Dear IRS...

[Nanuq]

An actual 'Letter to the Editor' from the February 5th edition of the Wichita Falls, Texas Times Record News...

Dear IRS,

I am sorry to inform you that I will not be able to pay taxes owed April 15, but all is not lost.

I have paid these taxes: accounts receivable tax, building permit tax, CDL tax, cigarette tax, corporate income tax, dog licence tax, federal income tax, unemployment tax, gasoline tax, hunting licence tax, fishing licence tax, waterfowl stamp tax, inheritance tax, inventory tax, liquor tax, luxury tax, medicare tax, city, school and county property tax (up 33 percent last 4 years), real estate tax, social security tax, road usage tax, toll road tax, state and city sales tax, recreational vehicle tax, state franchise tax, state unemployment tax, telephone federal excise tax, telephone federal state and local surcharge tax, telephone minimum usage surcharge tax, telephone state and local tax, utility tax, vehicle licence registration tax, capitol gains tax, lease severance tax, oil and gas assessment tax, Colorado property tax, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, Oklahoma and New Mexico sales tax, and many more that I can't recall but I have run out of space and money.

When you do not receive my check April 15, just know that it is an honest mistake. Please treat me the same way you treated Congressmen Charles Rangle, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and ex-Congressman Tom Dashelle and, of course, your boss Timothy Geithner. No penalties and no interest.

P.S. I will make at least a partial payment as soon as I get my stimulus check.

Ed Barnett

Wichita Falls

[dluddy]

[Demsey]

YEAH! TAX REVOLT!

The idea is revolutionary........................!

[dluddy]

YEAH! TAX REVOLT!

The idea is revolutionary........................!

Now where is that East India Tea

[subbiesrock]

I just watched "America: Freedom to Faschism" by Alan Russo. This whole business of Federal Income Tax, the 16th Amendment, and the unlawful taxing of unapportioned income.

My area of expertise is not in tax law, so I can't make a comment, but is it seriously true? Or are these guys simply nutters like free energy freaks and UFO conspiracy theorists?

Is it true that 100% of the Federal Income Tax goes to paying off the interest on the national debt? If so, I cannot fathom how, in anyone's right mind, this system is fair and equitable.

[HauteHippie]

Now where is that East India Tea

That's one heck of a reference, D babes!

[HauteHippie]

I just watched "America: Freedom to Faschism" by Alan Russo. This whole business of Federal Income Tax, the 16th Amendment, and the unlawful taxing of unapportioned income.

My area of expertise is not in tax law, so I can't make a comment, but is it seriously true? Or are these guys simply nutters like free energy freaks and UFO conspiracy theorists?

Is it true that 100% of the Federal Income Tax goes to paying off the interest on the national debt? If so, I cannot fathom how, in anyone's right mind, this system is fair and equitable.

No. It's not seriously true. Federal income tax is lawful. The last time I checked, public debt interest payments were the third biggest item in the federal budget, behind the military and social security. I'm not sure what connection you're making between interest payments and fairness/equality though?

[subbiesrock]

No. It's not seriously true. Federal income tax is lawful. The last time I checked, public debt interest payments were the third biggest item in the federal budget, behind the military and social security. I'm not sure what connection you're making between interest payments and fairness/equality though?

See next (double) post.

[subbiesrock]

Sorry, should have clarified that point. What I mean is that the US borrows every dollar from the Fed with interest. So the personal income taxes may very well contribute to the military, social security and interest payments in your proposed order. But the military protects the country, social security protects the citizens, and as I understand it, a significant proportion goes to paying off the interest on money borrowed from the Fed. The other two return a service to the citizenry, but where does the interest go? I'm assuming this money goes directly to Fed coffers and not back to the citizens?

I know this is a stupid question, but why doesn't the US just print its own money and not borrow money (at interest) from a private bank?

Further, the kooks present a fairly compelling case for the collection of taxes on personal labour having no legal basis, though I know little about US tax law. Their claim is that there is no place where it says that income derived from labour is taxable, as opposed to, for example, profits from company tax.

The last point of clarification is your suggestion that the collection of federal income tax is lawful because it pays for various services. The fact the money is useful has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the tax itself is lawful in the Constitution and the Amendments. This is the point I failed to reach earlier.

[Jkay]

Printing new money directly drives inflation higher. For every dollar you print, you reduce the value of all dollars currently existing.

The government can print money to pay debts, certainly, but it causes big problems.

[subbiesrock]

Printing new money directly drives inflation higher. For every dollar you print, you reduce the value of all dollars currently existing.

The government can print money to pay debts, certainly, but it causes big problems.

Of course, this is how the US is able to artificially fluctuate the value of its currency to serve its own ends. But what difference does it make if the country prints its own money (with no interest owed) or borrows it at interest from a private bank (the Fed). The fluctuations by definition are exactly the same.

There must be something pretty fundamental I am missing here...

[HauteHippie]

Sorry, should have clarified that point. What I mean is that the US borrows every dollar from the Fed with interest.

Not every dollar. The US issues bonds to many different private entities other than the Fed, and to sovereign entities as well. But the Fed is by far the largest creditor to the US government for sure. However China is the 2nd or 3rd largest.

So the personal income taxes may very well contribute to the military, social security and interest payments in your proposed order. But the military protects the country, social security protects the citizens, and as I understand it, a significant proportion goes to paying off the interest on money borrowed from the Fed. The other two return a service to the citizenry, but where does the interest go? I'm assuming this money goes directly to Fed coffers and not back to the citizens?

Yes, the Fed collects interest but it does offer a significant rebate to the Treasury as well. "Economists" will tell you this represents net income to the federal government because wouldn't exist if the Fed didn't hold the debt.

I know this is a stupid question, but why doesn't the US just print its own money and not borrow money (at interest) from a private bank?

The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to print money. In fact, early drafts of the constitution did include a provision for doing so, but it was struck down. So, as is the case with many things, over the years the federal government decided it needed more power than the Constitution granted, so in this case it established a "private" entity known as the Federal Reserve through fiat which has essentially allowed it to exercise power not granted to it through the Constitution.

Further, the kooks present a fairly compelling case for the collection of taxes on personal labour having no legal basis, though I know little about US tax law. Their claim is that there is no place where it says that income derived from labour is taxable, as opposed to, for example, profits from company tax.

The last point of clarification is your suggestion that the collection of federal income tax is lawful because it pays for various services. The fact the money is useful has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the tax itself is lawful in the Constitution and the Amendments. This is the point I failed to reach earlier.

No, I didn't suggest any relationship between income tax legality and the purpose of collecting such taxes. I was answering your unrelated question as to how the income tax was used.

As far as legality goes, tax protestor kooks often site the 16th Amendment not having been properly ratified, and even that the 16th Amendment somehow isn't worded properly. But much of those debates have to do with the constitutional definition of a "direct tax", which surely differs from the definition provided by the tax protestor kooks.

[HauteHippie]

Of course, this is how the US is able to artificially fluctuate the value of its currency to serve its own ends. But what difference does it make if the country prints its own money (with no interest owed) or borrows it at interest from a private bank (the Fed). The fluctuations by definition are exactly the same.

There must be something pretty fundamental I am missing here...

The framers of the constitution did not want the federal government to have this power. They actually wanted to guard against the type of runaway inflation that the old "Continental Dollar" had experienced. Our brilliant politicians, however, later found a way to essentially confer power to themselves not granted by the constitution.

[subbiesrock]

The framers of the constitution did not want the federal government to have this power. They actually wanted to guard against the type of runaway inflation that the old "Continental Dollar" had experienced. Our brilliant politicians, however, later found a way to essentially confer power to themselves not granted by the constitution.

Chief, as always, your eloquent replies prove invaluable US economics have always fascinated me and you've elucidated many interesting ideas. Thanks for taking the time

[maxman]

I just watched "America: Freedom to Faschism" by Alan Russo. This whole business of Federal Income Tax, the 16th Amendment, and the unlawful taxing of unapportioned income.

My area of expertise is not in tax law, so I can't make a comment, but is it seriously true? Or are these guys simply nutters like free energy freaks and UFO conspiracy theorists?

Is it true that 100% of the Federal Income Tax goes to paying off the interest on the national debt? If so, I cannot fathom how, in anyone's right mind, this system is fair and equitable.

+100000000000