Sigh. Well, we have been getting mail. :o
What’s even more fun is income taxes automatically raise on everyone every year.
Way back when they made the rules and developed the tables for the current generation of income taxes, people who made $5,000 a year were doing damned good for themselves. When the income tax was ratified, less than 1% of the population paid any tax at all.
Now a family can barely cut it if they make $50,000 a year, and the government steals $20,000 or more according to the write-offs you qualify for (or not). By the definitions that they came up when they made the law, you’re FILTHY RICH, and should be taxed more! After all, $30,000 is still FILTHY RICH.
So unless the table gets rewritten as our money becomes worth less and less, and average income grows to compensate, taxes automatically go up like fart bubbles in a bathtub.
But adjusting the table to counter inflation… that’s ‘lowering taxes’ on those rich people who make $20,000 in a year and pay $3,000 in taxes, and we obviously can’t have that. So much better to confiscate people’s incomes like they’re common criminals and then give a little bit back at the end of the fiscal year if they’re good and fill out the right forms to beg for it.
.
Forgive me, but I didn’t follow that at all. Could you rephrase somewhat?
.
pingnak means that people automatically move up in tax brackets solely because of inflation. However, I think he may have a point but is largely mistaken. The government adjusts tax brackets periodically. Where he’s right is that it still gives them a way to hike up taxes without looking like they did! In general, our tax system is deeply flawed because we don’t use simple, smooth formulas that automatically track inflation. Instead, we use a system of epicircles of tables, brackets, and manual updating. The non-smoothness of the current functions causes all sorts of problems and, above all, distorts incentives.
We’ll see the other side of the Country of South Carolina argument in my upcoming staff report on secession.
Man, you really love to stick your foot into bear traps, dontcha?? 
Yeah, I’d really like to see his take on why the American secession from England was Freedom of the highest glory, and the South’s secession from the US was tretchery of the lowest caliber.
Covered in the first paragraph. But you’ll probably have to wait a couple of months to see it.
It’s actually a fairly simple topic. Secession is only permitted under the municipal laws of a few States (and by States, I mean nations). International law is only a tiny bit more accepting of secession than the municipal laws of most countries. There are some exceptions, and those are covered in the staff report.
Holy crap, you guys aren’t kidding.
Sadly, no.
Back in 2006 we had a thread about Ed Brown, a tax protestor who holed up in his house and became a cause celebre among certain fucktardinous factions.
Brown and his wife were arrested last October and are now in federal prison.
Cool site. I note, however, that the author has chosen to use the same format for his annotations that the idiots use for their argument. A few paragraph breaks and a little “white” space would go a long way.
I think you should stop calling those people idiots. You should know from your research that a) if there were a valid constitutional argument against taxes or conscription or whatnot, no court would recognize it anyway so we don’t really know if anyone does or doesn’t have a point and b) half the law turns on technicalities, so someone trying use a technicality to argue for their own behalf doesn’t deserve a second glance much less contempt.
Bullying people and calling them idiots or crazy, ESPECIALLY when everybody else is doing the same, is the definition of… i’m going to restrain myself and go with, ‘a bad person.’
Personally, I prefer tin foil hat brigade. Beyond that, I’ll just say that not all arguments are created equal. Some arguments have a basis in the methodology used to interpret statutes and the like, and at least acknowledge areas that have already been addressed by the courts. Others are based on bogus historical suppositions, pieces of phrases ripped from their context, and wishful thinking.
:dubious: It is not, by definition, a valid argument until a court recognizes it.
It is absurd in the extreme to assert that the Supreme Court of the United States automatically upholds legislation as constitutional. It will often wipe off the books legislation that has been passed by Congress, sometimes even legislation that has been around a goodly while. If there WERE a valid constitutional argument, at the very least, it would be recognized as such while being addressed by the Court, even if the result of the decision was contrary to the thrust of the argument. One certainly could expect strong dissent.
The last sentence of your post is without much value, and belongs in the Pit, if you analyze it.
You didn’t really use the expression “municipal law” when addressing a bunch of laymen, did you?
Tax protestors are my favorite sort of nutjobs (I’m sure Alex will like that term). YEC are entertaining, but in the end, believing God created the Earth 4000 years ago is unlikely to end up with you in jail. Tax protestors are willing to believe and act on things that will have real world implications involving the government taking your property and, if its bad enough, throwing you in jail. Yet, they persist, certain that if there is fringe on the flag and they can say the proper words, the tax code will just fall magically apart and they will walk through the fire unburnt.
Cite, please.
I’m tempted to ask for a cite here, too, but meh. I’ll assume it was hyperbole.
.