fuel under a consumption tax. But this is exactly why Democrats would would never go for it. It would finally wake up people up to how much the global warming hoax is actually costing them. Democrats can't have that!!
Edited on 04-02-2018 03:05
04-02-2018 03:46
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Gasguzzler,
You might find this interesting. It's from Find Law and addresses the IRS' statute of limitations. http://tax.findlaw.com/tax-problems-audits/what-is-the-irs-statute-of-limitations-or-deadline-for-action-on-.html
Still, you might ask the ACLU if it's constitutional for the IRS to benefit by not making known in a reasonable period of time a claim the IRS is making against a tax payer. They can afford to take cases all the way to the Supreme Court. It's what they do.
They could contend that failure to make known their claim in a timely manner violates your constitutional rights. I think you'll like this one.

Amendment VII (7): Rights in civil cases
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

I think the ACLU could argue that debt collection is a civil action.
04-02-2018 04:43
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(979)
Appreciate the info James. Believe me I've looked into all this. I actually figured and filed my own business taxes through 2011-2014. My CPA has found several deductions I DIDN'T collect on in all those years. Even though a couple of deductions were overshot by small margin in 2011, there was plenty I didn't take advantage of, yet they still want to be asses about it. We are now going to amend those 2011-2014 returns and reduce my tax liability substantially. We will try and settle with the IRS for an accurate amount. I've got 37 hours wrapped in this the past 2 weeks. What a waste.
04-02-2018 05:38
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Appreciate the info James. Believe me I've looked into all this. I actually figured and filed my own business taxes through 2011-2014. My CPA has found several deductions I DIDN'T collect on in all those years. Even though a couple of deductions were overshot by small margin in 2011, there was plenty I didn't take advantage of, yet they still want to be asses about it. We are now going to amend those 2011-2014 returns and reduce my tax liability substantially. We will try and settle with the IRS for an accurate amount. I've got 37 hours wrapped in this the past 2 weeks. What a waste.


Gasguzzler,
You're welcome. I think one day the IRS will need to quit abusing it's authority over people because it's a government agency. Who knows, maybe somebody who's followed your thread will know someone that's got the same problem, the IRS waiting years to pursue collection. I think the ACLU would love to throw the 7th Amendment at them. That's because if they won then a lot of people could request a trial.
04-02-2018 06:15
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(979)
My other option is to sit on it another 3 years and see if they heat up on any collections. Statute of limitations is 10 years on collections. Probably a dumb thing to try. Truth is when these older returns are reconstructed, the IRS will likely owe ME money. I'll never see it. Not when they can wave a $27,000 bill in my face. The IRS would shred the ACLU for the exact reason you state. It would set a precedent and the floodgates would be open. Not going to happen.

Anyway, a consumption tax would have certainly avoided all this. Another problem I see is a lot of people that have no understanding of taxes actually think the IRS sends them a check for a few grand every year. They are so ignorant that they don't know they let the gov borrow their money for free for a year and the IRS is only sending it back with no interest payment. You'd be amazed at the staggering number of people who don't realize it's their own money that is simply being returned to them. Why not love the IRS?
04-02-2018 06:49
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
GasGuzzler wrote:
My other option is to sit on it another 3 years and see if they heat up on any collections. Statute of limitations is 10 years on collections. Probably a dumb thing to try. Truth is when these older returns are reconstructed, the IRS will likely owe ME money. I'll never see it. Not when they can wave a $27,000 bill in my face. The IRS would shred the ACLU for the exact reason you state. It would set a precedent and the floodgates would be open. Not going to happen.

Anyway, a consumption tax would have certainly avoided all this. Another problem I see is a lot of people that have no understanding of taxes actually think the IRS sends them a check for a few grand every year. They are so ignorant that they don't know they let the gov borrow their money for free for a year and the IRS is only sending it back with no interest payment. You'd be amazed at the staggering number of people who don't realize it's their own money that is simply being returned to them. Why not love the IRS?


Gasguzzler,
When there are decisions like Roe vs. Wade or Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, some people like the challenge and some like seeing people being treated fairly. And with the IRS such a decision would require them to rethink how they collect taxes they considered to be owed.
At the same time if a person won their suit they could ask for damages such as emotional suffering. With collection agencies, according to Morgan and Morgan, if a collection agency calls you and you ask them not to call you again, it's worth $1,500 for each call after the 1st one. With the IRS, if it's found they violated the 7th Amendment so they could harass you, it could get interesting. It would also be a landmark decision and a lot of Americans would probably love that person.
04-02-2018 11:51
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1115)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Thanks to all who posted replies, except for litebeer who continues to hide behind jiberish in order to avoid real conversation. Litebeer quote of the week; It's good to be ignored.

Tim,
Why does a consumption tax have to hit the poor? We have food stamps now, why can't they have it with a CT? Simply swipe your state aid card and away you go.


The below the economic involvement class of poor is not really where I was aiming. Classical Rome had a vast number of such people on dole, the rich used this to destroy the respectable citizen class of worker. Same thing.

A CT would be structured to target taxes the same way they do now. Buy a 4 door sedan and you pay 8% or whatever federal tax on it. Buy a Lamborghini and you'll pay 25% federal tax.


Not possible. The governement has to raise a fixed amount of tax. You will pay 25% on that 4 door sedan and the guy buying the Lamborghini will do it through his company which uses it as a promotional artwork and is based over seas so as to get the state subsidy which was supposed to attrack forign investment.

What scares the hell out of people like Litebeer is the fact that they would actually have some skin in this game, and that's what we need. It's not about putting more money in my pocket, it's about getting the 1/2 of Americans that don't pay anything, to start paying something. Money makes people care, and people that care just might starting voting a little differently. Tired of Santa Clause elections where they try to out-promise their opponent's giveaways.


What scares the hell out of Litebeer is anything at all especially the idea of him being responsible for him self and that others manage to deal with the threats of the world.

It is very good to see that people such as you, not exactly accademically educated, are clever enough to see a scam when it is happening. Although I think you may of slipped through the net of school and should have gone much further than you did, given your obviuos ability.

Property taxes...
I built my home with with my own hands and the help of a friend or 2. Wife couldn't do much, she was pregnant with our second. I built when I was 30 and hope to die here. I love the home and I love the land. Currently paying 2,600 a year on a home assessed at 225,000....very reasonable. It's gone up from 1,800 in 12 years. If I live to 85, I will have paid property tax for 55 years. A low guess for and average would be 3,200 per year. I built the house on 5 acres for 155,000. My total property taxes I will pay will be 176,000. You really think more property tax is the way to go?


In the 1960's, in the UK, I only know here, those numbers would have been £2000 for the house and £160 for the tax on it. Guess. Result; lots of social mobility. Lots of opportunity. Prssure on the tax code to allow the rich to find loop holes.

Last point,
I am not asking the IRS to staff more people to answer the phone. I'm asking them to turn the phones off....permanently. According to the US Gov, it costs about 32 BILLION dollars a year to run the IRS. How many hungry children can you feed a year with 32 bil? About 10 million.


How would you return money to the government? How do they get any money in?

The management of the money supply is very complex. There is a role for printing money, a roll for borrowing money and a roll for tax. Note that to a certain point when a government borrows money it works in the opposite way to when a houshold borrows money, that is it is often a good thing. You do not want a lot of it as it will cause a loss of confidence in money and thus inflation. Then again some inflation is a good thing. Last thing you want everybody to do with their money is to hold onto it. Such is economic stagnation and depression.
04-02-2018 22:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
GasGuzzler wrote:
My other option is to sit on it another 3 years and see if they heat up on any collections. Statute of limitations is 10 years on collections. Probably a dumb thing to try. Truth is when these older returns are reconstructed, the IRS will likely owe ME money. I'll never see it. Not when they can wave a $27,000 bill in my face. The IRS would shred the ACLU for the exact reason you state. It would set a precedent and the floodgates would be open. Not going to happen.

Anyway, a consumption tax would have certainly avoided all this. Another problem I see is a lot of people that have no understanding of taxes actually think the IRS sends them a check for a few grand every year. They are so ignorant that they don't know they let the gov borrow their money for free for a year and the IRS is only sending it back with no interest payment. You'd be amazed at the staggering number of people who don't realize it's their own money that is simply being returned to them. Why not love the IRS?


The difficulties with a consumption tax are not really being looked at much here.

First, what consumption are you going to tax? All consumption, food, cars, houses, property tax on purchase, aircraft? What happens to stuff that isn't really consumed, just used for awhile and sold again, such as cars, houses, property, or aircraft?

If you tax foreign goods, is that not the same as a protectionist tariff? Wouldn't another nation retaliate in kind, cause it to be more difficult to sell our exports abroad?

If you don't tax foreign goods, and only domestically produced ones, wouldn't that just encourage people to stop buying domestic goods? What happens to the job those domestic factories provided?

If you tax one fuel as a 'bad' fuel and not another because it's a 'good' fuel, doesn't that just distort the economy into less efficient fuel sources based on some political or religious whim? What happens to those industries that require a certain type of fuel? You can't melt steel on an industrial level with solar or wind power.

If you tax food, what about hunters, that gather their own food? Can the wildlife sustain the increased hunting because there is no way to track and tax it? What about farmers, that grow their own food and consume it themselves? Are you going to tax them for the seed? Perhaps for some perceived value of the food the raised themselves as if they bought it? How fair is that?

What about the warehouses, or transportation systems that get commodities to their end destination? Do you tax them for each step of the way? For the warehouse? For the trucks and railroads? All because they handled the product and transacted it on the way to you, the end user?

You see, consumption tax rapidly becomes as complex as anything the income tax has caused, including trying to define what 'income' or 'consumption' actually means.


The Parrot Killer
04-02-2018 23:04
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(979)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
My other option is to sit on it another 3 years and see if they heat up on any collections. Statute of limitations is 10 years on collections. Probably a dumb thing to try. Truth is when these older returns are reconstructed, the IRS will likely owe ME money. I'll never see it. Not when they can wave a $27,000 bill in my face. The IRS would shred the ACLU for the exact reason you state. It would set a precedent and the floodgates would be open. Not going to happen.

Anyway, a consumption tax would have certainly avoided all this. Another problem I see is a lot of people that have no understanding of taxes actually think the IRS sends them a check for a few grand every year. They are so ignorant that they don't know they let the gov borrow their money for free for a year and the IRS is only sending it back with no interest payment. You'd be amazed at the staggering number of people who don't realize it's their own money that is simply being returned to them. Why not love the IRS?


The difficulties with a consumption tax are not really being looked at much here.

First, what consumption are you going to tax? All consumption, food, cars, houses, property tax on purchase, aircraft? What happens to stuff that isn't really consumed, just used for awhile and sold again, such as cars, houses, property, or aircraft?

If you tax foreign goods, is that not the same as a protectionist tariff? Wouldn't another nation retaliate in kind, cause it to be more difficult to sell our exports abroad?

If you don't tax foreign goods, and only domestically produced ones, wouldn't that just encourage people to stop buying domestic goods? What happens to the job those domestic factories provided?

If you tax one fuel as a 'bad' fuel and not another because it's a 'good' fuel, doesn't that just distort the economy into less efficient fuel sources based on some political or religious whim? What happens to those industries that require a certain type of fuel? You can't melt steel on an industrial level with solar or wind power.

If you tax food, what about hunters, that gather their own food? Can the wildlife sustain the increased hunting because there is no way to track and tax it? What about farmers, that grow their own food and consume it themselves? Are you going to tax them for the seed? Perhaps for some perceived value of the food the raised themselves as if they bought it? How fair is that?

What about the warehouses, or transportation systems that get commodities to their end destination? Do you tax them for each step of the way? For the warehouse? For the trucks and railroads? All because they handled the product and transacted it on the way to you, the end user?

You see, consumption tax rapidly becomes as complex as anything the income tax has caused, including trying to define what 'income' or 'consumption' actually means.


Completely agree, it would take years to sort out and maybe never git it right. However it would do few things very positively that I think outweigh the bad.
1. It would take the burden off the guy paying the bills.
2. Gov must have a screaming economy to get revenue...sales are their only source.
3. #2 causes our leaders (tax spenders) to vote on sensible policies that are good for business instead of BS global cooling prevention policies.
....and I'll have to finish these thoughts later...kids just been confirmed with strep and off to get meds. Ha! Real life......
05-02-2018 06:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
My other option is to sit on it another 3 years and see if they heat up on any collections. Statute of limitations is 10 years on collections. Probably a dumb thing to try. Truth is when these older returns are reconstructed, the IRS will likely owe ME money. I'll never see it. Not when they can wave a $27,000 bill in my face. The IRS would shred the ACLU for the exact reason you state. It would set a precedent and the floodgates would be open. Not going to happen.

Anyway, a consumption tax would have certainly avoided all this. Another problem I see is a lot of people that have no understanding of taxes actually think the IRS sends them a check for a few grand every year. They are so ignorant that they don't know they let the gov borrow their money for free for a year and the IRS is only sending it back with no interest payment. You'd be amazed at the staggering number of people who don't realize it's their own money that is simply being returned to them. Why not love the IRS?


The difficulties with a consumption tax are not really being looked at much here.

First, what consumption are you going to tax? All consumption, food, cars, houses, property tax on purchase, aircraft? What happens to stuff that isn't really consumed, just used for awhile and sold again, such as cars, houses, property, or aircraft?

If you tax foreign goods, is that not the same as a protectionist tariff? Wouldn't another nation retaliate in kind, cause it to be more difficult to sell our exports abroad?

If you don't tax foreign goods, and only domestically produced ones, wouldn't that just encourage people to stop buying domestic goods? What happens to the job those domestic factories provided?

If you tax one fuel as a 'bad' fuel and not another because it's a 'good' fuel, doesn't that just distort the economy into less efficient fuel sources based on some political or religious whim? What happens to those industries that require a certain type of fuel? You can't melt steel on an industrial level with solar or wind power.

If you tax food, what about hunters, that gather their own food? Can the wildlife sustain the increased hunting because there is no way to track and tax it? What about farmers, that grow their own food and consume it themselves? Are you going to tax them for the seed? Perhaps for some perceived value of the food the raised themselves as if they bought it? How fair is that?

What about the warehouses, or transportation systems that get commodities to their end destination? Do you tax them for each step of the way? For the warehouse? For the trucks and railroads? All because they handled the product and transacted it on the way to you, the end user?

You see, consumption tax rapidly becomes as complex as anything the income tax has caused, including trying to define what 'income' or 'consumption' actually means.


Completely agree, it would take years to sort out and maybe never git it right. However it would do few things very positively that I think outweigh the bad.
1. It would take the burden off the guy paying the bills.
2. Gov must have a screaming economy to get revenue...sales are their only source.
3. #2 causes our leaders (tax spenders) to vote on sensible policies that are good for business instead of BS global cooling prevention policies.
....and I'll have to finish these thoughts later...kids just been confirmed with strep and off to get meds. Ha! Real life......


1. Would it? It seems it only shifts responsibility. The business owner would still have to pay the bills. For you it would make no difference.
2. The funny thing about that is when they cut burdensome taxes, the economy takes off and they actually wind up collecting more in total revenue. Then they raise taxes again. The economy stalls, and they are right back where they were. I don't think the government understands this.
3. Why would they? They have shown no business sense before. Remember that most of them are career politicians. They have never run a private business in their lives. They don't know what it takes to run one. Remember the first purpose of a government agency is to justify itself, not be efficient.

Good luck dealing with the strep. No fun.


The Parrot Killer
05-02-2018 07:18
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' stutterin' stutterin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzling": Thanks to all who posted replies, except for lite(song) who continues.... Litebeer quote of the week; It's good to be ignored.... Buy a Lamborghini and you'll pay 25% federal tax....Lite(song)...
Its so good to be ignored by "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' stutterin' stutterin' filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time(plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzling"....NOT! Buy a Lamborghini for $600,000 or $750000....Rich people can save money by buying dealer paint without extra cost metal flake & smaller wheel/tire combos. I'm filled with sorrow by the decisions rich people have.
Meanwhile, I got two used 18inch chrome wheels(3" larger than standards) with good mounted tires for $60. But I paid too much, since later, I got 3 nice 18" alloy wheels (with mounted tires) for $50. Oh, yeah. So far I have 4 free tires(2 Goodyear Eagles), all with good tread. So far, all used wheels & tires have improved the original wheel & tire setups.... which weren't bad to begin with.
Let the rich buy rich things.... & hear them bitch about their purchases.
Edited on 05-02-2018 08:12
05-02-2018 14:09
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(979)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
My other option is to sit on it another 3 years and see if they heat up on any collections. Statute of limitations is 10 years on collections. Probably a dumb thing to try. Truth is when these older returns are reconstructed, the IRS will likely owe ME money. I'll never see it. Not when they can wave a $27,000 bill in my face. The IRS would shred the ACLU for the exact reason you state. It would set a precedent and the floodgates would be open. Not going to happen.

Anyway, a consumption tax would have certainly avoided all this. Another problem I see is a lot of people that have no understanding of taxes actually think the IRS sends them a check for a few grand every year. They are so ignorant that they don't know they let the gov borrow their money for free for a year and the IRS is only sending it back with no interest payment. You'd be amazed at the staggering number of people who don't realize it's their own money that is simply being returned to them. Why not love the IRS?


The difficulties with a consumption tax are not really being looked at much here.

First, what consumption are you going to tax? All consumption, food, cars, houses, property tax on purchase, aircraft? What happens to stuff that isn't really consumed, just used for awhile and sold again, such as cars, houses, property, or aircraft?

If you tax foreign goods, is that not the same as a protectionist tariff? Wouldn't another nation retaliate in kind, cause it to be more difficult to sell our exports abroad?

If you don't tax foreign goods, and only domestically produced ones, wouldn't that just encourage people to stop buying domestic goods? What happens to the job those domestic factories provided?

If you tax one fuel as a 'bad' fuel and not another because it's a 'good' fuel, doesn't that just distort the economy into less efficient fuel sources based on some political or religious whim? What happens to those industries that require a certain type of fuel? You can't melt steel on an industrial level with solar or wind power.

If you tax food, what about hunters, that gather their own food? Can the wildlife sustain the increased hunting because there is no way to track and tax it? What about farmers, that grow their own food and consume it themselves? Are you going to tax them for the seed? Perhaps for some perceived value of the food the raised themselves as if they bought it? How fair is that?

What about the warehouses, or transportation systems that get commodities to their end destination? Do you tax them for each step of the way? For the warehouse? For the trucks and railroads? All because they handled the product and transacted it on the way to you, the end user?

You see, consumption tax rapidly becomes as complex as anything the income tax has caused, including trying to define what 'income' or 'consumption' actually means.


Completely agree, it would take years to sort out and maybe never git it right. However it would do few things very positively that I think outweigh the bad.
1. It would take the burden off the guy paying the bills.
2. Gov must have a screaming economy to get revenue...sales are their only source.
3. #2 causes our leaders (tax spenders) to vote on sensible policies that are good for business instead of BS global cooling prevention policies.
....and I'll have to finish these thoughts later...kids just been confirmed with strep and off to get meds. Ha! Real life......


1. Would it? It seems it only shifts responsibility. The business owner would still have to pay the bills. For you it would make no difference.
2. The funny thing about that is when they cut burdensome taxes, the economy takes off and they actually wind up collecting more in total revenue. Then they raise taxes again. The economy stalls, and they are right back where they were. I don't think the government understands this.
3. Why would they? They have shown no business sense before. Remember that most of them are career politicians. They have never run a private business in their lives. They don't know what it takes to run one. Remember the first purpose of a government agency is to justify itself, not be efficient.

Good luck dealing with the strep. No fun.


Real quick response....

1. I should have been more clear. By removing the burden from the tax payer, I meant removing the "confusion burden". Like I stated in the first post, I admittedly don't have an in depth grasp on the subject, just feel like the tax system is pure chaos. There has to be a better way. I don't know if that's a CT or not. Appreciate all the comments from EVERY angle. Keep it coming.

2 and 3. I suppose you're right on these and a CT, or ANY system would work better with term limits. I've always felt that term limits is the best way to get a politician to vote his beliefs and not his politics. Sooner than later they have to go back to the real world and try and make a living. Sucks to be them after they stunk it up for themselves and everyone else. Washington isn't the real world. Why is Washington running the real world? It's the peoples country and they work for us. We've lost that and need it back. And now I'm rambling...
05-02-2018 14:53
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
My other option is to sit on it another 3 years and see if they heat up on any collections. Statute of limitations is 10 years on collections. Probably a dumb thing to try. Truth is when these older returns are reconstructed, the IRS will likely owe ME money. I'll never see it. Not when they can wave a $27,000 bill in my face. The IRS would shred the ACLU for the exact reason you state. It would set a precedent and the floodgates would be open. Not going to happen.

Anyway, a consumption tax would have certainly avoided all this. Another problem I see is a lot of people that have no understanding of taxes actually think the IRS sends them a check for a few grand every year. They are so ignorant that they don't know they let the gov borrow their money for free for a year and the IRS is only sending it back with no interest payment. You'd be amazed at the staggering number of people who don't realize it's their own money that is simply being returned to them. Why not love the IRS?


The difficulties with a consumption tax are not really being looked at much here.

First, what consumption are you going to tax? All consumption, food, cars, houses, property tax on purchase, aircraft? What happens to stuff that isn't really consumed, just used for awhile and sold again, such as cars, houses, property, or aircraft?

If you tax foreign goods, is that not the same as a protectionist tariff? Wouldn't another nation retaliate in kind, cause it to be more difficult to sell our exports abroad?

If you don't tax foreign goods, and only domestically produced ones, wouldn't that just encourage people to stop buying domestic goods? What happens to the job those domestic factories provided?

If you tax one fuel as a 'bad' fuel and not another because it's a 'good' fuel, doesn't that just distort the economy into less efficient fuel sources based on some political or religious whim? What happens to those industries that require a certain type of fuel? You can't melt steel on an industrial level with solar or wind power.

If you tax food, what about hunters, that gather their own food? Can the wildlife sustain the increased hunting because there is no way to track and tax it? What about farmers, that grow their own food and consume it themselves? Are you going to tax them for the seed? Perhaps for some perceived value of the food the raised themselves as if they bought it? How fair is that?

What about the warehouses, or transportation systems that get commodities to their end destination? Do you tax them for each step of the way? For the warehouse? For the trucks and railroads? All because they handled the product and transacted it on the way to you, the end user?

You see, consumption tax rapidly becomes as complex as anything the income tax has caused, including trying to define what 'income' or 'consumption' actually means.


Completely agree, it would take years to sort out and maybe never git it right. However it would do few things very positively that I think outweigh the bad.
1. It would take the burden off the guy paying the bills.
2. Gov must have a screaming economy to get revenue...sales are their only source.
3. #2 causes our leaders (tax spenders) to vote on sensible policies that are good for business instead of BS global cooling prevention policies.
....and I'll have to finish these thoughts later...kids just been confirmed with strep and off to get meds. Ha! Real life......


1. Would it? It seems it only shifts responsibility. The business owner would still have to pay the bills. For you it would make no difference.
2. The funny thing about that is when they cut burdensome taxes, the economy takes off and they actually wind up collecting more in total revenue. Then they raise taxes again. The economy stalls, and they are right back where they were. I don't think the government understands this.
3. Why would they? They have shown no business sense before. Remember that most of them are career politicians. They have never run a private business in their lives. They don't know what it takes to run one. Remember the first purpose of a government agency is to justify itself, not be efficient.

Good luck dealing with the strep. No fun.


Real quick response....

1. I should have been more clear. By removing the burden from the tax payer, I meant removing the "confusion burden". Like I stated in the first post, I admittedly don't have an in depth grasp on the subject, just feel like the tax system is pure chaos. There has to be a better way. I don't know if that's a CT or not. Appreciate all the comments from EVERY angle. Keep it coming.

2 and 3. I suppose you're right on these and a CT, or ANY system would work better with term limits. I've always felt that term limits is the best way to get a politician to vote his beliefs and not his politics. Sooner than later they have to go back to the real world and try and make a living. Sucks to be them after they stunk it up for themselves and everyone else. Washington isn't the real world. Why is Washington running the real world? It's the peoples country and they work for us. We've lost that and need it back. And now I'm rambling...


I think one day people will need to find out if the public can get initiatives on the federal ballot that can't be voted against (undone) by politicians. Until then the 2 parties own America.
05-02-2018 18:25
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
GasGuzzler wrote:
The other threads are so far down the toilet, I thought now might be a good time to ask some opinions on something I'm interested in. Nothing to do with global cooling, so if your not interested quit reading now. We talk a lot about Earth and science here and always seem to swerve into some kind of politics, so I thought what the hell....I'll throw this out and maybe we'll swerve into climate somehow.

I am really curious about everyone's opinion about a consumption tax. I don't honestly know this subject in depth, but every year as a self employed individual I get so damn pissed off writing that check to Uncle Sam. I see so much waste in Washington, both side of the isle. In the end, the biggest job of elected officials is not leadership. It is voting on the spending of OUR money. A few guys who know how to say no would sure be nice. But now I've swerved off topic....

I hate the IRS. They shove a bill in your face and make it nearly impossible to speak with them to resolve issues. They charge interest and late fees and apply payments in ways that would be illegal for any bank or credit card company. I've had to call them 3 times in the last couple weeks and have totaled 4.5 hours a JUST ON HOLD TIME! How many of my dollars are they spending to run that POS agency?!! Anyway, I just keep wishing they would abolish the IRS and go to a consumption tax. I know, it'll probably never happen. The IRS has done well at justifying their existence.

I know we have the full political spectrum here so any opinions welcome. Thanks!


It is extremely threatening that the government is going to tell you what you can eat and what not. They do not offer any real information and then rely upon the conscious of the citizens of this country. That is why we MUST put strict term limits on these bastards. They are suppose to represent US and not strictly their own electorate. Imagine a group of beggars and thieves electing a Congressman. Would that Congressman had a responsibility to his electorate to officiate over changing laws to allow thievery or handing out free money to beggars (doesn't that take on the exact appearance of the Democrat party under Obama?) or to the people of this country as a whole?

You CAN get the IRS to turn down complex tax returns from many different sources but that is getting more and more difficult with tax return programs for your computer.

One thing that HAS to predominate and that if an IRS agent pressures you to pay a bill that is incorrect he should lose his job. It is for the government to fear the citizen and not the other way around.

And this goes for every other department and office in this land.
05-02-2018 18:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
My other option is to sit on it another 3 years and see if they heat up on any collections. Statute of limitations is 10 years on collections. Probably a dumb thing to try. Truth is when these older returns are reconstructed, the IRS will likely owe ME money. I'll never see it. Not when they can wave a $27,000 bill in my face. The IRS would shred the ACLU for the exact reason you state. It would set a precedent and the floodgates would be open. Not going to happen.

Anyway, a consumption tax would have certainly avoided all this. Another problem I see is a lot of people that have no understanding of taxes actually think the IRS sends them a check for a few grand every year. They are so ignorant that they don't know they let the gov borrow their money for free for a year and the IRS is only sending it back with no interest payment. You'd be amazed at the staggering number of people who don't realize it's their own money that is simply being returned to them. Why not love the IRS?


The difficulties with a consumption tax are not really being looked at much here.

First, what consumption are you going to tax? All consumption, food, cars, houses, property tax on purchase, aircraft? What happens to stuff that isn't really consumed, just used for awhile and sold again, such as cars, houses, property, or aircraft?

If you tax foreign goods, is that not the same as a protectionist tariff? Wouldn't another nation retaliate in kind, cause it to be more difficult to sell our exports abroad?

If you don't tax foreign goods, and only domestically produced ones, wouldn't that just encourage people to stop buying domestic goods? What happens to the job those domestic factories provided?

If you tax one fuel as a 'bad' fuel and not another because it's a 'good' fuel, doesn't that just distort the economy into less efficient fuel sources based on some political or religious whim? What happens to those industries that require a certain type of fuel? You can't melt steel on an industrial level with solar or wind power.

If you tax food, what about hunters, that gather their own food? Can the wildlife sustain the increased hunting because there is no way to track and tax it? What about farmers, that grow their own food and consume it themselves? Are you going to tax them for the seed? Perhaps for some perceived value of the food the raised themselves as if they bought it? How fair is that?

What about the warehouses, or transportation systems that get commodities to their end destination? Do you tax them for each step of the way? For the warehouse? For the trucks and railroads? All because they handled the product and transacted it on the way to you, the end user?

You see, consumption tax rapidly becomes as complex as anything the income tax has caused, including trying to define what 'income' or 'consumption' actually means.


Completely agree, it would take years to sort out and maybe never git it right. However it would do few things very positively that I think outweigh the bad.
1. It would take the burden off the guy paying the bills.
2. Gov must have a screaming economy to get revenue...sales are their only source.
3. #2 causes our leaders (tax spenders) to vote on sensible policies that are good for business instead of BS global cooling prevention policies.
....and I'll have to finish these thoughts later...kids just been confirmed with strep and off to get meds. Ha! Real life......


1. Would it? It seems it only shifts responsibility. The business owner would still have to pay the bills. For you it would make no difference.
2. The funny thing about that is when they cut burdensome taxes, the economy takes off and they actually wind up collecting more in total revenue. Then they raise taxes again. The economy stalls, and they are right back where they were. I don't think the government understands this.
3. Why would they? They have shown no business sense before. Remember that most of them are career politicians. They have never run a private business in their lives. They don't know what it takes to run one. Remember the first purpose of a government agency is to justify itself, not be efficient.

Good luck dealing with the strep. No fun.


Real quick response....

1. I should have been more clear. By removing the burden from the tax payer, I meant removing the "confusion burden". Like I stated in the first post, I admittedly don't have an in depth grasp on the subject, just feel like the tax system is pure chaos. There has to be a better way. I don't know if that's a CT or not. Appreciate all the comments from EVERY angle. Keep it coming.

2 and 3. I suppose you're right on these and a CT, or ANY system would work better with term limits. I've always felt that term limits is the best way to get a politician to vote his beliefs and not his politics. Sooner than later they have to go back to the real world and try and make a living. Sucks to be them after they stunk it up for themselves and everyone else. Washington isn't the real world. Why is Washington running the real world? It's the peoples country and they work for us. We've lost that and need it back. And now I'm rambling...


I think the problem is not so much taxation but that the government is too big, too expensive, and just growing larger and larger. The confusing world of taxation is not going to get simplified by a consumption tax. Every business will have to figure out how much of that is owed instead of figuring how much payroll deductions for tax purposes to make.


The Parrot Killer
05-02-2018 18:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James_ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
My other option is to sit on it another 3 years and see if they heat up on any collections. Statute of limitations is 10 years on collections. Probably a dumb thing to try. Truth is when these older returns are reconstructed, the IRS will likely owe ME money. I'll never see it. Not when they can wave a $27,000 bill in my face. The IRS would shred the ACLU for the exact reason you state. It would set a precedent and the floodgates would be open. Not going to happen.

Anyway, a consumption tax would have certainly avoided all this. Another problem I see is a lot of people that have no understanding of taxes actually think the IRS sends them a check for a few grand every year. They are so ignorant that they don't know they let the gov borrow their money for free for a year and the IRS is only sending it back with no interest payment. You'd be amazed at the staggering number of people who don't realize it's their own money that is simply being returned to them. Why not love the IRS?


The difficulties with a consumption tax are not really being looked at much here.

First, what consumption are you going to tax? All consumption, food, cars, houses, property tax on purchase, aircraft? What happens to stuff that isn't really consumed, just used for awhile and sold again, such as cars, houses, property, or aircraft?

If you tax foreign goods, is that not the same as a protectionist tariff? Wouldn't another nation retaliate in kind, cause it to be more difficult to sell our exports abroad?

If you don't tax foreign goods, and only domestically produced ones, wouldn't that just encourage people to stop buying domestic goods? What happens to the job those domestic factories provided?

If you tax one fuel as a 'bad' fuel and not another because it's a 'good' fuel, doesn't that just distort the economy into less efficient fuel sources based on some political or religious whim? What happens to those industries that require a certain type of fuel? You can't melt steel on an industrial level with solar or wind power.

If you tax food, what about hunters, that gather their own food? Can the wildlife sustain the increased hunting because there is no way to track and tax it? What about farmers, that grow their own food and consume it themselves? Are you going to tax them for the seed? Perhaps for some perceived value of the food the raised themselves as if they bought it? How fair is that?

What about the warehouses, or transportation systems that get commodities to their end destination? Do you tax them for each step of the way? For the warehouse? For the trucks and railroads? All because they handled the product and transacted it on the way to you, the end user?

You see, consumption tax rapidly becomes as complex as anything the income tax has caused, including trying to define what 'income' or 'consumption' actually means.


Completely agree, it would take years to sort out and maybe never git it right. However it would do few things very positively that I think outweigh the bad.
1. It would take the burden off the guy paying the bills.
2. Gov must have a screaming economy to get revenue...sales are their only source.
3. #2 causes our leaders (tax spenders) to vote on sensible policies that are good for business instead of BS global cooling prevention policies.
....and I'll have to finish these thoughts later...kids just been confirmed with strep and off to get meds. Ha! Real life......


1. Would it? It seems it only shifts responsibility. The business owner would still have to pay the bills. For you it would make no difference.
2. The funny thing about that is when they cut burdensome taxes, the economy takes off and they actually wind up collecting more in total revenue. Then they raise taxes again. The economy stalls, and they are right back where they were. I don't think the government understands this.
3. Why would they? They have shown no business sense before. Remember that most of them are career politicians. They have never run a private business in their lives. They don't know what it takes to run one. Remember the first purpose of a government agency is to justify itself, not be efficient.

Good luck dealing with the strep. No fun.


Real quick response....

1. I should have been more clear. By removing the burden from the tax payer, I meant removing the "confusion burden". Like I stated in the first post, I admittedly don't have an in depth grasp on the subject, just feel like the tax system is pure chaos. There has to be a better way. I don't know if that's a CT or not. Appreciate all the comments from EVERY angle. Keep it coming.

2 and 3. I suppose you're right on these and a CT, or ANY system would work better with term limits. I've always felt that term limits is the best way to get a politician to vote his beliefs and not his politics. Sooner than later they have to go back to the real world and try and make a living. Sucks to be them after they stunk it up for themselves and everyone else. Washington isn't the real world. Why is Washington running the real world? It's the peoples country and they work for us. We've lost that and need it back. And now I'm rambling...


I think one day people will need to find out if the public can get initiatives on the federal ballot that can't be voted against (undone) by politicians. Until then the 2 parties own America.


Yes, they can. It's called a Constitutional Convention.


The Parrot Killer
05-02-2018 21:00
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
James_ wrote:

I think one day people will need to find out if the public can get initiatives on the federal ballot that can't be voted against (undone) by politicians. Until then the 2 parties own America.

Into the Night wrote:
Yes, they can. It's called a Constitutional Convention.



ITN,
There is a group called Convention of States. https://conventionofstates.com
I have participated somewhat in what they do. With a Convention of the States it requires state legislators
to bring it about. What I suggested was the people having the right to have bills placed on the ballot which can be done at the state level with no assistance from either political party required.
The Convention of States could be challenged on that people do not vote on it but only politicians. This means that people have little say over the policies that politicians must abide by.
05-02-2018 21:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James_ wrote:
James_ wrote:

I think one day people will need to find out if the public can get initiatives on the federal ballot that can't be voted against (undone) by politicians. Until then the 2 parties own America.

Into the Night wrote:
Yes, they can. It's called a Constitutional Convention.



ITN,
There is a group called Convention of States. https://conventionofstates.com
I have participated somewhat in what they do. With a Convention of the States it requires state legislators
to bring it about.

That is true. The federal government is created by a contract between the several States.
James_ wrote:
What I suggested was the people having the right to have bills placed on the ballot which can be done at the state level with no assistance from either political party required.

Some States allow this, others do not. Washington allows people to put a bill on the ballot without intervention by the legislature. If the bill passes by popular vote, the legislature can either leave it as is, or try to pass a law against it, but only after a period of 2 years.
James_ wrote:
The Convention of States could be challenged on that people do not vote on it but only politicians.

Not necessarily.
James_ wrote:
This means that people have little say over the policies that politicians must abide by.

Not quite true. The people have a say over the policies of their own State. In some States, that includes the ability to put forth their own bill.

Remember, we are not a democracy. The United States is organized as a federated republic. That means the Constitution is the highest law., not a popular vote. Modifying it SHOULD be difficult. Also remember, constitutional amendments require ratification, either by the States (for the federal layer) or by the people of that State (for the State layer). The States will also typically present such a ratification vote for a federal amendment to it's people.

One of the issues with the 16th amendment is whether it was properly ratified. A couple of States rescinded their approval before others ratified it. The number that ratified it was not sufficient to overcome these two rescinded approvals.

The federal government took the position that since these two States DID once ratify it, they couldn't change their vote. The full weight of the federal government is now used to collect those taxes by force, so what are you gonna do about it?

And this wasn't even the slimiest amendment to our Constitution.


The Parrot Killer
05-02-2018 21:37
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
James_ wrote:

I think one day people will need to find out if the public can get initiatives on the federal ballot that can't be voted against (undone) by politicians. Until then the 2 parties own America.

Into the Night wrote:
Yes, they can. It's called a Constitutional Convention.



ITN,
There is a group called Convention of States. https://conventionofstates.com
I have participated somewhat in what they do. With a Convention of the States it requires state legislators
to bring it about.

That is true. The federal government is created by a contract between the several States.
James_ wrote:
What I suggested was the people having the right to have bills placed on the ballot which can be done at the state level with no assistance from either political party required.

Some States allow this, others do not. Washington allows people to put a bill on the ballot without intervention by the legislature. If the bill passes by popular vote, the legislature can either leave it as is, or try to pass a law against it, but only after a period of 2 years.
James_ wrote:
The Convention of States could be challenged on that people do not vote on it but only politicians.

Not necessarily.
James_ wrote:
This means that people have little say over the policies that politicians must abide by.

Not quite true. The people have a say over the policies of their own State. In some States, that includes the ability to put forth their own bill.

Remember, we are not a democracy. The United States is organized as a federated republic. That means the Constitution is the highest law., not a popular vote. Modifying it SHOULD be difficult. Also remember, constitutional amendments require ratification, either by the States (for the federal layer) or by the people of that State (for the State layer). The States will also typically present such a ratification vote for a federal amendment to it's people.

One of the issues with the 16th amendment is whether it was properly ratified. A couple of States rescinded their approval before others ratified it. The number that ratified it was not sufficient to overcome these two rescinded approvals.

The federal government took the position that since these two States DID once ratify it, they couldn't change their vote. The full weight of the federal government is now used to collect those taxes by force, so what are you gonna do about it?

And this wasn't even the slimiest amendment to our Constitution.


I like the way you changed the issue I was concerned with. You took it in many directions of which all went away from what I posted. Kind of a waste of time don't you think ?
05-02-2018 21:44
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
James_ wrote:
James_ wrote:

I think one day people will need to find out if the public can get initiatives on the federal ballot that can't be voted against (undone) by politicians. Until then the 2 parties own America.

Into the Night wrote:
Yes, they can. It's called a Constitutional Convention.



ITN,
There is a group called Convention of States. https://conventionofstates.com
I have participated somewhat in what they do. With a Convention of the States it requires state legislators
to bring it about. What I suggested was the people having the right to have bills placed on the ballot which can be done at the state level with no assistance from either political party required.
The Convention of States could be challenged on that people do not vote on it but only politicians. This means that people have little say over the policies that politicians must abide by.


In general this doesn't work well. Legislators usually do not have the sort of knowledge to produce a legally binding Federal law. With today's federal laws you have to have all sorts of things including definitions of what you are defining.

I strongly believe now that we should have term limits of Senators of one term and of Representatives of three terms (6 years). This allows a total of 12 years in government service and in so you could hope to get Representatives "graduating" to Senators with the hope that you get the best of the Representatives and dump the worst. It also means that you can hope to get as many as perhaps 8 productive years from them rather than the likes of Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer neither of whom had one single productive year in office.

And legal aids are far worse than elected individuals with their absolute immense salaries and benefits.
05-02-2018 21:51
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
James_ wrote:

I think one day people will need to find out if the public can get initiatives on the federal ballot that can't be voted against (undone) by politicians. Until then the 2 parties own America.

Into the Night wrote:
Yes, they can. It's called a Constitutional Convention.



ITN,
There is a group called Convention of States. https://conventionofstates.com
I have participated somewhat in what they do. With a Convention of the States it requires state legislators
to bring it about.

That is true. The federal government is created by a contract between the several States.
James_ wrote:
What I suggested was the people having the right to have bills placed on the ballot which can be done at the state level with no assistance from either political party required.

Some States allow this, others do not. Washington allows people to put a bill on the ballot without intervention by the legislature. If the bill passes by popular vote, the legislature can either leave it as is, or try to pass a law against it, but only after a period of 2 years.
James_ wrote:
The Convention of States could be challenged on that people do not vote on it but only politicians.

Not necessarily.
James_ wrote:
This means that people have little say over the policies that politicians must abide by.

Not quite true. The people have a say over the policies of their own State. In some States, that includes the ability to put forth their own bill.

Remember, we are not a democracy. The United States is organized as a federated republic. That means the Constitution is the highest law., not a popular vote. Modifying it SHOULD be difficult. Also remember, constitutional amendments require ratification, either by the States (for the federal layer) or by the people of that State (for the State layer). The States will also typically present such a ratification vote for a federal amendment to it's people.

One of the issues with the 16th amendment is whether it was properly ratified. A couple of States rescinded their approval before others ratified it. The number that ratified it was not sufficient to overcome these two rescinded approvals.

The federal government took the position that since these two States DID once ratify it, they couldn't change their vote. The full weight of the federal government is now used to collect those taxes by force, so what are you gonna do about it?

And this wasn't even the slimiest amendment to our Constitution.


I like the way you changed the issue I was concerned with. You took it in many directions of which all went away from what I posted. Kind of a waste of time don't you think ?


And as usual he sticks his ignorance in this as well. We are not a "Federated" Republic, we are a Democratic Republic. I assume nightmare was speaking of a Federal Republic which only means that the leaders are elected to office. Supposedly Kim Jong-un is an "elected leader".

You can read the writings of Samual Adams and James Madison on the subject.
05-02-2018 22:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
James_ wrote:

I think one day people will need to find out if the public can get initiatives on the federal ballot that can't be voted against (undone) by politicians. Until then the 2 parties own America.

Into the Night wrote:
Yes, they can. It's called a Constitutional Convention.



ITN,
There is a group called Convention of States. https://conventionofstates.com
I have participated somewhat in what they do. With a Convention of the States it requires state legislators
to bring it about.

That is true. The federal government is created by a contract between the several States.
James_ wrote:
What I suggested was the people having the right to have bills placed on the ballot which can be done at the state level with no assistance from either political party required.

Some States allow this, others do not. Washington allows people to put a bill on the ballot without intervention by the legislature. If the bill passes by popular vote, the legislature can either leave it as is, or try to pass a law against it, but only after a period of 2 years.
James_ wrote:
The Convention of States could be challenged on that people do not vote on it but only politicians.

Not necessarily.
James_ wrote:
This means that people have little say over the policies that politicians must abide by.

Not quite true. The people have a say over the policies of their own State. In some States, that includes the ability to put forth their own bill.

Remember, we are not a democracy. The United States is organized as a federated republic. That means the Constitution is the highest law., not a popular vote. Modifying it SHOULD be difficult. Also remember, constitutional amendments require ratification, either by the States (for the federal layer) or by the people of that State (for the State layer). The States will also typically present such a ratification vote for a federal amendment to it's people.

One of the issues with the 16th amendment is whether it was properly ratified. A couple of States rescinded their approval before others ratified it. The number that ratified it was not sufficient to overcome these two rescinded approvals.

The federal government took the position that since these two States DID once ratify it, they couldn't change their vote. The full weight of the federal government is now used to collect those taxes by force, so what are you gonna do about it?

And this wasn't even the slimiest amendment to our Constitution.


I like the way you changed the issue I was concerned with. You took it in many directions of which all went away from what I posted. Kind of a waste of time don't you think ?


Read the post again. I was answering your attempt to impose a democracy.


The Parrot Killer
05-02-2018 22:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
James_ wrote:

I think one day people will need to find out if the public can get initiatives on the federal ballot that can't be voted against (undone) by politicians. Until then the 2 parties own America.

Into the Night wrote:
Yes, they can. It's called a Constitutional Convention.



ITN,
There is a group called Convention of States. https://conventionofstates.com
I have participated somewhat in what they do. With a Convention of the States it requires state legislators
to bring it about. What I suggested was the people having the right to have bills placed on the ballot which can be done at the state level with no assistance from either political party required.
The Convention of States could be challenged on that people do not vote on it but only politicians. This means that people have little say over the policies that politicians must abide by.


In general this doesn't work well. Legislators usually do not have the sort of knowledge to produce a legally binding Federal law.
But they do. They know how to cast a vote. That's the all the knowledge they require. Congress has the ability and the authority to produce a legally binding federal law, dumbass.
Wake wrote:
With today's federal laws you have to have all sorts of things including definitions of what you are defining.
That's generally always been true of the law.
Wake wrote:
I strongly believe now that we should have term limits of Senators of one term and of Representatives of three terms (6 years).

Fine. Push for the Constitutional amendment to bring it about.
Wake wrote:
This allows a total of 12 years in government service and in so you could hope to get Representatives "graduating" to Senators with the hope that you get the best of the Representatives and dump the worst. It also means that you can hope to get as many as perhaps 8 productive years from them rather than the likes of Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer neither of whom had one single productive year in office.
Like I said. Push for the Constitutional amendment to bring your idea about.
Wake wrote:
And legal aids are far worse than elected individuals with their absolute immense salaries and benefits.

They are not elected. They also cannot vote in Congress. They are paid what someone deems them to be worth.


The Parrot Killer
05-02-2018 22:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
James_ wrote:

I think one day people will need to find out if the public can get initiatives on the federal ballot that can't be voted against (undone) by politicians. Until then the 2 parties own America.

Into the Night wrote:
Yes, they can. It's called a Constitutional Convention.



ITN,
There is a group called Convention of States. https://conventionofstates.com
I have participated somewhat in what they do. With a Convention of the States it requires state legislators
to bring it about.

That is true. The federal government is created by a contract between the several States.
James_ wrote:
What I suggested was the people having the right to have bills placed on the ballot which can be done at the state level with no assistance from either political party required.

Some States allow this, others do not. Washington allows people to put a bill on the ballot without intervention by the legislature. If the bill passes by popular vote, the legislature can either leave it as is, or try to pass a law against it, but only after a period of 2 years.
James_ wrote:
The Convention of States could be challenged on that people do not vote on it but only politicians.

Not necessarily.
James_ wrote:
This means that people have little say over the policies that politicians must abide by.

Not quite true. The people have a say over the policies of their own State. In some States, that includes the ability to put forth their own bill.

Remember, we are not a democracy. The United States is organized as a federated republic. That means the Constitution is the highest law., not a popular vote. Modifying it SHOULD be difficult. Also remember, constitutional amendments require ratification, either by the States (for the federal layer) or by the people of that State (for the State layer). The States will also typically present such a ratification vote for a federal amendment to it's people.

One of the issues with the 16th amendment is whether it was properly ratified. A couple of States rescinded their approval before others ratified it. The number that ratified it was not sufficient to overcome these two rescinded approvals.

The federal government took the position that since these two States DID once ratify it, they couldn't change their vote. The full weight of the federal government is now used to collect those taxes by force, so what are you gonna do about it?

And this wasn't even the slimiest amendment to our Constitution.


I like the way you changed the issue I was concerned with. You took it in many directions of which all went away from what I posted. Kind of a waste of time don't you think ?


And as usual he sticks his ignorance in this as well. We are not a "Federated" Republic, we are a Democratic Republic

No such thing. A democracy and a republic are not compatible. A democracy is mob rule. There is no constitution. It usually destroys itself quickly and replaced with an oligarchy or dictatorship.

A republic means there is a constitution. That constitution is the highest law in the land. It also means that constitution was instituted as a will of the people (or of the federal layer, the States).

It has nothing to do with whether we elect certain officers by whatever means we choose to do so that happens to be specified in the constitution.

The United States is organize as a federated republic. We have a constitution at the federal level, created as a contract between the several States. Each State has a constitution, created as a contract between the people of that State.

The federal government's powers, authorities, and structure are specified by it's constitution. The same is true of each State constitution.

The federal government cannot modify it's own constitution. It is the agency created by that constitution. Any modification MUST go to the States.

A State cannot modify it's own constitution for the same reason. Any amendments of a State constitution MUST go to the people of that State.

It is obvious you do not understand governmental structures either.


Wake wrote:
I assume nightmare was speaking of a Federal Republic which only means that the leaders are elected to office.

Not what a federated republic means.
Wake wrote:
Supposedly Kim Jong-un is an "elected leader".
Nope. North Korea is organized as a dictatorship.
Wake wrote:
You can read the writings of Samual Adams and James Madison on the subject.

You should read all the papers from all of the founders. You should also read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. You should also not take 'democracy' out of context when you are reading them.

One of the founding pillars of the concept of the United States is the Republic of Rome (before the dictators). It is one of three.


The Parrot Killer
05-02-2018 22:47
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
James_ wrote:

I think one day people will need to find out if the public can get initiatives on the federal ballot that can't be voted against (undone) by politicians. Until then the 2 parties own America.

Into the Night wrote:
Yes, they can. It's called a Constitutional Convention.



ITN,
There is a group called Convention of States. https://conventionofstates.com
I have participated somewhat in what they do. With a Convention of the States it requires state legislators
to bring it about.

That is true. The federal government is created by a contract between the several States.
James_ wrote:
What I suggested was the people having the right to have bills placed on the ballot which can be done at the state level with no assistance from either political party required.

Some States allow this, others do not. Washington allows people to put a bill on the ballot without intervention by the legislature. If the bill passes by popular vote, the legislature can either leave it as is, or try to pass a law against it, but only after a period of 2 years.
James_ wrote:
The Convention of States could be challenged on that people do not vote on it but only politicians.

Not necessarily.
James_ wrote:
This means that people have little say over the policies that politicians must abide by.

Not quite true. The people have a say over the policies of their own State. In some States, that includes the ability to put forth their own bill.

Remember, we are not a democracy. The United States is organized as a federated republic. That means the Constitution is the highest law., not a popular vote. Modifying it SHOULD be difficult. Also remember, constitutional amendments require ratification, either by the States (for the federal layer) or by the people of that State (for the State layer). The States will also typically present such a ratification vote for a federal amendment to it's people.

One of the issues with the 16th amendment is whether it was properly ratified. A couple of States rescinded their approval before others ratified it. The number that ratified it was not sufficient to overcome these two rescinded approvals.

The federal government took the position that since these two States DID once ratify it, they couldn't change their vote. The full weight of the federal government is now used to collect those taxes by force, so what are you gonna do about it?

And this wasn't even the slimiest amendment to our Constitution.


I like the way you changed the issue I was concerned with. You took it in many directions of which all went away from what I posted. Kind of a waste of time don't you think ?


And as usual he sticks his ignorance in this as well. We are not a "Federated" Republic, we are a Democratic Republic

No such thing. A democracy and a republic are not compatible. A democracy is mob rule. There is no constitution. It usually destroys itself quickly and replaced with an oligarchy or dictatorship.

A republic means there is a constitution. That constitution is the highest law in the land. It also means that constitution was instituted as a will of the people (or of the federal layer, the States).

It has nothing to do with whether we elect certain officers by whatever means we choose to do so that happens to be specified in the constitution.

The United States is organize as a federated republic. We have a constitution at the federal level, created as a contract between the several States. Each State has a constitution, created as a contract between the people of that State.

The federal government's powers, authorities, and structure are specified by it's constitution. The same is true of each State constitution.

The federal government cannot modify it's own constitution. It is the agency created by that constitution. Any modification MUST go to the States.

A State cannot modify it's own constitution for the same reason. Any amendments of a State constitution MUST go to the people of that State.

It is obvious you do not understand governmental structures either.


Wake wrote:
I assume nightmare was speaking of a Federal Republic which only means that the leaders are elected to office.

Not what a federated republic means.
Wake wrote:
Supposedly Kim Jong-un is an "elected leader".
Nope. North Korea is organized as a dictatorship.
Wake wrote:
You can read the writings of Samual Adams and James Madison on the subject.

You should read all the papers from all of the founders. You should also read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. You should also not take 'democracy' out of context when you are reading them.

One of the founding pillars of the concept of the United States is the Republic of Rome (before the dictators). It is one of three.



Do you know what gets old ITN ? Your mind games. Wake doesn't have the self control to avoid them. It's funny but you have nothing better in life to do. That's one hell of a philosophy.
05-02-2018 23:07
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
James_ wrote:

I think one day people will need to find out if the public can get initiatives on the federal ballot that can't be voted against (undone) by politicians. Until then the 2 parties own America.

Into the Night wrote:
Yes, they can. It's called a Constitutional Convention.



ITN,
There is a group called Convention of States. https://conventionofstates.com
I have participated somewhat in what they do. With a Convention of the States it requires state legislators
to bring it about. What I suggested was the people having the right to have bills placed on the ballot which can be done at the state level with no assistance from either political party required.
The Convention of States could be challenged on that people do not vote on it but only politicians. This means that people have little say over the policies that politicians must abide by.


In general this doesn't work well. Legislators usually do not have the sort of knowledge to produce a legally binding Federal law.
But they do. They know how to cast a vote. That's the all the knowledge they require. Congress has the ability and the authority to produce a legally binding federal law, dumbass.
Wake wrote:
With today's federal laws you have to have all sorts of things including definitions of what you are defining.
That's generally always been true of the law.
Wake wrote:
I strongly believe now that we should have term limits of Senators of one term and of Representatives of three terms (6 years).

Fine. Push for the Constitutional amendment to bring it about.
Wake wrote:
This allows a total of 12 years in government service and in so you could hope to get Representatives "graduating" to Senators with the hope that you get the best of the Representatives and dump the worst. It also means that you can hope to get as many as perhaps 8 productive years from them rather than the likes of Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer neither of whom had one single productive year in office.
Like I said. Push for the Constitutional amendment to bring your idea about.
Wake wrote:
And legal aids are far worse than elected individuals with their absolute immense salaries and benefits.

They are not elected. They also cannot vote in Congress. They are paid what someone deems them to be worth.


I take it back. You don't even know how a government works. One would have thought that having gotten through public schools you would know how government works and would have at least attended a city council meeting. But you didn't and your idiotic ideas of the world around you certainly make you the sort of person who should not be allowed a vote.
05-02-2018 23:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
James_ wrote:

I think one day people will need to find out if the public can get initiatives on the federal ballot that can't be voted against (undone) by politicians. Until then the 2 parties own America.

Into the Night wrote:
Yes, they can. It's called a Constitutional Convention.



ITN,
There is a group called Convention of States. https://conventionofstates.com
I have participated somewhat in what they do. With a Convention of the States it requires state legislators
to bring it about. What I suggested was the people having the right to have bills placed on the ballot which can be done at the state level with no assistance from either political party required.
The Convention of States could be challenged on that people do not vote on it but only politicians. This means that people have little say over the policies that politicians must abide by.


In general this doesn't work well. Legislators usually do not have the sort of knowledge to produce a legally binding Federal law.
But they do. They know how to cast a vote. That's the all the knowledge they require. Congress has the ability and the authority to produce a legally binding federal law, dumbass.
Wake wrote:
With today's federal laws you have to have all sorts of things including definitions of what you are defining.
That's generally always been true of the law.
Wake wrote:
I strongly believe now that we should have term limits of Senators of one term and of Representatives of three terms (6 years).

Fine. Push for the Constitutional amendment to bring it about.
Wake wrote:
This allows a total of 12 years in government service and in so you could hope to get Representatives "graduating" to Senators with the hope that you get the best of the Representatives and dump the worst. It also means that you can hope to get as many as perhaps 8 productive years from them rather than the likes of Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer neither of whom had one single productive year in office.
Like I said. Push for the Constitutional amendment to bring your idea about.
Wake wrote:
And legal aids are far worse than elected individuals with their absolute immense salaries and benefits.

They are not elected. They also cannot vote in Congress. They are paid what someone deems them to be worth.


I take it back. You don't even know how a government works.

But I do. Argument of the Stone.
Wake wrote:
One would have thought that having gotten through public schools you would know how government works and would have at least attended a city council meeting.

I have attended several of them. I find the local city council meetings in my city particularly boring. Eight hour discussions on what color flowers to plant out behind the city hall building?

Gawd.

You are making another redirection fallacy (a form of contextomy). We are talking about governmental structures, not what goes on in a city council meeting.
Wake wrote:
But you didn't and your idiotic ideas of the world around you certainly make you the sort of person who should not be allowed a vote.

YOU don't get to decide who is allowed to vote.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-02-2018 23:38
05-02-2018 23:59
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1115)
How is the kid with strep?
06-02-2018 00:02
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
James_ wrote:

I think one day people will need to find out if the public can get initiatives on the federal ballot that can't be voted against (undone) by politicians. Until then the 2 parties own America.

Into the Night wrote:
Yes, they can. It's called a Constitutional Convention.



ITN,
There is a group called Convention of States. https://conventionofstates.com
I have participated somewhat in what they do. With a Convention of the States it requires state legislators
to bring it about. What I suggested was the people having the right to have bills placed on the ballot which can be done at the state level with no assistance from either political party required.
The Convention of States could be challenged on that people do not vote on it but only politicians. This means that people have little say over the policies that politicians must abide by.


In general this doesn't work well. Legislators usually do not have the sort of knowledge to produce a legally binding Federal law.
But they do. They know how to cast a vote. That's the all the knowledge they require. Congress has the ability and the authority to produce a legally binding federal law, dumbass.
Wake wrote:
With today's federal laws you have to have all sorts of things including definitions of what you are defining.
That's generally always been true of the law.
Wake wrote:
I strongly believe now that we should have term limits of Senators of one term and of Representatives of three terms (6 years).

Fine. Push for the Constitutional amendment to bring it about.
Wake wrote:
This allows a total of 12 years in government service and in so you could hope to get Representatives "graduating" to Senators with the hope that you get the best of the Representatives and dump the worst. It also means that you can hope to get as many as perhaps 8 productive years from them rather than the likes of Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer neither of whom had one single productive year in office.
Like I said. Push for the Constitutional amendment to bring your idea about.
Wake wrote:
And legal aids are far worse than elected individuals with their absolute immense salaries and benefits.

They are not elected. They also cannot vote in Congress. They are paid what someone deems them to be worth.


I take it back. You don't even know how a government works.

But I do. Argument of the Stone.
Wake wrote:
One would have thought that having gotten through public schools you would know how government works and would have at least attended a city council meeting.

I have attended several of them. I find the local city council meetings in my city particularly boring. Eight hour discussions on what color flowers to plant out behind the city hall building?

Gawd.

You are making another redirection fallacy (a form of contextomy). We are talking about governmental structures, not what goes on in a city council meeting.
Wake wrote:
But you didn't and your idiotic ideas of the world around you certainly make you the sort of person who should not be allowed a vote.

YOU don't get to decide who is allowed to vote.


You just proved my point - city council members arguing about the color of flowers and equal inanities is pretty close to what legislators do. These are not people who know how to compile Federal laws which are complex and overreaching and is the principle reason that most Congressmen are lawyers by training. But you don't get that - you think that the only thing necessary to be a Congressman is to be able to vote. You continue to demonstrate a level of ignorance of things around you that are unbelievable from someone presenting himself as self aware.

And you cannot understand plain English sentences concerning not legally trained Congressmen using the services of legal aids to bypass such restrictions.

Apparently you are not aware of who can vote and who can't. That gives me the idea that you don't vote as the usual loudmouth - he doesn't.

Why don't you crawl back into your hanger where the sun always shines on your brightness.
Edited on 06-02-2018 00:28
06-02-2018 00:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5279)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
James_ wrote:

I think one day people will need to find out if the public can get initiatives on the federal ballot that can't be voted against (undone) by politicians. Until then the 2 parties own America.

Into the Night wrote:
Yes, they can. It's called a Constitutional Convention.



ITN,
There is a group called Convention of States. https://conventionofstates.com
I have participated somewhat in what they do. With a Convention of the States it requires state legislators
to bring it about. What I suggested was the people having the right to have bills placed on the ballot which can be done at the state level with no assistance from either political party required.
The Convention of States could be challenged on that people do not vote on it but only politicians. This means that people have little say over the policies that politicians must abide by.


In general this doesn't work well. Legislators usually do not have the sort of knowledge to produce a legally binding Federal law.
But they do. They know how to cast a vote. That's the all the knowledge they require. Congress has the ability and the authority to produce a legally binding federal law, dumbass.
Wake wrote:
With today's federal laws you have to have all sorts of things including definitions of what you are defining.
That's generally always been true of the law.
Wake wrote:
I strongly believe now that we should have term limits of Senators of one term and of Representatives of three terms (6 years).

Fine. Push for the Constitutional amendment to bring it about.
Wake wrote:
This allows a total of 12 years in government service and in so you could hope to get Representatives "graduating" to Senators with the hope that you get the best of the Representatives and dump the worst. It also means that you can hope to get as many as perhaps 8 productive years from them rather than the likes of Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer neither of whom had one single productive year in office.
Like I said. Push for the Constitutional amendment to bring your idea about.
Wake wrote:
And legal aids are far worse than elected individuals with their absolute immense salaries and benefits.

They are not elected. They also cannot vote in Congress. They are paid what someone deems them to be worth.


I take it back. You don't even know how a government works.

But I do. Argument of the Stone.
Wake wrote:
One would have thought that having gotten through public schools you would know how government works and would have at least attended a city council meeting.

I have attended several of them. I find the local city council meetings in my city particularly boring. Eight hour discussions on what color flowers to plant out behind the city hall building?

Gawd.

You are making another redirection fallacy (a form of contextomy). We are talking about governmental structures, not what goes on in a city council meeting.
Wake wrote:
But you didn't and your idiotic ideas of the world around you certainly make you the sort of person who should not be allowed a vote.

YOU don't get to decide who is allowed to vote.


You just proved my point -

??? What point???
Wake wrote:
city council members arguing about the color of flowers and equal inanities is pretty close to what legislators do.

True...so?
Wake wrote:
These are not people who know how to compile Federal laws

Yet they do. They create the federal laws.
Wake wrote:
which are complex and overreaching and is the principle reason that most Congressmen are lawyers by training.

Not really.
Wake wrote:
But you don't get that - you think that the only thing necessary to be a Congressman is to be able to vote.

WRONG. The only thing necessary to be a Congressman is to be ELECTED.
Wake wrote:
You continue to demonstrate a level of ignorance of things around you that are unbelievable from someone presenting himself as self aware.

It is YOU that seems to be having a problem. It is YOU that can't seem to grasp what the conversation is even about. Is your anger clouding your mind again?
Wake wrote:
And you cannot understand plain English sentences concerning not legally trained Congressmen using the services of legal aids to bypass such restrictions.

Try English next time. It works better.
Wake wrote:
Apparently you are not aware of who can vote and who can't.

Yes I am. I know who can vote and on what. YOU don't get to declare who can vote.
Wake wrote:
That gives me the idea that you don't vote as the usual loudmouth - he doesn't.

Non-sequitur.
Wake wrote:
Why don't you crawl back into your hanger where the sun always shines on your brightness.

Sun isn't shining. This is Seattle, remember?


The Parrot Killer
07-02-2018 05:18
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leakey plunger" plugged... if you want the IRS to answer the phone quicker then you are asking for higher taxes to make the governmet(sic) work better.
Cheapest gov't procurement procedure: The King says, "Send 95% of your wages to us.....'cept the really really rich(less than 0.01%) don't have to. If you refuse, we'll dispatch you with a 5cent bullet." re-pubic-lick-uns should love the idea. re-pubic-lick-uns already love "don'T rump" saying democrats are treasonous.
Edited on 07-02-2018 05:22
07-02-2018 05:35
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(979)
Tim the plumber wrote:
How is the kid with strep?

Hey thanks for asking Tim,
Still no good, temp around 101. He's has strep before and antibiotics knock it in the arse pretty quick. Wondering if he picked up something new while he was at the doc office. That flu is a nasty one this year. Hearing of people going to the emergency room with the flu and waiting 7 hrs to be seen they're so overwhelmed. Yuck.
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Nothing to do with climate anywhere:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact