Hudson |
Here іѕ аח example οf tһе coercive nature οf government wһеח someone chooses חοt tο pay tһеіr taxes. Iח tһіѕ case, $5678 dollars іח property taxes. I οחƖу wish I һаԁ tһаt amount οf property taxes ѕіחсе 2001!
Wis. Man іח Standoff Over Unpaid Taxes
No related posts.
This section is widgetized. If you would like to add content to this section, you may do so by using the Widgets panel from within your WordPress Admin Dashboard. This Widget Section is called "Feature Bottom Left"
This section is widgetized. If you would like to add content to this section, you may do so by using the Widgets panel from within your WordPress Admin Dashboard. This Widget Section is called "Feature Bottom Middle"
This section is widgetized. If you would like to add content to this section, you may do so by using the Widgets panel from within your WordPress Admin Dashboard. This Widget Section is called "Feature Bottom Right"
I am not sure the point of this. “Coercive”? “Choose not to pay”? It makes it sound like efforts to collect for ‘insurance by the Mafia’
The ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people’ can only exist if patriot citizens participate — anarchy does not make a strong nation.
The man’s taxes were 7 years overdue. He was shooting at them. I don’t know of any situation where you can be left alone for seven years after non-payment of debt, shoot at police officers, and expect to get away with it.
While true this may be an extreme, indeed the tax man will come and take away your property to pay for lush executive pay for government bureaucrats, tenure for dozens of professors in your universities gay and trans-gendered studies department, libraries you don’t need, and look out, soon to be coming, carbon credit offsets. The founders and citizens of this country revolted because of a 1/4 of 1 percent tax on tea. This is just one of few first signs of the coming revolution.
Nowhere did I advocate this gentlemen get away with this either. But it does illustrate the need for our 2nd Amendment rights. This time it may have been taxes that caused the government to come. Next week it could be the content of your speech, the cartoons you look at, the religious beliefs you hold, or any number of dreamed up infractions that don’t agree with the collective state.
To extrapolate non-payment of taxes to religious beliefs, content of speech, or cartoons is not a logical forecast. Everyone knows a government can’t operate for free. Everyone knows that there is waste. Everyone knows that you can never get 100% agreement (probably rarely get 51% agreement on how money should be spent). This is why we need the free press, and other participants of the citizenry to keep working to expose fraud, waste, and corruption. It is interesting that we can get a leader out of office in a day or two for a morally corrupt roll-in-the-hay, but we can’t seem to get them out for Bridges to Nowhere.
The ‘tea party’ was a message to a foreign government to stay out of our shorts — that we wanted to govern ourselves. Now we govern ourselves, and unless some segment wishes to secede, everyone needs to participate.
Note that the tax man and the police have no influence over lush executive pay — they are just guys doing a job to put food on the table (and not paid any better than the average auto worker) Shooting at them isn’t going to help.
Root-Cause work needs to be performed, and worked within the framework to correct the parts of government gone wrong. It’s hard, but it’s the way it must work when there are nearly 300 million folks involved. Keep in mind that the government is “us” … there really is no “them”.
The government may be YOU, it is not me. It sounds as if you derive some of your income from the government. I have been witness to government action in a very coercive manner because of the content of someones speech. No need to be a government apologist. To tell you the truth, I smell a rat.
Sorry to disappoint — better re-check your sniffer. I derive no income from the government. Just good-old fashioned entrepreneurial capitalism in it’s purest form.
If government is not “you”, then are you discrediting Abe Lincoln’s words? Are you abdicating responsibility for making this county work?
Standing outside and poking jabs is not what this nation’s founders intended.
If any government agent is acting in a coercive manner due to someone’s non-defamatory, non-libelous, non-slanderous speech, then they should be exposed and called to be accountable.
You can’t just opt out because you don’t like what’s going on.
So you advocate for eliminating federal taxes that were not enumerated in the constitution? Or do you believe that because it’s already done, it’s legal, so what the argument?
Your either for or agianst them based on the constitution.
WTF are you doing by poking jabs?
Hmmm … not sure where my advocation (or lack thereof) for eliminating federal taxes came in. (?)
Proper taxation is necessary for a functional government.
Improper spending and corruption are the causes of dysfunctional government.
(I don’t claim to be a constitutional scholar, but property taxes are not federal)
On the other hand, arguing over exactly how the taxes are apportioned and collected seems to miss the overall point.
If the government spends ‘x’, it needs to collect ‘x’. (although this elementary concept seems to elude most of our current politicians)
You can’t cut / reduce / eliminate taxes until you cut spending *below* the current taxation level.
After the budget is balanced, and rational spending levels are achieved — only then can it be productive to review the nitty gritty of apportionment and collection of taxes. Yes … there are those who claim federal income taxes are unconstitutional. By claiming that, they ignore the 16th ammendment [usually suggesting it is invalid on technicalities], but the constitutional procedure for ammending the constitution is so demanding that it is quite clear that the intention of 3/4 of the states could not seriously have been misled by the misplacement of a few commas, semi-colons, or definitions.
Either way, if it gets spent, it needs to get collected. If, by changing the tax system, one person or entity is lucky enough to pay less tax, that means another must pay more [keeping the 'spending' side of the equation constant]
Sure, there are those who advocate that waving a wand and cutting or rebalancing taxes in various ways will stimulate the economy and somehow magically produce more taxes, but that approach has been tinkered with in various ways for several decades with no conclusive or sustained results.
It’s time to get back to basics and rediscover that taxes must equal spending.
Cutting spending is the the way to cut taxes.
So give me a prioritized list of ten or so items where you would start to cut…
JS is quite right about the spending. Limited government does not occur simply by lowering taxes since governments are allowed to tax the future by borrowing.
Since resources are scarce, every dollar of government spending, whether funded by taxes or borrowing, is one less dollar for individual choice.
The only question that counts deals with the proper role of government. Returning back to the biofuel post, it appears the function of government has degraded to that of a bag man. In one form or another, most government intervention revolves around subsidizing one individual at the expense of another.
Chris, the list of cuts is endless for me, but among the top two would be to eliminate subsidies of every kind. No one has the right to tax another individual for their own benefit.
Hmmm… Jspurr said, “If government is not “you”, then are you discrediting Abe Lincoln’s words? Are you abdicating responsibility for making this county work?”
Frankly, I would say yes. Absolutely!
Lincoln was no dear friend of the 10th Amendment and certainly not the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln essentially committed to death 650,000 men in order to render the 10th Amendment moot. The Civil War (or, more appropriately stated, The War for Southern Independence) was a civil war to save the union, think about that one… to save the federation.
He is no hero of mine, and I utterly hold him in a rather contemptuous mold.
As for this premise of yours, JS, that there is some fundamental responsibility for me or you or Chris to be an abject zombie who places himself in the unwinnable position of both victim and parasite, so as to help “society,” you are incredibly naive in your assumptions.
Check your premise, it is flawed. It is profoundly the fact that the government, any government, must be logically subordinate to the individual. Otherwise you have ever increasing degrees of tyranny. But your comment implies just the opposite.
The only moral obligation I have, or that any man has who is of moral stature, to others is precisely as stated by Ayn Rand. On this matter, she absolutely got it right and is worth quoting here. And that is the same “obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and theirs demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs. When they don’t, I enter no relationship; I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine. I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs.”
Sacrificing under the premise of “making this country work” is nothing more than the calling card of the looting class.
Perhaps you did not mean for your words to be interpreted so literally, then again you may actually be of the mind that we do have some moral obligation to this non-entity called society. That there is some embedded premise that we ought to “give back.” Utter nonsense! But if you do believe that, then consider the end result many generations down the road that this philosophy leads. It is a dark-ages path and has no other conclusion than tyranny over the mind of men. We are allowing generations of people to be born into a mindset of sacrifice as a principal value and pride as a vice – an utter convolution of reality.
On the other hand, perhaps you meant something completely different and we can all go about our merry way.
When the premise is the good of society, we all lose essential liberty. I do not do things because other people external to the immediate transaction might benefit, I do things and trade with people directly at an arms length giving value for value because that is the morally proper way to deal with all men. Anything which results external cannot be your guiding premise, for if it is you then are living principally for other men – your life will not be yours.
Such is the conundrum we have found ourselves, in total, in America today – the creed of self-sacrifice is ruining this once freedom-loving country that held out great hope for all of mankind.