PDA

View Full Version : People That Pay Taxes



buffalo3
10th December 2009, 20:03
Is it just the hippies and the people that don't pay taxes that have a problem on this forum? They do tell everybody what to do.

Colonel Clink
11th December 2009, 06:08
Fool. Paying taxes is for the 'little people', not over-educated trust fund babies who definitely know what's best for you. /sarc :rolleyes:

Az2Africa
11th December 2009, 06:10
Is it just the hippies and the people that don't pay taxes that have a problem on this forum? They do tell everybody what to do.

It's because they are smarter than us. If you don't believe me, just ask them.;) Seriously though, after a few posts I have read in the past couple of days, I hope that the topics stay related to Silver and fewer personal attacks. Politics should only be discussed in relation to it's effect on PM prices.

podrag
11th December 2009, 07:20
Paying taxes IS for little people. The whole point about buying PMs is to elevate yourself from serfdom into independence. Why, then, give money straight back to the people who are enslaving you?

Doesn't make any sense. But no no, carry on. Maybe the banking cabal, the politicians, the Militray Industrial Complex, the Prison Industiral Complex, the bureaucrats and the ACORN-type organisations do need to money more than you do.

It's your choice.

DaleFromCalgary
11th December 2009, 15:20
One lesson I learned far too late in life is that I should have been buying commodities sooner than I did, instead of having taxable GICs or bonds that returned 3% interest. That lesson finally learned is what moved me into physical bullion and oil and flow-through shares.

UmassSteve
11th December 2009, 20:24
Paying taxes IS for little people. The whole point about buying PMs is to elevate yourself from serfdom into independence. Why, then, give money straight back to the people who are enslaving you?

Doesn't make any sense. But no no, carry on. Maybe the banking cabal, the politicians, the Militray Industrial Complex, the Prison Industiral Complex, the bureaucrats and the ACORN-type organisations do need to money more than you do.

It's your choice.

You're right, I'm sure your taxes only pay for that and nothing you've ever used.

Why pay taxes? It isn't like you've ever used a public road, taken your trash to the curb and had it taken away, sent your kids to a public or charter school, ever been to a state or national park, or enjoyed meat that was inspected to make sure it was healthy (at least as safe as the crappy FDA standards) or enjoyed municipal water that was checked for safe levels of contaminants.

You're absolutely right, taxes are for suckers and you shouldn't pay them. 100% of them go to wars, prisons, and ACORN.

Mighty Moose
11th December 2009, 21:12
You're right, I'm sure your taxes only pay for that and nothing you've ever used.

Why pay taxes? It isn't like you've ever used a public road, taken your trash to the curb and had it taken away, sent your kids to a public or charter school, ever been to a state or national park, or enjoyed meat that was inspected to make sure it was healthy (at least as safe as the crappy FDA standards) or enjoyed municipal water that was checked for safe levels of contaminants.

You're absolutely right, taxes are for suckers and you shouldn't pay them. 100% of them go to wars, prisons, and ACORN.
There's some room for debate on some types of tax, but NOT INCOME TAX! Especially federal. It is immoral because it forcibly taxes your labour which equates to free labour which equates to slavery for the government. Federal income tax was promised to be only temporary, after the world war, to help the good ole government get back on its feet & has been increased ever since. Plus, your employer has to pay the equivalent in payroll tax which is a double whammy to you, since he's going to pay you less because of it. This is after he is forced, under penalty of law, to aid the government in steeling the fruits of your labour.

Bullseye
11th December 2009, 22:05
This is the stuff that pisses me off...tax,tax,tax, didnt we kick somebody ass
for this???? And now when its my time to retire(ya right) I wont get medical bennys or SS because it will be gone, but I'm sure as hell paying into both because I'm an american idiot!! I AM SICK AND TIRED (not really sick-but tired) of this BS that polticos play. I'm voting everybody out come 2010 good bad or ugly just to prove a point. I really doubt it will have any effect because the EVIL REGIME has its foot hold. I'm thinking I might make the local news instead......Crazy man walks in on senate and .......you fill in the blanks. If I had a vest of silver bullion, would it stop bullets??? just wondering....how permeable is siver against gunfire?? again just curios......
Has anyone shot a piece of silver (bullion,bar,coin) to see the effect??
The BS that the USA is playing is really getting on my nerves, I thought we the people had a right to change it when it gets out of hand according to the "constitution" PAPER IS POVERTY----Thomas Jefferson:evil:

Colonel Clink
11th December 2009, 22:37
One lesson I learned far too late in life is that I should have been buying commodities sooner than I did, instead of having taxable GICs or bonds that returned 3% interest. That lesson finally learned is what moved me into physical bullion and oil and flow-through shares.

An oil royalty. The gift that keeps on giving, year in and out. I salute you sir. :D

sharehard
11th December 2009, 22:50
I don't pay taxes and I do support this forum.

Freedom (in the material sense) is 100% control of your life and property and 0% control of anyone else's.

If you accept that there are no grounds for the innitiation of force then there are no grounds for government.

Everything that governments do by the threat of deadly force could be done voluntarily in the free market.

How much violence are YOU personally willing to engage in to force someone to pay taxes.

I am not willing to engage in the initation of ANY force so I cannot support government.

Argyria
12th December 2009, 00:19
If I had a vest of silver bullion, would it stop bullets??? just wondering....how permeable is siver against gunfire?? again just curios......
Has anyone shot a piece of silver (bullion,bar,coin) to see the effect??


You didn't know? 'Kevlar' is actually fine silver threads woven into a cloth.

red snapper
12th December 2009, 00:49
One lesson I learned far too late in life is that I should have been buying commodities sooner than I did, instead of having taxable GICs or bonds that returned 3% interest. That lesson finally learned is what moved me into physical bullion and oil and flow-through shares.

Dale, do you know if flow through shares are available to non Canadian, overseas investors?

podrag
12th December 2009, 03:49
You're right, I'm sure your taxes only pay for that and nothing you've ever used.

Why pay taxes? It isn't like you've ever used a public road, taken your trash to the curb and had it taken away, sent your kids to a public or charter school, ever been to a state or national park, or enjoyed meat that was inspected to make sure it was healthy (at least as safe as the crappy FDA standards) or enjoyed municipal water that was checked for safe levels of contaminants.

You're absolutely right, taxes are for suckers and you shouldn't pay them. 100% of them go to wars, prisons, and ACORN.

Gee why don't I put a gun to your head and take your grocery money. I'll then buy a few candy bars and a box of cigarettes with some of the money... some of it will pay for more guns to threaten more people with... I'll give some of it to my friends... I'll go run up debts collateralized by the revenue stream of my theft that you'll have to pay off... but I promise to buy groceries for you with the rest of it.

I don't know exactly what you like, however, so you just get the same as everyone else. OH and because of my theving operation I have kinda destroyed the free market in food so everything is twice as expensive and half as good. Oh and because you HAVE TO EAT my theft is justified.

Silvature
12th December 2009, 06:24
A 50 yd shot at 1 ounce round. Watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSyuZShvN7c

Argyria's comment in regards to silver in kevlar jackets. Silver is added for Body Odor reduction/control, one of the 10,000 uses of silver. Absolutely no viable contribution towards bullet stoppage.








This is the stuff that pisses me off...tax,tax,tax, didnt we kick somebody ass
for this???? And now when its my time to retire(ya right) I wont get medical bennys or SS because it will be gone, but I'm sure as hell paying into both because I'm an american idiot!! I AM SICK AND TIRED (not really sick-but tired) of this BS that polticos play. I'm voting everybody out come 2010 good bad or ugly just to prove a point. I really doubt it will have any effect because the EVIL REGIME has its foot hold. I'm thinking I might make the local news instead......Crazy man walks in on senate and .......you fill in the blanks. If I had a vest of silver bullion, would it stop bullets??? just wondering....how permeable is siver against gunfire?? again just curios......
Has anyone shot a piece of silver (bullion,bar,coin) to see the effect??
The BS that the USA is playing is really getting on my nerves, I thought we the people had a right to change it when it gets out of hand according to the "constitution" PAPER IS POVERTY----Thomas Jefferson:evil:

Argyria
12th December 2009, 06:35
A 50 yd shot at 1 ounce round. Watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSyuZShvN7c

Argyria's comment in regards to silver in kevlar jackets. Silver is added for Body Odor reduction/control, one of the 10,000 uses of silver. Absolutely no viable contribution towards bullet stoppage.

Really? I thought silver had the highest tensile strength of any material known to man? Oh wait, that was carbon nanotubes.

of one mine
12th December 2009, 08:48
THis problem was solved a long time ago.......

"give that unto ceaser that which is ceaser's, and that unto God that which is Gods"

of one mine

And as far as silver in body armor jackets, I think we should recycle;)

UmassSteve
12th December 2009, 10:31
Gee why don't I put a gun to your head and take your grocery money. I'll then buy a few candy bars and a box of cigarettes with some of the money... some of it will pay for more guns to threaten more people with... I'll give some of it to my friends... I'll go run up debts collateralized by the revenue stream of my theft that you'll have to pay off... but I promise to buy groceries for you with the rest of it.

I don't know exactly what you like, however, so you just get the same as everyone else. OH and because of my theving operation I have kinda destroyed the free market in food so everything is twice as expensive and half as good. Oh and because you HAVE TO EAT my theft is justified.

One, your argument is nonsensical and not at all reflective of real world circumstances. Don't get me wrong, theres a lot of waste and too much kick back to friends. But maybe, MAYBE, 5% of government spending could be termed thuggish stealing. The rest goes into social programs. If you're trying to convince me that having public transit and public roads, my excellent seconday public education(I know I'm in the minority for that, but still), my very excellent public university education, my food, drug, and water safety protection, my police and fire protection, my military protection (despite its current misuse and abuse, don't get me wrong), my beloved national and state parks, and my father's union-protected, government-protected right to continue getting paid while he recovers from a horrendous car accident is equivalent to being robbed of all my money but getting a candy bar back in return, then you are blind.

Bullseye
12th December 2009, 19:01
That was sweet! thanks for the video argyria as I didnt have the heart to do that myself, but was curious what would happen. I guess if I strapped on a vest of silver bullion, I'd end up with a silver bullet to the chest.....anyone try kryptonite??

Bullseye
12th December 2009, 19:07
Sorry all, got mixed up in the confusion! Thank you Silvature for that awesome video!!!! and thanks argyria for believing in silver with me...
I thought just maybe silver would reflect a bullet........

Burticus
12th December 2009, 22:34
I'm voting everybody out come 2010 good bad or ugly just to prove a point. I really doubt it will have any effect because the EVIL REGIME has its foot hold. I'm thinking I might make the local news instead......Crazy man walks in on senate and .......you fill in the blanks. If I had a vest of silver bullion, would it stop bullets??? just wondering....how permeable is siver against gunfire?? again just curios......
Has anyone shot a piece of silver (bullion,bar,coin) to see the effect??

Voting 'em out won't work, as long as the oligarchs' computers "count" the votes in secret. Remember what Josef Stalin said, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."

The rest of your shots are grouped in the bullseye, Bullseye!

You can get a police trade-in Kevlar vest for about 190 FeRNs
http://www.bulletproofme.com/Bullet_proof_Vests_Catalog.shtml

As the video shows, a one-ounce bullion coin will not stop a .223 high-powered rifle round traveling around 3,000 FPS. I have no idea whether one would stop a pistol round at around 1,000 FPS. Rectangular bars would fit together more tightly anyway.

Some of the Kevlar vests come with ceramic plate inserts over the vital areas that will stop a rifle round. I'll bet one of my 100 ounce Engelhard silver bars would easily stop a rifle round. You could get your wife to sew silver bar holster pouches into your Kevlar vest, except the damn thing would be way too heavy.

See you on the senate floor, or in the newspaper...

hippiebrian
12th December 2009, 23:06
I don't pay taxes and I do support this forum.

Freedom (in the material sense) is 100% control of your life and property and 0% control of anyone else's.

If you accept that there are no grounds for the innitiation of force then there are no grounds for government.

Everything that governments do by the threat of deadly force could be done voluntarily in the free market.

How much violence are YOU personally willing to engage in to force someone to pay taxes.

I am not willing to engage in the initation of ANY force so I cannot support government.

Yet, if your house catches fire, you expect the fire department to come. If your home is invaded, you expect the police to show up. You expect the roads to be paved, and bridges not to collapse. Who do you expect to pay your share?

sharehard
13th December 2009, 03:38
Who do you expect to pay your share?

Me!

____________________

Argyria
13th December 2009, 04:00
Yet, if your house catches fire, you expect the fire department to come. If your home is invaded, you expect the police to show up. You expect the roads to be paved, and bridges not to collapse. Who do you expect to pay your share?

These are all covered by property taxes, and sales taxes. Income taxes cover the federal government's wasteful schemes, foreign wars, social programs, bailouts, interest on debt they racked up without permission, and so on. Income taxes were originally illegal in the constitution. That was changed in 1913, with the Federal reserve banking cartel being created at the same time. Woodrow Wilson discovered, too late, what he had been duped into.

hippiebrian
13th December 2009, 05:39
These are all covered by property taxes, and sales taxes. Income taxes cover the federal government's wasteful schemes, foreign wars, social programs, bailouts, interest on debt they racked up without permission, and so on. Income taxes were originally illegal in the constitution. That was changed in 1913, with the Federal reserve banking cartel being created at the same time. Woodrow Wilson discovered, too late, what he had been duped into.

Where in the Constitution are income taxes mentioned? BTW, Income taxes also cover the FBI, USDA, interstate funds, federal education money, and will be covering that important audit of the Fed. Now if none of these are important to you, I suggest you don't ever call the FBI, send any children you have or your family has to school, don't use the roads (yes, federal money does boost state funds for roads, infrastructure and education), don't buy any food that's been tested for safety, don't get any of your kids immunized against anything (another federal income tax supported program), and quit pushing for an audit of the Fed, for starters, maybe I'll forgive you from paying income tax. However if you are using any of these, I suggest you pay your fair share.

As a side note, thousands have gone to court over the "unconstitutionality" of income taxes and lost. Be careful, the payment of back taxes has ruined many.

Argyria
13th December 2009, 06:23
Where in the Constitution are income taxes mentioned? BTW, Income taxes also cover the FBI, USDA, interstate funds, federal education money, and will be covering that important audit of the Fed. Now if none of these are important to you, I suggest you don't ever call the FBI, send any children you have or your family has to school, don't use the roads (yes, federal money does boost state funds for roads, infrastructure and education), don't buy any food that's been tested for safety, don't get any of your kids immunized against anything (another federal income tax supported program), and quit pushing for an audit of the Fed, for starters, maybe I'll forgive you from paying income tax. However if you are using any of these, I suggest you pay your fair share.

As a side note, thousands have gone to court over the "unconstitutionality" of income taxes and lost. Be careful, the payment of back taxes has ruined many.

Schools are paid for by property taxes. Increased funding has not necessarily led to increased performance. I don't need the FBI. Without federal power, the Fed wouldn't need to be audited, because it wouldn't exist. Roads are also paid for by gasoline taxes. Don't forget about sales taxes, they raise quite a bit of revenue. Income taxes aren't mentioned specifically in the constitution, but it is an unapportioned tax.

"The 1894 income tax was never actually implemented because of a judicial challenge. Although the Supreme Court had upheld the Civil War version in Springer v. United States (1880), two shareholder suits were soon filed to prevent their respective corporations from paying the 1894 act's income tax. In the case that followed, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. (1895), the Supreme Court struck down the income tax as unconstitutional. According to the Court, the income tax was a direct tax under Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and therefore must be levied "in proportion to the Census or Enumeration." Since the income tax would be collected at a uniform national rate on the basis of income rather than population, the Court found it to be an unapportioned direct tax."

Yes, thousands have gone to court over constitutionality of the income tax and lost, but does that prove it is correct and legal? No, it only proves the government is the most successful bully on the block. After all, they made gold illegal to own in 1933. Right or wrong, you can't fight city hall.

hippiebrian
13th December 2009, 07:20
O.K., yes, property taxes make up for the city/state portion of school funding, while the federal portion does come from income tax. The feds, believe it or not also give some of our income tax to the states for road and infrastructure building and maintenance, it's not just gas taxes and dmv charges. I hope you never do need the FBI, however anyone who has had a family member who has been taken across state lines is happy that most are honest in paying their taxes.

Courts supporting the Constitutionality of income tax doesn't make it right or wrong, however it does, by definition, allow it. Our government was set up with a judicial system to test the constitutionality of proposals, and according to our Constitution, basically have the last word. Constitutionality may have been read differently in the past and may be read differently in the future, however that does not change what they read today.

I think I speak for the rest of America when I say thanks for paying your fair share. And yes, I am being sarcastic.

UmassSteve
13th December 2009, 10:29
As a fairly interesting kind of off-topic point, here's a chart of the amount of tax dollars going to your state for every dollar your state gives:


District of Columbia $6.64
New Mexico 1.91
Alaska 1.80
West Virginia 1.75
Mississppi 1.70
Alabama 1.64
North Dakota 1.64
Virginia 1.60
Hawaii 1.54
Montana 1.51
Arkansas 1.43
Oklahoma 1.43
South Dakota 1.43
Kentucky 1.41
Louisiana 1.41
Maryland 1.41
Maine 1.36
South Carolina 1.35
Tennessee 1.29
Arizona 1.28
Missouri 1.27
Idaho 1.25
Utah 1.14
Kansas 1.11
Vermont 1.11
Iowa 1.10
North Carolina 1.10
Wyoming 1.09
Pennsylvania 1.07
Nebraska 1.06
Rhode Island 1.03
Ohio 1.02
Florida 1.01

Donor States
Georgia 0.99
Indiana 0.99
Texas 0.98
Oregon 0.97
Washington 0.91
Michigan 0.88
Wisconsin 0.85
Colorado 0.84
New York 0.84
California 0.83
Delaware 0.83
Massachusetts 0.82
Nevada 0.78
Illinois 0.77
Connecticut 0.73
Minnesota 0.73
New Hampshire 0.73
New Jersey 0.63

As a fun game for you and your kids, highlight each state by its general red-blue political spectrum. Then, understand why I can't help but laugh when red states such as Mississippi(1.70 back) either 1.) complain about how they don't need the federal government or 2.) complain about how terrible a state Massachusetts(88 cents back) is.

Data is for 2004 I do believe.

Burticus
13th December 2009, 12:38
It is no coincidence that the 16th and 17th Amendments were (arguably) ratified and the (not really) Federal (with no) Reserve Act all passed in 1913. This was the bankster cartel's three-pronged pitchfork that killed our framers' vision of individual liberty, constitutionally-limited government and free enterprise economics.

To wipe the elephant and jackass $#!+ off the tattered remnants of our constitution and tape it back together, the states must repeal the 16th and 17 amendments, adopt sovereignty/10th amendment resolutions, arm & train their state militias, institute alternative currencies of gold, silver & copper coin, and protect their citizens from armed federal mercenaries - whether robbing The People of direct unapportioned taxes, infringing on their God-given rights, or enforcing powers not delegated in Article 1, Section 8 (usurpation).

Only the states can bind the monster with the chains of the constitution. Otherwise, a political solution is not attainable in the time remaining and armed rebellion cannot be avoided when the central banking/warfare model collapses, sending the FeRN to the fiat currency graveyard then fiat Hell. Rather than protecting rights, government is now the continual threat of violence against our lives, liberty and property. Throughout history, tyrants have never relinquished power voluntarily. As Mao said, "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun."

Only men have rights, government only has powers, delegated by the consent of the governed. Non-enumerated powers are reserved to the states and The People, period, no exceptions. Read the Federalist Papers - they are heavy on state sovereignty, absolute prohibition of direct unapportioned taxes, strictly limited federal power, and force of arms as The People's ultimate defense against inevitable domestic tyranny.

According to sources not censored by your gubmint-media complex, TPTB and their minions know they are forcing a revolt and have plans for you domestic terrorists who (excluding a couple cyanide-laced Kool-Aid drinkers) will not surrender your silver & steel:
http://www.eutimes.net/2009/12/us-forces-plan-direct-action-against-american-citizens/
http://www.eutimes.net/2008/02/us-troops-trained-to-shoot-american-citizens-including-their-own-familly/

Disclosure: Long physical silver, gold, steel, lead, food and rope.

Katwoman
13th December 2009, 14:00
Where in the Constitution are income taxes mentioned? BTW, Income taxes also cover the FBI, USDA, interstate funds, federal education money, and will be covering that important audit of the Fed. Now if none of these are important to you, I suggest you don't ever call the FBI, send any children you have or your family has to school, don't use the roads (yes, federal money does boost state funds for roads, infrastructure and education), don't buy any food that's been tested for safety, don't get any of your kids immunized against anything (another federal income tax supported program), and quit pushing for an audit of the Fed, for starters, maybe I'll forgive you from paying income tax. However if you are using any of these, I suggest you pay your fair share.

As a side note, thousands have gone to court over the "unconstitutionality" of income taxes and lost. Be careful, the payment of back taxes has ruined many.

The fact of the matter is that people lose in court because they assume we are operating under common law which we are not which is why when the government says you owe them money there is no presumption of innocence. Under common law the government has the duty to prove you owe them whereas under admiralty law you have to prove you do not owe. The UCC explains how to sign a document under protest and preserve your constitutional rights under admiralty law but most people do not care because they would rather have the benefit of being able to walk away from their phony debt by charging it off than assume responsibility for themselves.

When you are playing with monopoly money it is all fun and games till someone loses the equivalent of eye at which point the gloves come off.

Everything has benefits and risks. Personally I would rather have my rights preserved and receive nothing at all from the federal government other than for it to support the Navy and Air Force which could easily be paid for with a relatively modest federal sales tax of say 1-2%. The notion that we cannot live without the federal government is perpetuated by the federal government and those who like the benefits off not having to grow up. After nearly 100 years of the IRS and FRS we can clearly see how much we have benefitted from both. Unfortunately the bill for that benefit is about to come due and we don have the money to pay it off which means the USA will have to charge of its debt.

As the saying goes it may be our dollar but its thew worlds problem.

Let's just hope that when we do this (and we will be doing it) it does not cause WWIII.

Longhaul
13th December 2009, 14:26
The fact of the matter is that people lose in court because they assume we are operating under common law which we are not which is why when the government says you owe them money there is no presumption of innocence. Under common law the government has the duty to prove you owe them whereas under admiralty law you have to prove you do not owe. The UCC explains how to sign a document under protest and preserve your constitutional rights under admiralty law but most people do not care because they would rather have the benefit of being able to walk away from their phony debt by charging it off than assume responsibility for themselves.

When you are playing with monopoly money it is all fun and games till someone loses the equivalent of eye at which point the gloves come off.

Everything has benefits and risks. Personally I would rather have my rights preserved and receive nothing at all from the federal government other than for it to support the Navy and Air Force which could easily be paid for with a relatively modest federal sales tax of say 1-2%. The notion that we cannot live without the federal government is perpetuated by the federal government and those who like the benefits off not having to grow up. After nearly 100 years of the IRS and FRS we can clearly see how much we have benefitted from both. Unfortunately the bill for that benefit is about to come due and we don have the money to pay it off which means the USA will have to charge of its debt.

As the saying goes it may be our dollar but its thew worlds problem.

Let's just hope that when we do this (and we will be doing it) it does not cause WWIII.

Just in case anyone out there does not understand why common law does not apply now, here's a good explanation of why admiralty law is in effect.....

......http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=01800169026428970811&gk=leasing Click on Stadtmiller just below downloads- low center right.

This is an interview with the authors of a new book entitled "They Own It All, Including You".

Don't laugh, it's very scarily true. You are owned, says so right on your birth certificate too........http://www.viewzone.com/collateral.html

Don't worry, you are in the matrix alright:rolleyes:

Yes, by golly, we're not in Kansas anymore:(

SilverLite
14th December 2009, 00:49
"40 percent of American households now not only don't pay any federal income tax, but actually get money back from the government every year. That makes it awfully hard to pass fiscally responsible policies. But what happens when that number gets to 50 percent? At that point, the only way you'd ever convince the country to lower taxes and cut government programs would be to convince the 50 percent of people who don't pay takes to stay home on Election Day. Or, since we're shredding the Constitution anyway, why not just restrict voting to those who pay income tax...?" :)

Katwoman
14th December 2009, 04:15
"40 percent of American households now not only don't pay any federal income tax, but actually get money back from the government every year. That makes it awfully hard to pass fiscally responsible policies. But what happens when that number gets to 50 percent? At that point, the only way you'd ever convince the country to lower taxes and cut government programs would be to convince the 50 percent of people who don't pay takes to stay home on Election Day. Or, since we're shredding the Constitution anyway, why not just restrict voting to those who pay income tax...?" :)

Actually when this country was founded only landowners could vote.......ever wonder why?

It is true that as we have become increasingly more liberal in our interpretation of voting rights we have too seen a decline in this country. While I certainly agree that all American citizens have a fundamental right to vote for a representative who will work to ensure their constitutional rights are not usurped on the contrary permitting people with no money to vote for officials who will effectively work to take money from a more successful person and give it to a less successful person is nothing short of madness.

I for one also do not think it would be unreasonable to expect people to pass a knowledge based test before being able to vote. While using religion, race or gender as a test of who should be allowed to vote is discriminatory expecting all people who vote to have a basic understanding of the constitution is to say the least prudent. To further expect them to know enough about the candidates so that they do not vote for them because of gender or race alone is also not without merit. The notion that people have a right to vote for who they want is true but since that vote can impact the lives of other Americans expecting that the electorate be well informed and demonstrate this before casting their ballot is certainly not unreasonable.

This nation was not founded on ignorance and yet today we celebrate it and protect it by allowing an uneducated electorate to vote.

Is it a surprise we are trillions of dollars in debt when we have people voting today who have no idea how our system of government works?

Argyria
14th December 2009, 04:37
on the contrary permitting people with no money to vote for officials who will effectively work to take money from a more successful person and give it to a less successful person is nothing short of madness.


Or, for a short demonstration, how do you think the vote will turn out with 9 poor people and 1 rich person voting on wealth redistribution?

podrag
14th December 2009, 05:40
One, your argument is nonsensical and not at all reflective of real world circumstances. Don't get me wrong, theres a lot of waste and too much kick back to friends. But maybe, MAYBE, 5% of government spending could be termed thuggish stealing. The rest goes into social programs. If you're trying to convince me that having public transit and public roads, my excellent seconday public education(I know I'm in the minority for that, but still), my very excellent public university education, my food, drug, and water safety protection, my police and fire protection, my military protection (despite its current misuse and abuse, don't get me wrong), my beloved national and state parks, and my father's union-protected, government-protected right to continue getting paid while he recovers from a horrendous car accident is equivalent to being robbed of all my money but getting a candy bar back in return, then you are blind.

OK. It sounds like you'd pay for all that voluntarily anyway. Good for you. Doesn't mean everyone else wants that too. The government don't have to provide essential services and by doing so they make them worse.

Terrorism by it's very defintion means scaring people or threatening people with the initiation of force in order to influence their behaviour. Tax is terrorism. It's theft. It's obvious.

Az2Africa
14th December 2009, 06:51
Or, for a short demonstration, how do you think the vote will turn out with 9 poor people and 1 rich person voting on wealth redistribution?

This is why it has been said that the life of a democracy is about 200 years. That is about how long it takes for the public to figure out that they can vote themselves gifts from the public treasury. Soon the treasury is broke and they blame the ones who produced the money in the first place(tax payers) for not providing enough. This is also what our founders warned about. It's call the Tyranny of the Majority.

podrag
14th December 2009, 07:41
This is why it has been said that the life of a democracy is about 200 years. That is about how long it takes for the public to figure out that they can vote themselves gifts from the public treasury. Soon the treasury is broke and they blame the ones who produced the money in the first place(tax payers) for not providing enough. This is also what our founders warned about. It's call the Tyranny of the Majority.

It's called government.

Az2Africa
14th December 2009, 08:18
It's called government.

True, but it's the free stuff that a party keeps offering to them that gets them voted into office.

Katwoman
14th December 2009, 09:12
True, but it's the free stuff that a party keeps offering to them that gets them voted into office.

True and they are able to do this because fiat money allows them to go over budget without raising taxes.

END THE FED and the IRS NOW!!!!

podrag
14th December 2009, 09:15
True and they are able to do this because fiat money allows them to go over budget without raising taxes.

END THE FED and the IRS NOW!!!!

I'd take that line of thought to its logical conclusion. Anarcho-capitalism now.

I still have a soft spot for American constitutionalists though... but still... a piece of paper isn't going to grow fangs and bite people who ignore it... the state is there to be subverted.

hekura
14th December 2009, 10:54
It's called government.

Long time, no viddi, Podrag. Its good to see you. How goes the info-war in Liverpool? (I'm thinking you are Liverpool or Chester? ...for some reason). I am hoping to make it to Belfast at Christmas. I am not opposed to a 25-35$/10-20Quid ticket to mainland UK. It might be fun to hook-up. Have a great holiday, if I don't see you.

j