Featured A word from a free man Kent Hovind

poncho · Jul 30, 2015

IRS RECORDS SHOW 340,000 FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES OR FEDERAL
fRETIREES HAVE FAILED TO PAY
THEIR TAXES

(Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, the
Scripps Howard News Service reported
Sunday that IRS records show 340,000
Federal employees or Federal retirees
have failed to pay their income taxes.
340,000, including, get this, almost 3,000
IRS employees. This information came
from a report prepared by the government’s
own General Accounting Office.
Already we know from news reports
that almost half of the tax advice that
the IRS itself gives out is wrong. Now
we discover from this GAO report that
while the IRS comes after private citizens,
it cannot clean its own house. Almost
3,000 IRS employees not paying
their own taxes is scandalous. Federal
ethics laws require Federal employees
to pay their taxes as a condition of employment.
These 3,000 IRS employees
who have not paid their taxes should be
ordered to pay immediately, or they
should be fired.
But the best thing, Madam Speaker,
we could do would be to tear up or burn
the confusing, convoluted Tax Code we
now have, come up with a new, simple
system and do away with the IRS monster
as we know it today.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2001-06-19/pdf/CREC-2001-06-19-pt1-PgH3211-6.pdf#page=1

church mouse guy · Jul 30, 2015

He who takes what isn' hisn'
Must pay it back and go to pris'n.

Hovind confused God and Mammon and Caesar. (So did Greg Dixon, a once famous preacher who helped Lester Roloff.)

Sapper Woody · Jul 31, 2015

My opinion on this is somewhat vague and, I'll admit, possibly hypocritical. I am all for some taxes, and against others.

Income tax, I am for. From what I've read, and how I understand it, technically the government has no legal basis to tax our income. I believe that should be changed to be law, and I believe that the law should be well written and precise (as any law should be, but all too often this isn't the case). Part of this is simply because I am used to it, but I have no problem with the government taking my money to run itself, with a couple of caveats.

Firstly, it should be for the running of the government, and not for any private groups, not for any welfare, and not for anything other than the pure running of the government. The reported total income for the USA was reported at $13.4B in 2012, and looking at the rate of increase, it would be easy to assume roughly $15B in 2015 (personal income). A flat 5% would be a gain of $750M to the federal government. This would easily cover salaries, plus a lot.

Along the same lines, I believe that the salaries we pay out are outrageous. In an attempt to not derail the thread, I will leave it at that.

Then, we could also add a state tax of a flat 5%, bringing up the total income tax to 10%. That's a better rate than what it currently is for most middle class. (I always assume 20% of my check will be taken in taxes, and it ends up being pretty close.) This state tax could be used for beautification, and elected officials salaries. Any government worker who works in a place that produces money should not be paid off of taxes, imo. I realize that this would mean an increase in certain costs, such as licenses and licenses plates, but my thinking is that the increased cost would nowhere come near the break from taxes. These state funds could also be used for state welfare programs.

Now, for retirement, I believe that it should be solely up to the person to secure their own retirement. But, with the current social security in place, I think social security should be privatized. I don't think it's unreasonable to withhold another 5% for the new "social security", with businesses matching. So, a man making $50k/yr would be dropping a total of $5k/yr into a retirement account, with interest being accrued. If he starts working out of college at the age of 25, and retires at the age of 60, that's 35 years in the working force, not counting jobs as a teenager and in college. That equals just under half a million at 5% growth per year. Assuming he also made decent decisions, he would hopefully own a house by the time he retired, and could live off that for many years. I think that social security should also be optional, but once you opt out you can never opt in again.

So, now we're up to a 15% tax rate. Still better than the 20+% many of us have right now.

Then I think we should get rid of many of the tax credits that we currently have. Child tax credit, for example. (And here's what's possibly hypocritical.) I have three children. So, each year, just because I have kids, I get in between $3k and $4.5k handed to me. Just because I have kids. This needs to be done away with. I should not file my taxes as a form of welfare.

Then, we have sales tax. I'm ok with this one, too. Again, maybe it's because of preconditioning. The proceeds from this could go to a number of different things.

Property tax is one I am opposed to. I own my house. Yet each year the government wants me to pay for it again. Granted, it's a small amount. But I am doing my community a favor by being here, pumping money into the local economy. They shouldn't have the right to take more money from me, simply because I own property here. I've already paid for it.

I pay my property tax, but I am against it.

Jesus words, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" was obviously in the context of money. it was the time he pulled a coin from the mouth of the fish. In my mind, He was acknowledging the right of the government to tax. In this context, I feel that the "giving Caesar your wife" comment was a little over the top. I understand the hyperbole behind it, but I disagree that it is an accurate portrayal of what is going on.

Now, my post did not address many, many things. Defense spending, for example. Or the fact that the federal government has $1.11T allotted for discretionary spending https://www.nationalpriorities.org/...CSIN9hQP-2q92_qg2oJYlkFd6XJfz731BMRoCqO_w_wcB when we obviously cannot afford it.

My post was not meant to be a comprehensive list of all taxes and all budgetary concerns. But I by no means am opposed to income tax. I do think it needs to be written into law, and governed much better, however.

TCassidy · Jul 31, 2015

poncho said: ↑

Everyone on this board might being committing three felonies a day without even knowing it. So who are we to to judge anyone that has been charged or even found guilty of a felony?
Click to expand...

The "three felonies a day" page is garbage.

Let's break it down:

• Violation of Foreign Law (The Lacey Act)
Hypothetical: You are a small business proprietor who supplies restaurants with fish and produce.

Uh, nope. Retired. NEXT!

• Federal Wilderness Act
Hypothetical: You are an avid outdoorsman, and you’ve decided that your next thrill-ride is a snowmobiling trip in Colorado.

Uh, nope. Disabled. NEXT!

• Honest Services Fraud
Hypothetical: You are a salaried employee at an insurance company.

Uh, nope. Retired. NEXT!

• Espionage Act
Hypothetical: You are an investigate journalist working in Washington, D.C.

Uh, nope. Retired pastor and seminary professor. NEXT!

• Obstruction of Justice
Hypothetical: You are the parent of a teenage son.

Uh, nope. Our "baby" is 41. NEXT!

• Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Hypothetical: You are a software engineer working for a company that provides e-mail services to customers.

Uh, nope. Retired Baptist Pastor and Seminary Professor.

• Wire Fraud
Hypothetical: You decide, as a prank, to create a fake username on the popular social-networking site, Facebook.

Uh, nope. Not a prankster. Nor a liar. Even my "screen name" in here is my real name.

• Providing Material Support for Terrorists
Hypothetical: You are a website-designer, and you’ve been commissioned to develop the web presence of a charity.

Uh, nope. Retired pastor and seminary professor.

• False Statements to a Federal Official
Hypothetical: You and your family are spending the day in a national park.

Uh, nope. Disabled. Just me and my wife and she is disabled too.

The whole page is a bunch of nonsense trying to excuse felonious behavior.

poncho · Jul 31, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ

poncho · Jul 31, 2015

Sapper Woody said: ↑

My opinion on this is somewhat vague and, I'll admit, possibly hypocritical. I am all for some taxes, and against others.

Income tax, I am for. From what I've read, and how I understand it, technically the government has no legal basis to tax our income. I believe that should be changed to be law, and I believe that the law should be well written and precise (as any law should be, but all too often this isn't the case). Part of this is simply because I am used to it, but I have no problem with the government taking my money to run itself, with a couple of caveats.

Firstly, it should be for the running of the government, and not for any private groups, not for any welfare, and not for anything other than the pure running of the government. The reported total income for the USA was reported at $13.4B in 2012, and looking at the rate of increase, it would be easy to assume roughly $15B in 2015 (personal income). A flat 5% would be a gain of $750M to the federal government. This would easily cover salaries, plus a lot.

Along the same lines, I believe that the salaries we pay out are outrageous. In an attempt to not derail the thread, I will leave it at that.

Then, we could also add a state tax of a flat 5%, bringing up the total income tax to 10%. That's a better rate than what it currently is for most middle class. (I always assume 20% of my check will be taken in taxes, and it ends up being pretty close.) This state tax could be used for beautification, and elected officials salaries. Any government worker who works in a place that produces money should not be paid off of taxes, imo. I realize that this would mean an increase in certain costs, such as licenses and licenses plates, but my thinking is that the increased cost would nowhere come near the break from taxes. These state funds could also be used for state welfare programs.

Now, for retirement, I believe that it should be solely up to the person to secure their own retirement. But, with the current social security in place, I think social security should be privatized. I don't think it's unreasonable to withhold another 5% for the new "social security", with businesses matching. So, a man making $50k/yr would be dropping a total of $5k/yr into a retirement account, with interest being accrued. If he starts working out of college at the age of 25, and retires at the age of 60, that's 35 years in the working force, not counting jobs as a teenager and in college. That equals just under half a million at 5% growth per year. Assuming he also made decent decisions, he would hopefully own a house by the time he retired, and could live off that for many years. I think that social security should also be optional, but once you opt out you can never opt in again.

So, now we're up to a 15% tax rate. Still better than the 20+% many of us have right now.

Then I think we should get rid of many of the tax credits that we currently have. Child tax credit, for example. (And here's what's possibly hypocritical.) I have three children. So, each year, just because I have kids, I get in between $3k and $4.5k handed to me. Just because I have kids. This needs to be done away with. I should not file my taxes as a form of welfare.

Then, we have sales tax. I'm ok with this one, too. Again, maybe it's because of preconditioning. The proceeds from this could go to a number of different things.

Property tax is one I am opposed to. I own my house. Yet each year the government wants me to pay for it again. Granted, it's a small amount. But I am doing my community a favor by being here, pumping money into the local economy. They shouldn't have the right to take more money from me, simply because I own property here. I've already paid for it.

I pay my property tax, but I am against it.

Jesus words, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" was obviously in the context of money. it was the time he pulled a coin from the mouth of the fish. In my mind, He was acknowledging the right of the government to tax. In this context, I feel that the "giving Caesar your wife" comment was a little over the top. I understand the hyperbole behind it, but I disagree that it is an accurate portrayal of what is going on.

Now, my post did not address many, many things. Defense spending, for example. Or the fact that the federal government has $1.11T allotted for discretionary spending https://www.nationalpriorities.org/...CSIN9hQP-2q92_qg2oJYlkFd6XJfz731BMRoCqO_w_wcB when we obviously cannot afford it.

My post was not meant to be a comprehensive list of all taxes and all budgetary concerns. But I by no means am opposed to income tax. I do think it needs to be written into law, and governed much better, however.
Click to expand...

You know what I find interesting about "the wife thing", no how could you I haven't told you yet so I will tell you now.

No no one caught the obvious difference between the two systems of government. In Rome during the rein of Caesar, Caesar's word was law.

In effect the "highest authority" was Caesar. He was the law incarnate.

This isn't so of the United States. In the United States the "highest authority" is the law and that law is the constitution. The constitution is the law that governs government. It allows the government certain powers and denies it others.

Caesar had no such law governing him. He was the law. So what ever he claimed was his was his.

Not so in the United States.

I've heard I don't know how many preachers use the "give unto Caesar" verse to justify paying a tax on income. I have only heard a couple preachers that have put it in proper context.

We live under a vastly different system of government than those living under Caesar. But that's never taken into consideration by the preachers who say "give unto Caesar" to justify paying a tax on income.

So when I asked if Go2Church would give Caesar his wife if Caesar claimed her as his he should have said Caesar (or the US government as in this case) has to produce the law that gives it the authority to claim his wife belongs to it.

In other words it's apples and oranges and the preachers and Christians who say "give unto Caesar" to justify the paying of an income tax are trying to turn an apple into an orange.

Under our system of government the law is the law. Under Caesar, Caesar was the law. Apples and oranges.

If preachers and Christians want to justify a tax on income they must produce the law that is within the the government's authority bestowed upon it by the constitution instead of misapplying scripture to justify it.

Where is this law? And is it constitutional?

The 16th amendment. Doesn't matter if was ratified correctly or not. What matters is the supreme court of the United States has ruled at least twice that the 16th amendment did not give congress any new powers of taxation.

These ruling have never been overturned.

So, if it was unlawful for government to place a direct un-apportioned tax on income before the 16th amendment it is still unlawful for the government to place a direct un-apportioned tax on income today.

Caesar has nothing to do with it. We do not live under a Caesar. An apple is not an orange. And anyone who tries to tell you they are one and the same is either ignorant of the differences between the two systems of government or just plain old dishonest.

IRS Secret Gestapo Tactics Revealed

Friday July 10th in Austin, Texas I joined Attorney Robert Bernhoft of the Bernhoft Law Firm on the Infowars Nightly News hosted by Lee Ann McAdoo where we focused on the use of newly discovered “Secret Police” styled tactics used by federal agents against the law-abiding American public as well as one particular American who is fighting back with a lawsuit to put a stop to such illegal and unconstitutional conduct.

Read and download the actual section of the IRS Internal Revenue Manual (the official IRS internal policy manual that instructs IRS agents how to do their jobs) that describes how IRS agents are to utilize the "parallel construction" tactic.

You will be truly shocked at this new low in government disdain for your privacy and your rights, especially your right to due process of law and the right to confront your accuser, not to mention the enormous damage done to the bedrock principle of telling the truth under oath.

http://www.agentfortruth.com/latest-news

Government Secret Police Program Exposed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuZj6liSe6Q

According to Go2Church, Kent Hovind was convicted in a "court of law". Is there even such a thing as a "court of law" in the United States today?

An Objective, Authoritative Analysis of the IRS’s Official, Anonymous List and Rebuttal of “Frivolous” Tax Issues

http://www.truth-attack.com/jml/images/stories/PDF/thetruthaboutthetruthabout.pdf

church mouse guy · Aug 1, 2015

Caesar simply means the government. The example was specific to the time of the question. Dixon and Hovind paid to much attention to Mammon, an unjust god, and they wanted the filthy lucre of the government. The love of money is the root of all evil. Preachers, even Fundamentalists, still must obey the law.

Having said that, I think that we know from the Dixon case that Hovind will never obey the law.

poncho · Aug 1, 2015

church mouse guy said: ↑

Caesar simply means the government. The example was specific to the time of the question.
Click to expand...

That's what I said. In Caesar's day Caesar was the law. In our day the constitution is the law. In Caesar's day there was no law governing him. He was the law. Today we have a law (constitution) that governs the government.

Big difference, so why do today's preachers act as if there is no difference?

Dixon and Hovind paid to much attention to Mammon, an unjust god, and they wanted the filthy lucre of the government. The love of money is the root of all evil. Preachers, even Fundamentalists, still must obey the law.
Click to expand...

Mumble, grumble and accuse . . .

Having said that, I think that we know from the Dixon case that Hovind will never obey the law.
Click to expand...

Produce this law. Post it here so we can all see it.

go2church · Aug 1, 2015

As my final word on this thread I'll post these links

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/tax-protesters-never-win.html

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

poncho · Aug 2, 2015

go2church said: ↑

As my final word on this thread I'll post these links

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/tax-protesters-never-win.html

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf
Click to expand...

Apparently you missed this in post #46

http://www.truth-attack.com/jml/images/stories/PDF/thetruthaboutthetruthabout.pdf

Your "final word" was debunked before you posted it.

To begin with there are some arguments the IRS regularly labels as “frivolous” that are not
included in its official list of “frivolous” arguments. First and foremost among the Tax Honesty
Movement’s objections is its contention that there is no statute in the Internal Revenue Code
clearly and plainly imposing liability for the income tax on the typical working American.
That objection is not among the IRS’s official list of “frivolous” arguments. The IRS does
describe that issue in its including among the listed issues the argument that payment of income
taxes is voluntary, but it fails to rebut it other than to contend that Section 1 imposes the tax and
that Section 6151 tells those liable when and where to pay a tax for which they are liable. Thus,
the IRS, by neither including the absence of a liability statute on the list nor producing such a
statute.

The question is . . .

Can anyone find a statute clearly and plainly imposing liability for the income tax on the typical working American? Has anyone ever found this statute?

Many have tried but to my knowledge no one has ever found it including "tax professionals" that spent years looking for it.

See . . . America : Freedom to Fascism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6ayb02bwp0

Just because the majority believes something is true is not proof that it is true. http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=101109

Featured A word from a free man Kent Hovind

poncho Well-Known Member

church mouse guy Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Sapper Woody Well-Known Member

TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator

poncho Well-Known Member

poncho Well-Known Member

church mouse guy Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

poncho Well-Known Member

go2church Active Member
Site Supporter

poncho Well-Known Member

Useful Searches

Featured A word from a free man Kent Hovind

poncho Well-Known Member

church mouse guy Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Sapper Woody Well-Known Member

TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus Administrator

poncho Well-Known Member

poncho Well-Known Member

church mouse guy Well-Known Member Site Supporter

poncho Well-Known Member

go2church Active Member Site Supporter

poncho Well-Known Member

church mouse guy Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator

church mouse guy Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

go2church Active Member
Site Supporter