"As many Americans rushed to file their tax forms Wednesday, cheering crowds across the country heaved huge coolers with "Tea" painted on the side into bodies of water."

I wonder how many of these people actually paid their taxes.

I imagine most of them probably paid their taxes. Right after they polished their guns and considered assassinating Obama for their own delusional reasons.

Glen Beck was the only person who actually made a semi-logical point for these "protests": the tax code is too complex and people don't understand it. But I think 99% of the people were there for other reasons.

This is what America is like people. I wonder if people are this easily lead to delusion in other countries, too.

What?

This is what America is like, people.

So Americans (U.S. citizens?) give warning before they press the political reset button (aka trigger) ?

It's a minority of Americans with unfocused anger. Mostly, I see that these people are unknowingly projecting their anger onto the wrong targets. I'm glad it didn't turn into anything violent.

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001142/

I don't get it. The tea tax was repealed with the Taxation of Colonies Act of 1778.

I get it, the edumacation system was repealed in 2002.

The whole thing is misplaced. In this case it's anger and fear shrouded as patriotism. Similar references include "what our founding fathers wanted!" and "Lincoln stood for liberty, you can't take that away from us!"

They also say TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already as they go around protesting taxes. One of their arguments is "Obama wants to raise our taxes even more!" even though they'll be paying less under his plan. I also saw a clip of a guy angry at Obama, calling him a "fascist". The reporter asked "how is he a fascist?" and the guy could only respond with "because he is! He's a fascist!"

Hey Bob, you're in Texas. You're probably seeing some of the most of it. Your Governor implied Texas was could secede.

Here in Illinois, we was could secede too.

Unless you're a defense contractor or a bank, you're already paying more in taxes. Taxes aren't just the nominal amount taken from your paycheck or the additional small amount you pay when you buy things.

It's not very well understood theoretically, but measurements show that Ricardian Equivalence is largely true over the long term.

It can't. Texas could have split itself into 5 independent states, and those states could have decided to not join the Union. However, that agreement was:
a) only valid before the Civil War. A new agreement had to be remade when Texas rejoined the Union.
b) still needs to be aproved by the US Congress anyway. See US Constitution Article IV section 3.

There were probably less than 20 people at each of those protests.

According to the CNN article, it was a protest against bailing out failing companies, and I have not heard many people who are actually in favor of that. (Granted, I don't read this forum often...) I know that I wouldn't invest in a company that couldn't manage itself.

Why are you (the handful that have posted in such a manner) reacting negatively to people letting their voice be heard? It's better than people sitting around saying, "oh nobody will ever listen to me." The government is for all the people, not just the snobs who think they're better than everyone else.

I didn't pay my taxes, but not because of the tea party thing. It's the only second time I've ever had to pay my taxes, and I didn't pay them the first time either. I just want to keep my money.

I know that one had 4000 and another had 6000, but that's all I know of. I'm sure many others were equally successful.

You got away with that?

I do every year. But I do try and FILE my taxes. I just don't make enough for them to actually TAKE any from me.

Well, I don't have to pay taxes either, I still file them though. I was referring to Jonny's post, which makes it sound like he didn't even file.

So far I have.

I found these articles rather interesting and informative on the subject:
http://www.livefreenow.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=105
http://www.livefreenow.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6&Itemid=28
http://www.livefreenow.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42&Itemid=103

Basically they say that there is no law which requires US citizens to pay taxes, and furthermore, if you do pay taxes there's an even greater chance that you will go to jail. And the amount of people who do go to jail is surprisingly small considering the number of people who file.

Plus I don't feel comfortable paying the government so they can continue to start wars in other countries for no real reasons.

Eh, might want to rethink this strategy:

Joe Banister
"The former investigator, Joseph R. Banister, 42, of San Jose, Calif., has become a hero to the tax protest movement, even though two of his clients are serving long prison sentences after following his advice."

Freedom Fighter #1!

Sounds like the only martyrs here are the guys clients. No offense, but it would be safer to just claim aliens abducted you.

EDIT: Oh yeah, those taxes are also paying for social security, infrastructure, education and more.

I call BULLSHIT on that one. There are laws, thats how you get to go to jail for being really stupid about taxes. And get your wages garnisheed for being half stupid. Yes, they can take the money you owe from you before you even get it. Think about that one for a moment. Let it sink in.

Just because they haven't let you know they know you aren't paying, doesn't mean they won't follow up later. They can do it at any time, and will. Could be 10 years from now when you owe tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes. What will you do then when they audit you and ask for all that money? (in fact its much more likely to happen when you owe a lot more, its more worth their time that way, the bigger the offender, the more they have to prove).

You are incredibly ignorant to believe anybody who claims that you do not have to pay income tax. Laughably ignorant.

You can to jail for it, among other things. How is that not proof enough? Gangster Al Capone went to prison for ... income tax invasion!

You can sincerely believe in your heart that the IRS has no right to collect taxes, but that won't hold up in any court. And that's ultimately where your fate lies; not in hands of some conspiracy theorist.

Really? I think you fail at conditional probabilities.

Well, social security is supposed to be paid for by the social security taken out of your paycheck, which is taken out separate from taxes (just like medicare).

You all are just mad Jonny figured out you don't actually have to pay taxes while you all have been stupidly paying them this whole time!

I'm not mad, I was just questioning his reasoning. As I said, I'm a full time student and I don't earn much, therefore I claim exempt for taxes, and if I didn't it would all be refunded to me anyhow.

I remember seeing a video which also claimed there was no law saying private citizens had to pay income tax. The income tax was only supposed to be levied against businesses, and was started to help fund WW2. It even chronicled a case where a guy was acquitted of tax evasion because the judge refused to cite which law it was under to the jurors, and no one the video's creator interviewed could cite the law, either. They just kept giving the run-around and implying "well, everyone else does it, so you have to also".

Of course, then the video went off on a conspiracy theory about some banks trying to create and run a world government, so...

Up here income tax was supposed to be temporary, but then so was the GST, and many other taxes. Doesn't mean its not a legal tax.

The current income tax in the United States started in 1913, to fund the first World War. The top rate was 7% on incomes of $500,000 (~$20 million today).

Various other income taxes existed at the federal level before that, but were considered unconstitutional at the time. It took the ratification of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution to legalize it.

Not at the US Federal level. See Wikipedia. Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are paid through separate taxes from what is normally referred to as "Income Tax".

In the US, infrastructure and education are largely paid through real-estate taxes and/or State sales taxes.

The income tax only brings in ~$1 trillion to US governments of various levels. Total government taxation and borrowing is around $6 trillion.

Hehe, I was expecting this kind of reaction.

Well, I've heard/read otherwise. Not saying you're wrong, of course. I realize there are many contradicting theories regarding this matter and it's very hard to determine who's right, since there seem to be intelligent people arguing each point.

Well, I'm also of the school of thought that the government shouldn't even be responsible for all those things, as I would think most people are who believe that income tax is unconstitutional.

Well, if anything, I fail at reading comprehension, as it was something I read, not something I came up with myself.

Well, once again, you can call BS on me, but this a topic that many smart people have argued, and I from what I've read, it still seems that no one can point out any law which explicitly states that you have to pay income taxes. I can't argue it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have an argument, and I believe that it does.

Oh I'm fully aware that there is still time for them to come around. But I've looked at some statistics and, based on my understandings, it seems highly unlikely that they will. And if I start making enough money where it might actually matter, then who knows, maybe I'll have a change of heart and start paying.

I don't claim to understand income tax law, as I know it is very complicated. So yes, I know that I am very ignorant on the matter. You can say I'm incorrect and very ignorant, fine, and I won't have any thing to come back with. However, I am not the only person in the world who believes this. There are many intelligent people who are making the same claim, and to call them equally ignorant would be ridiculous.

Yes, people have gone to jail for not filing income taxes. I'm not going to pretend to understand the law surrounding the reasons why people go to jail. All I know is what people have told me and what I've read. And I also know (well, I presume) that many people have gone to jail for unjust reasons, which I think may have been the case for many people who have gone to jail for income taxes. However I really can't know because I don't know the details of the situations, and I'm not in a position to make that kind of judgment anyway.

Well, your really just questioning my judgment, as this isn't my own reasoning.

Hehe, well, that's what my circle of political advisors (i.e., friends and such) actually believe (and so I have come to believe as well, for as much as that's worth).

I know my position in this argument seems very weak, but well, I guess I'm not out to change anybody's mind. And yes, I suppose I could be considered ignorant, but unless you're all knowing, ignorance is kind of relative. For example, somebody who truly believes income taxes are unconstitutional could call me ignorant if I didn't agree. I'm always going to be considered ignorant by at least a few people, and more of course if my views are considered radical by the general public. But that doesn't mean they are wrong.

I don't claim to know the truth regarding this topic, and I know that I don't know enough to make even a good judgment. But based on what I've been told, my judgment is telling me that the "truth" I have chosen is closer to the real truth.

I don't go around believing what everyone tells me, because if I did I would have folded the first time I my original post was contended. However, at the same time, I really only know what people have told me. Granted, I can draw my own conclusions, but those conclusions are also likely to be amalgamations of things that I have heard in the past. Recognizing that, all I can do is believe what seems to be the most correct to me at the moment and hope for the best. My stance on income tax is the result of that philosophy. And it will take more than ridicule to change my mind. However, since my opinion on the matter is of little importance to most of you, I don't think anyone will bother trying. Although I do enjoy talking about it, with what little knowledge I have.

Got a citation on that? Most agree that the first World War began in 1914. (I have a handful of history textbooks which say this, if you require that I cite where I am coming from as well.) That, and I believe that the US didn't enter the war until 1917.

<quote>
Got a citation on that? Most agree that the first World War began in 1914.
<quote>

It was probably a backward compatible explanation

The United States attempted to remain neutral throughout WWI, but the Germans began to sink U.S., and otherwise neutral, ships (The most famous being the Lusitania). Worse, we caught a telegram from Germany that offered Mexico the states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas if they attacked us if/when we attacked Germany . Mexico declined, there was no real chance for them to win a war against the U.S., even though we share a border.

There's the United States Pre-WWI history for you, courtesy of AP U.S. History.

I still like the claim that tax evasion isn't illegal. People go to jail for it, and otherwise get in real trouble. You can't go to jail for something that isn't illegal.

What more do you need? You can argue as long as you want that income tax isn't Constitutional, but the Supreme Court is the end all when it comes to deciding if something is.

If the IRS came after you, would you?

• Pay the huge fines, or

• Challenge them in court.

If the answer is the latter, then please invite me to watch and laugh.

Even if it is unconstitutional, I doubt you can afford to bring it all the way up to the supreme court. And if you could, you'd be rich enough to hire accountants to let you pay very little tax anyhow, thereby avoiding the extra cost and hassle.

Actual hostilities started in Europe in 1914, but you don't jump into war unprepared and for no reason. Military spending skyrocketed at in the years prior and trade disputes significantly impacted international trade, and thus tarrif revenues.
See Payne-Aldrich Tarrif Act, and Revenue Act of 1913.

Income tax is unjust and awful. Plain and simple. Its no different than theft.

In addition, the economic impacts of a 40% tax on the rich are numerous. That and lawsuits have turned society into this bizarre risk-adverse scared-of-doing-anything child.

Except if it's in Iraq! Ooooh....

Come on, someone had to.

Right. And next you'll be saying regulation, universal healthcare and education are bad

After the govt is done bollixing them up, hell yes!
Why does DRM get everybody up in arms?
Why else is the cost of doctors visits so astronomically high?
Why are American kids so stupid they can't locate Europe on a globe?

Rest of the world, I am so envious of your health care systems.

I'm jealous too.

In other words, it's not working as it's supposed to.
I also have a hard time believing it's that hard to see a dentist every half year (or year) for general checkups and then go to the same dentist when you have a more acute problem.

Because a better healthcare system would require higher taxes.

It's really very very simple.
There's a few million people in a country, and they have to figure out a way of living alongside each other in relative peace. There are some things, however, that are better arranged commonly - the very minimum being some sort of government, basic infrastructure, police. Those things have to be paid for, because you won't find a police officer or roadworker who does it all for free. Add up the costs, and devise a scheme that distributes the costs in a fair way.
Obviously, opinions about which things need to be paid for by the community differ, as do opinions on how to distribute them. However, linking payments to income isn't half bad if you ask me - those who have a higher income have less of a hard time coughing up the cash, and they are also likely to lay a higher strain on the common assets (use their car more often, get robbed more, have a larger home, produce more garbage, you name it).
The problem, however, especially with very large countries like the U.S., is that this very very simple mechanism becomes obfuscated through bureaucracy. People who pay taxes can't see what it's used for, and emotionally, 'the government' or 'the state' take 'my money' to do 'their thing' with it. People don't seem to realize that 'the state' is the sum of its citizens.

To clarify: theft means person A takes something from person B against person B's will. Taxes means the community takes something from every citizen to cover the costs of shared assets. Paying taxes is buying rounds, theft is not paying for your drinks. In fact, tax evasion is more like theft than taxes themselves, however annoying they are.

I doubt that.
The 40% tax only applies to private incomes, not to a company's profit: the latter is left untouched. The economic impact is therefor mainly limited to the money those rich people can spend. The upside, however, is that there is also significant tax income for the state, which can be used to stimulate the economy in all sorts of ways, or even just to compensate the losses of people who have been bitten in the a&*.

An interesting hypothesis. You should do some research to investigate this instead of writing it off as fact. (In my experience, crime is more concentrated around the poorer people.)

So if someone buys you a round, you are a thief?

No, because the doctors have been constantly padding the bill for 40+ years. "Add 10% to the bill, the government's paying for it" reiterated every year adds up.

Exactly! That's why it's so attractive. Pork is the national food of congresscritters and their constituents.

This is so ridiculously stupid that I have to point out that it is ridiculously stupid.

If you want to redefine theft as "any stealing which is not publicly condoned" than you must also approve of the Nazi's pilfering of tremendous wealth and the Egyptians approved usage of slavery. Or how about the Vikings approved pillaging throughout Europe?

No, the regime today is just oppressive as any regime who decides to 40% enslave people. Or are you just excited its someone else and not you being 40% enslaved?

One more thing...

In Q1 of 2009 Walmart paid a tax of $1,959 Million which is a tax rate (based on income) of 33.3% ref

If corporations are taxed differently from individuals, the so-called rich will use one or the other as a means to minimize their tax burden. It's relatively cheap to form a corporation and have it comply with all the regulations when you have a lot of money. It's not so when you're not uber rich.

Ultimately, the middle class pays the majority of all direct taxes. The productive pay for all taxes.

Its no use trying to convince Dustin of anything, he seems to be the personification of everything the current US Republican party believes in. (many staunch republican's don't even go that far...)

To be fair, Republicans haven't believed in lower taxes in the last 60 years, nor have they managed to reduce taxes since(*). They do talk a lot about that though.

(*) Tax rates is not tax burden. Total present tax burden is always equal to total government spending.

Right, its the party that pushes for it, but most real republicans that you talk to don't actually believe in what the party pushes.

I still find funny that you must pay your annual taxes in advance. We pay them as we use them.

You don't have to. The Govt taking your taxes out of each paycheck is more of a convenience. The year end "taxday" you either get a refund or have to give them money based on how much you over or under paid.

Yes, the gas stations around here require you to pre-pay before they'll turn the pump on as a convenience to you

I know that they allow you to do that if you want, but it certainly is not required. For most people, taxes are paid as you earn the money that gets taxed here, unless you are referencing a country other than the US, in which case I look like a moron now...

And 999 times out of 1000, too much is taken out, so they have to give it back to you. Of course they don't pay interest on that extra money they took. (The state of New Mexico does though, so my refund from them is always nice. Like a little low-interest savings account. )

But it is required.

If you owe more than $1,000 in taxes, you are in trouble. Read up on estimated taxes.

Yes, if you are making money that is not withheld for you. I forgot about that case, and you are right.

Since I have only earned money that was not withheld once, I never really considered it something that most people had to worry about, though I suppose in the software industry it is probably rather common. (I'm not a fan of the excessive self-employment tax, so I have avoided contract work.)

Here you are innocent until they can prove your guilt too So, how much each around pays in gov taxes?

I was pretty shocked when I found out that in the US, civil offenses aren't covered under that rule. So they can basically prosecute you for anything "civil" and you have to fight it to get out of it. However, it costs time and money to do that, so many people accept small civil cases (regardless of justice).

Convince me of something useful.

It's a matter of preponderance of evidence rather than making sure the state doesn't prosecute possible innocents.

Civil cases are not about "is the defendant guilty or not", they are about "how much does person A owe person B".
If person A claims person B owes him/her amount X due to a given situation, the civil lawsuit is there to clarify if X is indeed the lawful amount; the concept of "guilt" is sometimes, but not necessarily always, a part of this process. Even if there is no guilt involved anywhere, there may be lawful claims between two persons, and a civil lawsuit may determine that some amount needs to be paid.

For example, in a traffic accident, the question who needs to pay for the damage is inevitable (the costs don't just go away by themselves), and often, both parties pay a part of the total damage based on how large their estimated share in causing the accident was - even without rigid proof either way.