I don't think judges refuse to do it, because they can't figure it out or that they think the IRS attorney can't do the research. The same citations that exist in this document, exist in their references. Judges simply refuse to rewrite these tedious argument and recite these cases themselves or require the IRS to do it over and over and over and over and over and over, and over and over and over again to make your lawyers happy. I'll quote from the IRS 'document' "The court opinions cited as relevant legal authority illustrate how these arguments are treated by the IRS and the courts. Note that courts often decline “to refute [frivolous] arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent” for a variety of reasons. Aldrich v Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-201, 106 T.C.M. (CCH) 192 (2013); Wnuck v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 498 (2011) (quoting Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). so in case you can't translate, it means they have better things to do that to remake the legal wheel for tax lawyers that file frivolous cases just to muck up and slow down the tax court docket or those fools that go into court without representation. They get to force you to do the same homework, you should have done before you came into court if you are all that curious,, because they are not going to waste court time doing these same dance steps.
Are the police and fire services theft just because you have never personally used those services? Yes or no?
We the People, in order to form a more perfect union and to provide for the general welfare formed a government OF the People and FOR the People. The government is us because We the People elect our representatives per the Constitution. That is the theory! The reality is that the government we have is a fully owned subsidiary of the Wall Street Casino Bosses. If you have a problem with that then it is time to eliminate all outside funding of election campaigns and make it illegal for politicians to become lobbyists. Yes, both parties are guilty of this so it needs to be a bipartisan effort to rid ourselves of the special interests. FTR Trump is a self admitted special interest who stated that he had bought politicians during the primaries. He is the problem, not the solution.
Excellent question. Historically taxes were not theft, because they were for infrastructure and defense. Also they used to be levied on trade. But individual income taxes in the 21st century are theft, because their purpose is not this any more but behavioral modification. Also they are not levied on trade any more by asset and work. So individual taxes are designed to make you poor, whilst making the writers of them rich. This is the major achievement of ww1-2.
You misunderstand. I was pointing out that a system of "public approval" already exists despite the implication of your OP that it doesn't. You can't discuss proposed improvements to a system if you misrepresent how it currently is.
No, it's a type of metaphor. Democratic governments determining tax policy are not guilty of any kind of crime. I'm not claiming anything of the sort. The only thing I was claiming is that the OP is wrong in his representation of reality.
If you want another Merriam-Webster definition, you can find it as easily as I can. Why don't you just make your point?
If you want the services government provides, how do you expect those services to be paid for? I suppose the federal government could just print the money and pay it to themselves, but that doesn't seem like a very good economic model. And what of state and local services?
I assume your definition of law is something like, "the rules established and enforced by the state." - - - Updated - - - What services do you think cannot be provided by the free market and must be provided by government?
That's about right. - - - Updated - - - National defense for one, but the list is long. My question to you is how the "free market" could provide the services we expect. I'm not interested in a link or a video. A paragraph of your own writing will do.
The IRS doesn't write the tax laws. Congress does. Congress represents the choice and interests of the majority of the people from every State. So, the rule of thumb would be that the laws, tax or otherwise, represents or serves the people and nation in general. If it doesn't represent you in one particular, it probably does represent you in another. Everything is a trade off with faith and hope in the balance. I guess that's what keeps things moving. As for perfection, I think that is the souls work between one and ones God. To expect perfection of the whole nation would be to negate the choice and season of the individual. So it is best to work, love, forgive, have faith, and take up a hobby to undo the grasp of frustration.
You elected the Congress to pass those rules and regulations best suited to the public and nation at large. Everyone does the best they can. Team America may have some sucky players. But that's our team. Game on.
You seem to entirely misunderstand good sir. Who cares what your "tastes" are? The society you currently reside in happens to be run by governments and you benefit from and live in their society that they run and manage and pay for hence you will pay your share. Nobody cares about your tastes, you seem to not grasp the entire principle of the thing. It isn't about you and your petty tastes. You reside in the societal commons, you benefit from those commons, and those commons are run and paid for by governments. Simple. As. That. Yet you don't seem to grasp that. You are thinking in the small terms of you. "You" are irrelevant. "You" reside in someone else's society that you were born into and until you can undo that reality which you currently cannot stomping around insisting you're being robbed while eating at the societal trough is frankly extreme ignorance sir.
Yes they do. Governments like the US govt. run their societal commons and pay for them. The streets, the submarines, the garbage, the schools and much of the private sector are subsidized by government. You benefit from all that. Hence you pay. Now granted you might be uneducated and not understand that but you still benefit from it even if you're unable to grasp it so you still pay.
No. Taxation is theft. Those are just things the stolen money is spent on. I'm right there with you on wanting to eliminate the corruption. There are three problems with it. 1) Most of the spoils legislators reap from their position don't come from campaign contributions, but from the treasury in the form of aid, subsidies, grants, and so on, from the code of regulations itself in the form of regulations favoring certain market players, and in the form of cushy jobs from the departments, agencies, NGOs and so on necessitated by the legislation. All of it goes to friends, family and associates, and comes back to the legislators themselves in myriad creative quid pro quos which are to obfuscated by then to prove that any of it was really the result of the legislation they helped pass. Like in the black market, criminalizing one activity only causes them to think of other creative ways to get what they want. 2) There's nothing of us can do about it. Any rules to govern their behavior would have to be written by congress. It would be the height of naivete to expect them to police themselves. We can't expect them to restrain the presidency either. They get a political advantage from the ability to punt to the executive branch. This is why executive power always grows from one administration to the next. All these lamentations of corruption and cries for reform have been going on for centuries(the life of the system). At the end of the day, the only thing we, the people, really do contribute to the entire process is legitimacy. (Therein lies our only recourse.) 3) Even if it were possible, a corruption free representative government with the power to tax would still be unjust.
ex·tor·tion the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats. Looks like a perfect description of taxation to me. It's a lot more apt than the hollow platitudes contrived to try and distinguish taxation from theft. The claim that taxation is not theft logically entails that there is a kind of forcible taking, whether the payer agrees to the arrangement or not, whether services are rendered or not, where the taker and "service provider" gets to decide unilaterally on the price and nature and quality of the service, which is not theft of any kind.
All of them can be had on a voluntary basis. There is so much evidence that can be presented to show that for each of them that going into any one of them here would ruin this thread. I'll make other threads for that at some point for anyone who wants to get into it.
