Topic: why do people agree to pay taxes? - page 127. (Read 51023 times)

File your W-4 with your employer, non-assupsit on the first line, and n-a on the rest of the lines. Then write "exempt" and/or "excepted" on the bottom (proper) line. If you file a tax form, do the same on all the lines of the form.

When the IRS penalizes you for frivolous filings, and instructs your employer to withhold an amount for the penalty, instruct your employer to stop stealing your money. If he won't, sue the human being who is authorizing the withholding from your check, both the IRS human being, and the employer's CFO.

Don't sue the positions or offices. Sue the human beings. Don't sue for outrageous amounts. Sue for several times what has been withheld, plus court costs. Give them reasonable notice so that they have time to restore your property.

See how to do it here http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5duR4OvEHHxOSdEZhANETw and here http://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos?view=0&live_view=500&flow=grid&sort=da and here http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html .

Wrong question. Question should be, "What can some governments do that others cannot do?" Why? Because everyone is a government for and to himself/herself.

Consider. If you were marooned alone on a deserted island, and the island had plenty of food and fresh water, who would be your government? Wouldn't it be you? It would be your governing of yourself that would cause you to go out and find the food and water. It would be your governing of yourself that tested ways to build shelter, and then use the methods that worked.

All government is a state of mind. When the government is complex - several people working with the same government - usually the government consists of writing down the rules of government. This is because people forget. People change their minds. Written government maintains a reasonable stable state of mind among the people of the government.

In the United Kingdom, government is based first in the common law of the people. It goes all the way back to the Magna Carta, and certain maxims of law. These have stood strong for hundreds of years, and are strong today for use by the people. The only reason formal government people can get away with harming regular, common people is, the common people have forgotten the common law and Queen's Bench... which are there, but are simply seldom used.

Canada, other countries that have received their independence from Brittain, and the British protectorates, contain this common law. Some of these have restated the common law of the people in their constitutions in such ways that they still use Queen's Bench, but where there is a direct reaffirmation of the basic common laws - Magna Carta essence, and maxims.

In the United States, Queen's Bench was completely dropped. The common law of the people is assumed and presumed in the way that the government was set up. Every person who was born within the borders of the Untied States of America or one of its territories, has the right to use the common law of the people. However, few people use it as such.

In order to take away the power of the people, the U.S. government has adopted what they call common law into their statute law. Don't be deceived. This is not the common law of the people. Rather, it is simply case law, designed to be used with 14th Amendment citizens, which thing the People are not. Even the juries of the land are not common law of the people juries. Why not? They are made up (except under rare occasions) of 14th Amendment citizens.

In America, you are allowed a jury of your peers when you are accused. If you are not a citizen, but rather one of the people domiciled on the land, try finding a jury that is not made up of people who say that they are citizens. These days it is virtually impossible. Since you are guaranteed a jury of your peers, case dismissed because they can't find anyone who will admit to not being a citizen, yet is domiciled here (in the States) at the same time.

http://1215.org/

http://www.broadmind.org/

http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html

This would not work. We would encounter a tragedy of the commons and no one would pay any taxes but everyone would expect to receive the services that the government provides

  ~Your Beneficent Reptilian Overlords.

...
The same reason they think fluoride is good for their teeth, the government "would never hurt them" ...

why is it ok for a group of people calling themselves the government to force everyone to buy their services?
if enough armed people refused to pay and told the government to go fuck itself there is nothing they could do.

I bet the people belly aching about taxes are the people that barely pay any taxes. 

This would not work. We would encounter a tragedy of the commons and no one would pay any taxes but everyone would expect to receive the services that the government provides

now imagine if there was no taxation and you could control 100% what you are funding when you give the government money.
and if they abuse your money you don't give it to them anymore.
what a world that would be, where the government is held 100% accountable to the people who finance it.

I'm with you on that bro! For me there is a difference between the idea of taxation and how it is spent.

The problem isn't all services and all taxes.  The problem is the cruise missiles that cost $1 million each, and all the other military hardware that only makes us less safe.  Our enemy has become a body of ideas, and by waging a war of force, we are creating more orphans, who are the most vulnerable to radicalization.

A lot of people here find taxes tyrannical. But who will commit to not using the services they pay for? That would strengthen the case for not paying. I can respect that. If you are using all the benefits of taxation but not paying, then you are just sticking your bills to another person who will have to make up for you. I can't respect that. 

I don't mind paying my share, but I want the government to go after dead beats if it means I will have to pay for them. 

If the argument is that the driver must carry insurance because they might cause damage through accident or neglect, why does that not extend to making the driver also carry insurance to cover damage they might do through crime?  By what principle do you draw the line?

Because operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, and not a right. By agreeing to use public roads, operators can be compelled to play by rules that are mutually beneficial. In my mind, the shared cost of insurance mitigates the potential for catastrophic loss for any single person/family by essentially guaranteeing that equitable relief can be made.

The potential to cause catastrophic loss is not, by itself, reason to force a person to carry insurance. This is another example of an argumentative fallacy. Instead of making a distinct argument you're posting strawmen arguments, or false dilemmas. Because you don't have a robust counterargument, just a lot of attacks.

May I suggest, as a counter, that your guiding principle is simply to be contrary to the status quo? I've seen a lot of movies, I can't remember how most of them end to be honest. Good tangent, though.

I have a spade in my garage.  Calling it a spade doesn't mean that I hate it.  Based on your response, it looks like I got your name right too...
A name is an implicit reference to an internal ideal (in the Platonic sense).  That reference may be a "false form" in a philosophy class, but in the real world, most people would consider naming to be a useful tool.

There is a reason that you don't get the point.

Why does the family home not have insurance?  Surely the owner understands that they face non-zero risks from many sources, not just your cliched redneck...

If the argument is that the driver must carry insurance because they might cause damage through accident or neglect, why does that not extend to making the driver also carry insurance to cover damage they might do through crime?  By what principle do you draw the line?

Logic always catches the unwary.  If the potential to cause "catastrophic loss" is a reason to force a person to carry insurance, surely that should apply to all potential catastrophic loss, right?  The loser feels the loss all the same, without regard to how or why the losee did it.  Why must the losee make advance preparations to help the loser recover from one loss, but not the other?

May I suggest that your guiding principle may perhaps be that one is already common, so you support it, while the other shows the absurd conclusion to your arguments, so you deny it?  I've seen this movie before.  We all know how it ends.

I have insurance that protects me against criminal actions done against my self and my property.  Surely you do too, if you aren't homeless.  If you find that concept confusing, perhaps you can use a nearby shiny surface to locate the source of the stupid.