EVE Search - Question for the US Military

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Question for the US Military

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sephra Star	Posted - 2008.03.14 00:11:00 - [31] Originally by: Mtthias Clemi Edited by: Mtthias Clemi on 13/03/2008 23:02:57 Is a Bankster someone who is a bank manager and is also a gangster? Worse... They are the NWO Fascists. The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.03.14 00:26:00 - [32] Originally by: Ammoina Originally by: Imperator Jora'h ... One being that a tax on wages is forbidden by the US Constitution. This was explicitly tossed out by the US Supreme Court even before the 16th Amendment was ratified. ... The only way a SCOTUS decision can be undone is for Congress to modify the Constitution. Don't hold your breath on that one. ... Right so. Constitution forbids a tax on wages. Supreme Court tosses it out so that we could be taxed on our wages. Only way to undo the decisions of the Supreme Court is to pass a constitutional amendment... which the Supreme Court can go ahead and toss out. In other words the courts decided we should be taxed, and to hell with the constitution. Erm...not quite. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. They look at a given law and decide if it goes against what the Constitution spells out. If they think a law is unconstitutional it gets thrown out. Where you are missing it is when they pass an Amendment. A Constitutional Amendment IS part of the Constitution. So let's say the Constitution say explicitly "government cannot tax wages". When they pass an Amendment that says, "government CAN tax wages" then that is it. Now part of the Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot toss out the Amendment. It is part of the Constitution now and they must uphold what it says whatever they may personally think (at least in theory). If they do not Congress can sack them. Constitutional Amendments are (thankfully) very difficult and long process to get done though. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!" ------
Sephra Star	Posted - 2008.03.14 00:34:00 - [33] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Constitutional Amendments are (thankfully) very difficult and long process to get done though. Not when you have coup in your country during a takeover over by fascists who anthrax your halls of government to railroad the country into passing draconian legislation like the Patriot Act in and end run around the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Ammoina	Posted - 2008.03.14 00:41:00 - [34] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Erm...not quite. O Reallyz? Originally by: Imperator Jora'h The Supreme Court cannot toss out the Amendment. Reconcile with Originally by: Imperator Jora'h One being that a tax on wages is forbidden by the US Constitution. This was explicitly tossed out by the US Supreme Court You seem to have said that the Constitution forbid a tax on wages. You seem to have said that the Supreme Court tossed out the part of the Constitution that forbid that tax even before the constitution was amended to allow the tax. You may have meant to say that Supreme Court tossed out that tax. But that's not even close to what you wrote.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.03.14 00:42:00 - [35] Originally by: Sephra Star Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Constitutional Amendments are (thankfully) very difficult and long process to get done though. Not when you have coup in your country during a takeover over by fascists who anthrax your halls of government to railroad the country into passing draconian legislation like the Patriot Act in and end run around the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You're just trying to get this thread locked aren't you? But yeah...SCOTUS seems to be asleep (guess who stacked the current bench?). -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!" ------
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.03.14 00:45:00 - [36] Originally by: Ammoina Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Erm...not quite. O Reallyz? Originally by: Imperator Jora'h The Supreme Court cannot toss out the Amendment. Reconcile with Originally by: Imperator Jora'h One being that a tax on wages is forbidden by the US Constitution. This was explicitly tossed out by the US Supreme Court You seem to have said that the Constitution forbid a tax on wages. You seem to have said that the Supreme Court tossed out the part of the Constitution that forbid that tax even before the constitution was amended to allow the tax. You may have meant to say that Supreme Court tossed out that tax. But that's not even close to what you wrote. Basically there is nowhere in the Constitution that says, "you cannot tax wages". It is an interpretation some people felt was implied by some other stuff. The SCOTUS did not buy that argument. Then, I guess to be perfectly clear, they passed the 16th Amendment about 100 years ago so there is no question anymore and the SCOTUS ruling is now essentially meaningless except as a footnote in history since the Amendment trumps all. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!" ------
Ammoina	Posted - 2008.03.14 00:57:00 - [37] Edited by: Ammoina on 14/03/2008 00:59:59 Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Basically there is nowhere in the Constitution that says, "you cannot tax wages". It is an interpretation some people felt was implied by some other stuff. The SCOTUS did not buy that argument. Yes... the Supreme Court did, or rather you are mis-representing the argument. "Under the Constitution, Congress could impose direct taxes only if they were levied in proportion to each State's population. Thus, when a flat rate Federal income tax was enacted in 1894, it was quickly challenged and in 1895 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional because it was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state." So says the US Treasury Department. Which isn't to say we didn't impose Income taxes. We did. During the Civil war we had a federal income tax, and repealed it after the war.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.03.14 01:18:00 - [38] Originally by: Ammoina Edited by: Ammoina on 14/03/2008 00:59:59 Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Basically there is nowhere in the Constitution that says, "you cannot tax wages". It is an interpretation some people felt was implied by some other stuff. The SCOTUS did not buy that argument. Yes... the Supreme Court did, or rather you are mis-representing the argument. "Under the Constitution, Congress could impose direct taxes only if they were levied in proportion to each State's population. Thus, when a flat rate Federal income tax was enacted in 1894, it was quickly challenged and in 1895 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional because it was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state." So says the US Treasury Department. Which isn't to say we didn't impose Income taxes. We did. During the Civil war we had a federal income tax, and repealed it after the war. You are citing Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company which was specifically about taxation on profits derived from property. This gets a bit goofy and is one for a law class but this did not deny the ability to levy an income tax...it was about property and a tax could be levied but it had to be apportioned by state population. However, back then taxing wages while keeping income from property separate was not really possible as a practical matter. As a result they passed the 16th Amendment which put it all to rest and made Pollock moot. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!" ------
Wendat Huron	Posted - 2008.03.14 01:45:00 - [39] Edited by: Wendat Huron on 14/03/2008 01:47:40 Originally by: Ch Tang Originally by: Wendat Huron Edited by: Wendat Huron on 13/03/2008 15:35:48 Why again do serfs pay taxes? Seems to me like a double screwjob. Good one. If a person has to work to make a living, they are a slave. Not so much work, these people have signed on to possibly lay down their lives in service and yet they pay tax, they should be excempt from taxes, regardless of whose military it was. I guess taxes would be ok if they made a hell of a lot more for risking their lives but then again the professional armies do prey on the weak with few other alternatives. These forums are FUBAR, upgrade this decade!
Sharupak	Posted - 2008.03.14 02:15:00 - [40] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Originally by: Rutefly I saw somewhere that the us never really legally agreed on an income tax. Can anyone clearify this ? There are a pile of anti-tax nutters out there who make this claim on dubious grounds. One being that a tax on wages is forbidden by the US Constitution. This was explicitly tossed out by the US Supreme Court even before the 16th Amendment was ratified. Then some say the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. Because of an oversight Ohio was not technically a state in 1911 when the Amendment went through. It was not till 150 years after Ohio thought it was a state that they found the error on its 150th anniversary in 1953. Congress passed a joint resolution admitting Ohio as a state retroactive to 1803. But no the tax evaders jumped in citing that the Constitution explicitly prohibits making an "ex post facto" law which means they cannot "retroactively" admit Ohio as a state from 1803 in 1953. They can only make it a state in 1953 forward. As such the 16th Amendment was not appropriately ratified (they also say President Taft who was born in Ohio and could not legally introduce the Amendment since he was not a natural-born citizen of the United States which the Constitution requires to be president). The US Supreme Court rejected these arguments in Porth v. Brodrick although frankly they did not really address the Ohio argument and was just sorta saying, "We all pay taxes, get used to it and stop bugging us about it". While that may not be acceptable to many that is the last word on it. Period. there is no higher court to appeal to (legally). The only way a SCOTUS decision can be undone is for Congress to modify the Constitution. Don't hold your breath on that one. In short, evade taxes at your peril. The IRS WILL come after you and put you in jail. Actually, there are scores of anti-tax nutters that fought the IRS and dont pay a single dime and the IRS cant touch them. I happen to know two of them. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.03.14 02:22:00 - [41] Originally by: Sharupak Actually, there are scores of anti-tax nutters that fought the IRS and dont pay a single dime and the IRS cant touch them. I happen to know two of them. Well...there are ways to hide your money, some legal and some not-so-legal, from the IRS but you'll never get away with the, "You have no right to tax me" bit. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!" ------
Sharupak	Posted - 2008.03.14 02:34:00 - [42] Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Originally by: Sharupak Actually, there are scores of anti-tax nutters that fought the IRS and dont pay a single dime and the IRS cant touch them. I happen to know two of them. Well...there are ways to hide your money, some legal and some not-so-legal, from the IRS but you'll never get away with the, "You have no right to tax me" bit. That is the hard part is that the IRS illegaly siezes your wages, house, car and bank assets. You have to prove that which is where hiding your money comes in because before you go after the IRS, you have to litigate with the bank that illegaly handed your **** over and the towing company that impounded your car and so on and so forth. So it is best to start filing the correct motions and papers before you stop paying your taxes. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude.
Rutefly	Posted - 2008.03.14 07:51:00 - [43] Originally by: Rutefly I saw somewhere that the us never really legally agreed on an income tax. Can anyone clearify this ? Is it too late to withdraw my question ? Oh boy, i should learn to keep my mouth shut. So all in all the legal part is gritty and devided with oppinions and technicallities. But bottom line, the big guys have an easy time getting to agreement on beating up the smalll guy as usual. And most judges and the IRS agree that they rule the empire, so differences doesnt matter much. Okay.. moving on.
Keorythe Terra Rosa Militia Sev3rance	Posted - 2008.03.14 13:52:00 - [44] Edited by: Keorythe on 14/03/2008 14:00:43 Originally by: Sharupak Actually, there are scores of anti-tax nutters that fought the IRS and dont pay a single dime and the IRS cant touch them. I happen to know two of them. They dont really fight the IRS and win. They find loopholes to have themselves declared "exempt". Through charity and religious affiliations or as an exempt dependent it is possible. There are also ways to be put on a temporary exemption status by filing the appropriate loophole paperwork and keep it going in the system. All of that though requires a great deal of effort to accomplish and in the end if not successful can lead to a HUGE amount of back taxes. In most cases you are taking a big risk. Oh live in the millenium, anthrax is way out dated. We would be using nerve gas and engineered short life ebola now not anthrax. Quote: So all in all the legal part is gritty and devided with oppinions and technicallities. But bottom line, the big guys have an easy time getting to agreement on beating up the smalll guy as usual. And most judges and the IRS agree that they rule the empire, so differences doesnt matter much. Not really, the legal part is one side reaching for straws and standing on unstable ground. But thanks to our legal system that can keep throwing motion after motion to beat the dead horse. Not sure how you come up with the small guy arguement unless you mean the minority. If the nation really was motivated enough they could push for a new form of taxation. We've seen this happen already on a few high ticket issues.
Ademaro Imre Eye of God Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.03.14 19:00:00 - [45] Originally by: Sephra Star Edited by: Sephra Star on 13/03/2008 16:38:19 The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936 If by chance you have managed to aquire better than an 8th grade education you might be more inclined to take the time to educate yourself on reality. This link may help lead you there. Read them all if you dare. Then "beaware" the TAVISTOCK (beaware = beware + aware) http://american_almanac.tripod.com/contents.htm#media There you go - you said International Banker s- now the FBI is tapping yoru phone lines and reading another thread now. Howcan you pay for Eve, and your tin foil? The aim of politics is to keep the populace alarmed and clamorous to be saved by menacing it with imaginary hobgoblins. The urge to save humanity is a false front for the urge to rule it.
Sephra Star The Galactic Collective	Posted - 2008.03.14 19:24:00 - [46] Thanks for the bump and restoring my info and links to the top of the thread.

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.