You might be a tax protester if you wake up one morning and are suddenly ticked off about working half your day for someone else.
I cringed when the dog sitting next to the sentry looked up. Powering up the “starlight” scope sounds an almost unperceivable whirring sound and I knew that I needed the scope in order to take both sentries out. The team was depending upon me.
The mission was simple; kill everybody. The problem was that “everybody” was a considerable larger group than the four of us tasked with the job. Fortunately the Russians liked their vodka and things have been quiet for several weeks on this front, so sleep came easy for them.
The dog looked up again as the silenced round zipped into the dozing guard in front of the bunk house. He jumped up and looked towards me when the second zing caused his companion to slump in his chair. The third zing removed any possibility that the dog would ever bark again.
Three stealthy figures emerged from the adjacent treeline and crept towards the bunk house. It couldn’t have been any more than one or two protests before the silence returned to the night. Mission accomplished.
My wife told me that I needed something to grab a reader’s attention at the beginning of these stories. I couldn’t really think of anything particularly “gripping” about the tax system in our country, so I made something up. Fact is most tax “protestors” are kind of like the dog in the story; they’ve jumped up because they sense something is wrong, but they are taken out before there is any chance that they can effectively warn anyone.
I had a crush on a girl when I was a kid; she was an “older woman” at least six months my senior and changed my life when she scolded me one day for being “so selfish.” For the first time in my life I evaluated my motives and committed myself to living a selfless life.
Many years later the circle of life returned me to that starting point. I made a substantial income and yet, despite the fact that the mainstream media assured me that I made more than almost every other person on the planet, I felt no comfort. In fact, I was ticked off. As I headed to work in my old beat up truck, and passed by the third Cadillac Escalade in a row, it was perfectly clear that the selfless life had severe limitations.
I was in that special class of person that qualified as a “taxpayer.” This gave me the privilege of supporting my fellow citizen with the selfless act of working mostly for someone else’s benefit. “Screw that, Comrade!” I had an epiphany and realized my old crush was wrong (and so was my Mother); selfishness isn’t a vice; in fact it can be quite a virtue. Little surpasses the capabilities of a man working for his own best interests.
Soon payday became more about the tax withheld than the take-home pay and I started looking for a way out. At the time I was flying for a major airline and happened to come across another “older woman” who also changed my life (is this a trend or what?).
She told me that I wasn’t a “taxpayer.” She told me that the Constitution was a short document that set people free, and the Internal Revenue Code was a long document (3.5 MILLION words at the time) that enslaves people. She told me that there is no law requiring me to file a 1040 form and she told me about a group that could help me get back what I was working for.
I couldn’t believe it. Is it possible for me to start working for myself instead of the leaches mooching every entitlement in sight? I started reading everything I could on the subject. I combed the internet and discovered that there is literally tens of thousands of pages of information available about why we can legally avoid the tax system and the IRS.
I read about the 16th Amendment and why it supposedly had never been ratified. I discovered that the IRS is based in Puerto Rico and not really part of the United States Federal Government. I learned that the U.S. was bankrupt and that the Federal Reserve was established to fund the government using citizens as collateral.
These things, along with the fact that Abraham Lincoln placed the nation into martial law (and we’re still operating under it), and that the Wilson administration sold us into slavery to that corrupt international banking cartel “them” that so many of us have talked about for years made me realize that despite the fact that nearly every lawyer, CPA and judge in the United States (in the geographic sense) agree that the Internal Revenue Code is lawful, applicable and enforceable, I had become one of the hallowed members of a cherished group bestowed with TRUTH, and charged with delivering it to the huddled masses bound by ignorance. It was now my DUTY to sacrifice my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor, to restore FREEDOM to the Republic.
Well, you might be a tax protestor if you wake up one morning and suddenly are ticked off about working half your day for somebody else.
Chuck Baldwin offers strong words in his Thanksgiving Prayer. http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin676.htm
I think we should ask ourselves if we are being cowards when facing government tyranny.
Why should someone in Washington state want to support a particular candidate for Governor in Montana? Besides the fact that it allows me to become politically active in a race having candidates I believe in, it represents effort that could actually make a difference in my daily life.
Bob Fanning and Chuck Baldwin are running for Governor and Lieutenant Governor respectively. Part of the reason I would support them is contained on their page regarding the 10th Amendment: http://fanning-baldwin.com/montana-rights/
Bob Fanning quotes the Federalist Papers and emphasized that States are to be “guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government.”
I have been convinced for a number of months that the federal ballot box is incapable of fixing the nation’s problems. First, federal elections are limited to those candidates that pass muster with the major national parties. Second, in most cases, the federal government IS the problem.
It is also unlikely that a sufficient number of citizens nationwide would stand up against federal tyranny. So, what options are left? Since we live in a Republic, it is likely that the best, and perhaps the only solution is for the States to organize and execute a plan for resistance to the federal leviathan.
Imagine for a moment the potential power a state could wield against the federal government for the people’s’ benefit. A state could protect the citizen from unlawful seizures (like those executed daily by the IRS). In fact, the state could actually shield all state citizens from federal taxation, to include Obamacare. The health care act is Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code) legislation, so having a means to protect citizens from the modern-day Brownshirt is important, and a state could do that.
States could reject regulation, seize so-called federal lands, limit the jurisdiction of federal agents and provide life, liberty and property protections from the most predatory entity in America, the US Government.
Instead of following the useless babblings of the Congress or the “super-committee” which are totally pointless, I choose to assist Bob Fanning and Chuck Baldwin in getting elected in Montana.
Chuck Baldwin announced today that he is running for Lt Governor of Montana. Imagine the benefit to this great Republic if a couple of real constitutionalist held the executive offices of even a single state.
I have long believed that our future relies upon the states standing up for the rights of the citizens. It would require that the Governor first commit to protect the citizens from federal tyranny. Next he would need to hamstring the various unconstitutional federal agencies and encourage his sheriffs to prevent those agencies from operating in the state.
Finally, they would need to show their citizens how to lawfully resist federal oppression. Read Chuck’s announcement and then join me with making a small contribution to his campaign. We may not be able to change much in the national ballot box, but we can change this election and we could then all benefit from a state with backbone.
At APEC today the Spectator in Chief accuses Americans of being lazy.
Isn’t this so typical? Obama continues his hate affair with America by accusing hard working Americans for our lack of competitiveness in the international market. It wouldn’t have occurred to him that perhaps taxes, sales taxes and regulation were larger contributors to the competition equation than slothfulness.
One business I analyzed last week revealed that the profits for 2012 are expected to be $122 per month, while the government’s take will be approximately $4000 per month. I can understand why a business person would rather close their business than work for free. This has nothing to do with laziness, but reality.
Frankly, I think we need to enhance alternative markets which escape government regulation and taxes in order to more directly punish our governmental agencies for their theft and irresponsibility.
When researching the sales tax issue, I came across this web page: http://www.newrules.org/retail/rules/internet-sales-tax-fairness
The article explains the rationale behind a nationwide effort to apply state sales taxes equally to all sellers so that local retailers aren’t at a competitive disadvantage. One person commenting on the article stated: “I own a ski and snowboard shop and have been open for 15 years. Over the past 5 years we have seen the increase in internet sales first hand. But not in our favor. Why there is not a national internet sales tax program by now just kills me. We keep our business plan very simple, work hard and take care of our customers. Everyday we fit people in boots and skis knowing we are loosing the sale to the internet. Not fair at all. With the increase of internet sales there has to be a decrease somewhere else. Well guess what. It is at the local retail level. With less sales means less jobs. Less tax revenue at the state level. Come on government! WAKE UP!”
It is amazing to me that we have devolved to the point that we now expect government to apply an unfair, unwarranted tax levied against locals, to non-locals in an attempt to level the playing field. In fairness, proponents of this legislation will point out that the sales tax is technically still due on internet purchases, but is not enforceable, so adding the administrative burden to the internet retailer merely provides a means to enforce a pre-existing tax requirement. I, however, am not persuaded. They are presuming that the sales tax is appropriate, and only trying to figure out how to make everyone pay. They are also accepting the fallacy that imposing a burden on a heretofore unimpeded group is a net gain for all. What happened to the idea that the sales tax may be inherently flawed and wrong on its face and extending it to internet providers cost the consumer by eliminating one of the few remaining free markets?
Sales taxes are meant to be ubiquitous — a tax that applies to all things bought by all persons to generate revenues to provide services that equally benefit all. If that were true, I might support the notion, but it is very far from the truth. First, sales taxes are exempt from certain coveted commodities like food staples. The impact of exempting staples transfers the tax burden of universally required services from everyone to only those that make so-called discretionary purchases. Exempting staples is similar to exempting online retailers in that it affords an unfair advantage to the items not taxed. The argument is made that those with discretionary money are better able to afford the sales tax, but that argument is flawed because the tax is for services that all supposedly need and benefit from. If all benefit, then all should pay EQUALLY.
Instead this sort of tax is charged to some to provide for “all.” Supposedly everyone benefits from police, fire, schools and roads. But is that even really true? These services are almost uniformly more beneficial for the poor than for the rich. The rich use private schools, and statistically use lesser amounts of all other public services. The sales tax steals from the well-to-do in order to subsidize those without. I also do not think you can empirically demonstrate that these services “elevate” the poor in any way that causes an overall benefit for all.
It should also be noted that sales taxes are also inefficient – much more money goes to administration, waste and abuse than meets the eye. I would object to them even if 100% of the sales tax went directly to essential services; in reality these sales taxes go to a variety of things that are neither universal nor beneficial. In the end, sales taxes collect from some to provide for others, are therefore redistributive and socialistic.
Beyond philosophy, sales taxes also steal from the local retailer. Market conditions dictate the cost of any particular product, sales taxes artificially inflate those cost and steal either profit from the retailer or buying capacity from the consumer. In tight economic times, consumers have very little excess capacity, so in most cases, sales taxes constitute theft from the retailer. If the margins on products are thin enough, the end result is that local businesses fail – no business, no jobs.
Applying sales taxes to internet retailers doesn’t level the playing field, but merely extends a notoriously bad idea to redistribute money from a victim that derive absolutely no benefit from the tax; classic taxation without representation. Instead of singing praises for legislature’s efforts to hamstring yet another business sector, we should be developing methods of commerce that completely avoid these forms of taxes and work hard to deprive the Marxist of the tools they need to destroy our society.
Civil Societies do not object to appropriate taxes for desired services. Today in our country, however, we have spun out of control robbing working and industrious people to provide for the lazy and unproductive. Ayn Rand may very well have been right; who is John Galt?
I got a message from Senator Murray’s office with her Veteran’s Day message. This detestable worm has the audacity to speak of honor, courage and commitment? I hate the hypocracy — the only thing this woman can do is RESIGN. Over the years I have buried dozens of dedicated warriors who have served their country and paid with the ultimate sacrifice. I’m sick of these so-called public servants who lie to their constituents, violate their oath of office and ravage the public treasury.
We had a well liked business close temporarily because of an unpaid accrued sales tax liability. I discussed this with an acquaintance who commented that the business owner had “stolen” the unpaid sales taxes.
On first blush, frankly I agreed with the comment, but after reflection, I’m not so sure. Are sales taxes theft by government from the business owner?
In a completely free market, a business owner would be at the mercy of customer demand and would be required to adequately respond to market conditions in order to maintain profitability and remain in business. Sales taxes place the business owner at odds with government too, but in a way that isn’t so easy to overcome.
It can be argued that there is a maximum price that the market will bear for any particular product. On a level playing field, businesses use innovation and efficiencies in order to sort through the winners and losers. Government interference, however, skews the playing field AWAY from the entrepreneur and increasingly results in small businesses evaporating.
I have seen several hardware stores and local department stores close when Home Depot or Wal-Mart come to town. Typically, locals will blame cheap China imports for the demise of their beloved local store. This common attitude, gives the local governments a complete pass. If local market conditions provide for a maximum price of $10 for a hammer, then both businesses have to accommodate the cost of the hammer and the expenses to sell the hammer (to include taxes) when establishing the actual price in the store.
Markets do not suddenly experience a magic re-pricing of the theoretical maximum price when state and local governments institute a sales tax (or the Feds a federal sales tax). Consequently, if prices are already at the maximum, then the business must absorb the burden of the tax. Large international companies are able to transfer those costs through economies of scale or avoidance, luxuries not afforded to local businesses, so, if those taxes result in inadequate revenues to cover expenses, then those businesses fail. If government continues to increase taxes, even large business will lose the ability to cover the cost.
Supporters of large government falsely presume that most want the “benefits” derived from government. I submit that most merely tolerate the cost and are generally disinterested in the vast majority of these so-called benefits. Furthermore, a critical analysis of the true effects of taxation are more likely to reveal that these taxes steal from one group in order to give to another group.
Citizens in the civil society desire to obey the law, but when the government becomes destructive, then there is increasing pressures towards civil disobedience. Should the tyranny continue, then revolution takes place. Some media outlet surmise that we are in this situation today. I disagree; we have pressures today to cut wasteful spending, and those cuts have angered the recipient class.
True revolution begins when the contributors start to reject the notion that they should pay merely so others can benefit. We don’t object to taxes when we see real benefit to US for those taxes. Redistributive taxes are inherently detestable, and will be the first targets when contributors must choose between feeding their own families or providing a cell phone for a second generation welfare recipient.