|
BrokenGameboy posted:The last few pages of libsoc talk made me happy. It's good to know that not every leftist on this comedy site are Marxists-leninist adjacent. I'm personally still feeling out where I fall on the socialist spectrum. Yet every time I genuinely look into things with an open mind, I somehow end up falling more sympathetic to the anarchist/larger libertarian socialism side of things. Although, I do have my criticisms of some anarchist theory, but that's mostly directed to those who are against any idea of force whatsoever regardless of context, and that consensus democracy has its limits. There's a fair few in CSPAM, we just tend to not be quite so bellicose as the MLs.
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 23:47 |
|
|
This one is considered by the author of the site to be so good it's a "paper" not a "column": Ideological Conflicts in the War Between the States by Jacob Halbrooks In the War Between the States, soldiers on both sides fought for ideas such as liberty and self-government. Though both sides used these words as reasons they were fighting for their respective countries, the meanings employed were vastly different. As the war went on, the question of slavery also became inextricably involved. Although at the outset Union soldiers did not fight to abolish slavery, the end of the south's peculiar institution became a primary war aim. In the bloodiest war in United States history, soldiers fought as a result of contradictory convictions concerning the meaning of liberty, democracy, and slavery. One Confederate soldier characterized the war as "a struggle between Liberty on one side, and Tyranny on the other" (McPherson, 11). The south viewed the north as attempting to abolish their way of life, first through the federal government with the election of Abraham Lincoln, and secondly through the Union's invasion into the south. The liberty that the southerners spoke of was the liberty for the sovereign states to maintain their own institutions, the liberty of being represented in the federal government, and also the dubious liberty of holding an "inferior" race in bondage. The south perceived the north as threatening these sacred liberties, and the call for self-government ran deep and resulted in secession and war. If the federal government could not represent the interests of the south, the south would have to take it upon themselves. The origins of the Confederacy's convictions was the south's emphasis on states' rights, their interpretation of the United States Constitution, and in some sense the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. The south's devotion to the rights of the states to secede was a corollary of their interpretation of the federal constitution as a compact between the states. The states agreed to convey certain powers to the federal government, and as such, that agreement would become null when the federal government no longer respected that agreement. South Carolina elaborated on this position in its Declaration of the Causes of Secession. "We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other" (Stampp,ed., 61). The Constitution did not prohibit slavery, so when that institution was threatened by the government, the south no longer recognized the agreement. States' rights as a theory grew more popular in the south as the nineteenth century wore on. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolves asserted the states' rights to interpret the Constitution over the Supreme Court, and this assertion was tested with the South Carolina nullification crisis of 1832. Because the south imported manufactured goods from Europe, northern interests imposed a hefty tariff on imported goods, resulting in South Carolina nullifying the tariff and threatening secession. Andrew Jackson resolved the situation but declared that states did not have the right to nullify laws. Though the other southern states did not back up South Carolina in its threat of secession, states' rights nevertheless grew more popular. "Many who rejected nullification did assert a state's right to secede should it choose to do so. But few white Southerners believed the menace emanating from Washington as yet merited such drastic action" (Levine, 163). It would not be until the southern way of life was threatened by northerners that those drastic measures would be taken. Most southerners did not appreciate the Declaration of independence because of its language of equal rights to all men. However, involved in it is also language of self-government. "To secure these rights (of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government." Clearly to southerners, the government had become destructive to protecting their rights, so they instituted a new government. A good case can be made for this, as issues were falling across regional lines rather than party lines. Since the north had a popular majority, it could essentially rule over the south without political repercussion. The north, in turn, had spent most of the century appeasing the south in elections, as only men who were not opposed to slavery would be elected for major offices. However, the election of a Republican with a anti-slavery agenda motivated the south to invoke the necessity for self-government, as their interests were at stake. Though the south fought with intense convictions regarding liberty and self-government, the north fought with just as much belief. Northerners viewed the Union as an experiment for democracy world-wide, and their fight was a fight for republican government in general. If the Union divided into two separate republics, they thought the idea of self-government would be a failure. To support their convictions, northerners employed their own interpretation of the Constitution and idea of a true republic. Rather than emphasizing the Constitution as a compact between states, the north saw it as a formation of a sovereign nation by the people of the various states. In order to support this assertion, northerners could point to the opening of the Constitution, which stated "We the People" rather than "We the States" and the fact that special conventions were held to ratify the document as the groundwork of a federal government. Although the southern states held special conventions to secede from the union, northerners did not accept the rights of the states to abolish the union. Whereas the south viewed the United States more as a league among separate states, the north viewed the country as one nation indivisible with the Constitution as the means for a fair republican government. The Unionist Theory that the union held precedent over the states originated with the Federalists, specifically men like Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall. The Federalist vision was of a strong nation, and they pushed the proposed federal constitution through the states beginning in 1787 as a means for this end. Though the Federalist Party dissipated in the early nineteenth century, their idea that the union was most important carried on, primarily in the north. In the South Carolina nullification crisis, the north was adamantly opposed to conceding anything to the state, while the south passively supported the state. The Unionist soldier fought not only for the reparation of the nation, but for the cause of liberty and self-government as he saw it worldwide. One soldier wrote in a letter that he fought "for the great principles of liberty and self government at stake, for should we fail, the onward march of Liberty in the Old World will be retarded at least a century, and Monarchs, Kings and Aristocrats will be more powerful against their subjects than ever" (McPherson, 31). As they saw it, if a state could secede at will, then the nation could not sustain itself and anarchy would ensue. The south's battle was legitimately lost at the ballot box, and ensuring republican government depended on the north suppressing the south's fight for independence. When speaking of the southern view of slavery, one must remember that slaves were not considered men: they were property. If one replaced the word "negro" with the title "cotton-picking apparatus," then the notion that slavery should be abolished or at least confined would seem preposterous. The Constitution provides for property rights, and therefore people who own "cotton-picking apparatuses" should be able to take them anywhere, settle with them anywhere, and in general be guaranteed of their right to possess the tool. This is the most logical way to look at the southern point of view, though obviously flawed. However, this view was the result of the south's dependence on slavery economically, and the idea that slavery was a benefit to everyone and a morally superior system propagated earlier in the century. John C. Calhoun most notably articulated this theory, and any discussion that slavery was evil was unheard of in the south. The north, meanwhile, was not intent on destroying the slave system at first, but wished to stop its spread. The Union did not initially fight to abolish slavery, but its result was inevitable if the Union were to win and sustain its victory. "By the summer of 1862, antislavery principle and pragmatism fused into a growing commitment to emancipation as both a means and an end of Union victory" ( McPherson, 59). In the south, slavery meant property, while in the north it was regarded more as a conspiring power intent on exploiting the fruits of other people's labor. In a war that often pitted brother against brother, there had to be definite conflicting ideologies to motivate the men who fought. The War Between the States was not a civil war in that the two sides were not vying for control of one government; it was a fight concerning southern independence. Southerners viewed the formation of their own republic as the best protection of their rights and liberty, while northerners believed that if the Confederacy sustained it would be a great failure in self-government and liberty. Likewise, men willingly gave up their lives for the great causes that their respective countries called upon them to execute. Levine, Bruce. Half Slave and Half Free: The Roots of Civil War. Hill and Wang. New York, 1992. McPherson, James M. What They Fought For 1861-1865 Doubleday. New York, 1995. Stampp, Kenneth M., editor. The Causes of the Civil War. Simon & Schuster, Inc. New York, 1991.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
hi, trancom here who's also glad at the fact this forum isn't just filled with libs and tankies.  BrokenGameboy posted:Although, I do have my criticisms of some anarchist theory, but that's mostly directed to those who are against any idea of force whatsoever regardless of context, and that consensus democracy has its limits. I mean I fully agree with you on both points, but tbh I've noticed that Marxist approaches to sociology have a lot in common with social anarchist theories, so you have to accept force as not just inevitable but entirely necessary to achieve change tbh with the first point I think it's pretty much just ancaps that genuinely take the NAP and poo poo that prohibits force seriously
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2019 00:17
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Ideological Conflicts in the War Between the States That's some middle school rear end writing there hoss Venomous posted:hi, trancom here who's also glad at the fact this forum isn't just filled with libs and tankies. Oh, they don't take it seriously either. They play extremely fast and loose with what counts as aggression, and strangely their reasoning always seems to land them on the side of entrenched economic and social power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:That's some middle school rear end writing there hoss Oh, they are very, very serious in their belief that anything that inconveniences them in the slightest is a violation of the NAP but anything that harms others is a natural extension of the free market.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
Venomous posted:hi, trancom here who's also glad at the fact this forum isn't just filled with libs and tankies. Well what I mean by force is this. Assume there's a fully realized anarco-communist federation, and one commune becomes bigoted against some minority group. The way I understand anarchist theory, it's supposedly up to each commune themselves to disassociate with the bad one, and that there should be no direct top down correction against them. I find this a little lacking, since it goes against ideas like the paradox of tolerance. Some things should probably just not be allowed accross the board. Ideally I'd think the federation should have some sort of constitution like system to ensure all members guarantee a certain set of rights. And that all communes who wish to be a part of the federation must advise by it. I'm guessing I just reinvented bookchins communalism though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
I'm not sure if I'm a tankie or not. Like what if I don't like Stalin, but I think straight-across comparisons between Hitler and Stalin or Mao are facile? And like what if the more I learn, the more I find there's an insane double standard between liberal capitalism and the Communist sphere and I instinctually push back on it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2019 03:04
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I'm not sure if I'm a tankie or not. Like what if I don't like Stalin, but I think straight-across comparisons between Hitler and Stalin or Mao are facile? And like what if the more I learn, the more I find there's an insane double standard between liberal capitalism and the Communist sphere and I instinctually push back on it? I agree with a lot of your doubts. I don't have any answers, but I will say that I've become very sensitive to what I can only call "labelling", especially in the last year or two. I don't want to be called a communist or a socialist, though I will accept anti-capitalist or post-capitalist, and I certainly don't want to be thought of as a fan of Stalin nor Mao (though Tito did some good things). While I would describe myself as is a utilitarian or egalitarian, everything these days is about putting people into neat little classifications so that people don't have to deal with scary complexity or grey morality and I'm sick of it. Can't I just be a chap who believes certain things and wants to see humanity overcome its darkest tendencies and make a better world?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2019 03:16
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I'm not sure if I'm a tankie or not. Like what if I don't like Stalin, but I think straight-across comparisons between Hitler and Stalin or Mao are facile? And like what if the more I learn, the more I find there's an insane double standard between liberal capitalism and the Communist sphere and I instinctually push back on it? If you were a tankie you’d be unironically singing the praises of North Korea and be on China’s side in this Hong Kong protest situation. I don’t know specifically what tankies believe because I’ve never successfully gotten one to explain themselves but they seem to have the most insane beliefs. Online, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2019 03:18
|
|
|
None of that really make you a tankie, so you're fine there. Historically tankie just means a leftist who stans for authoritarian communist states. And not just defending them from misrepresentation or inaccuracies, but jumping through hoops to justify any and all actions they performed. "The bad thing didn't happen, but if it did happen it was good and gently caress you got saying it's bad!" that kind of thing. What makes this confusing now is that somehow liberals found the term and use it to just mean anyone to the left of them. I've seen anarchists called tankies even though their ideologically opposed to anything that could legitimately be called a tankie. Maybe this just makes the term dead, and we should find somthing else. I will say it was funny seeing some people in the cspam landlords thread calling themselves tankies when any real tankie would call them liberal trash for backing sanders.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2019 03:26
|
|
|
Tankies are people who follow Thomas the Tank Engine religiously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
Lefttube thread: It's a Tankless job
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
If you cheer for and defend ANY non-US aligned dictator regardless of their politics you're a tankie. A tankie will side with an outright anti-communist fascist so long as said fascist is generally considered to be aligned against the US/West. I've seen Tankies go to bat for Sadam. Tankies don't actually have any sort of leftist or marxist ideology, their ideology is purely based on a worship of any "strong man" they can see as being opposed to the western capitalist bloc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
I'm still not sure exactly what a tankie is but I've learned for example that opposing US-backed regime change in Venezuela makes you one
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 05:06
|
|
|
I haven't really seen your posts about it, and it's not like I'm an authority on the matter anyway. But no, simply being anti-imperialism does not make someone a tankie. Like I said before, broadly speaking, it's more about refusing to see criticism or recognize fault regarding the people/states you back. Of course things are complicated, and not just black and white - - especially with places like the ussr. And as always, the term is super muddled and abused now, so it hardly means anything anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 07:27
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:I'm still not sure exactly what a tankie is but I've learned for example that opposing US-backed regime change in Venezuela makes you one not gonna lie, i'm really tempted to engage you in Iranchat, but that way lies madness for both of us edit and also it's not thread relevant, but if you want to post in the mideast thread, perhaps you can tempt me into the doomed spiral double edit although i guess the Basij are a pretty good approximation of a DRO in rural areas despite being a socialist proletarian militia defending the revolution
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 07:33
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:There's a fair few in CSPAM, we just tend to not be quite so bellicose as the MLs. isnt one of the cspam mods a massive tankie?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I'm not sure if I'm a tankie or not. Like what if I don't like Stalin, but I think straight-across comparisons between Hitler and Stalin or Mao are facile? And like what if the more I learn, the more I find there's an insane double standard between liberal capitalism and the Communist sphere and I instinctually push back on it? if you dont like stalin you're def not a tankie lol but yeah refusing to buy into poo poo like "communism killed 500 billion people" doesnt inherently make you a tankie Kanine fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Sep 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
Kanine posted:isnt one of the cspam mods a massive tankie? You probably mean homex / R. Guyovich. he's actually an admin now lol But yeah he's an ML but he doesn't use his admin powers to enforce a party line, you can have a big argument with him and call him names and come out un-probed Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Sep 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:You probably mean homex / R. Guyovich.  this happened after i said the phrase state capitalism a few too many times when the tankie shitstorm happened in the landlords.txt, that whole incident was where i got the notion that cspam is full of tankies
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
Kanine posted:
raskol's not a tankie he just has an interesting philosophy concerning when to use his IK powers. your probation probably had more to do with him being sick of the whole discussion than anything you actually did. there are like two people in cspam who've decided that they're "tankies" but lol even they aren't actually tankies in the classic sense described in this post: Rhjamiz posted:If you were a tankie you’d be unironically singing the praises of North Korea and be on China’s side in this Hong Kong protest situation. idk, cspam mod shengji yang might be a genuine tankie i guess but i don't think even he is that dumb basically no, there aren't loads of tankies in cspam, we would end up laughing at a tankie until they exploded in rage and stormed out probably.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
Kanine posted:
yeah it was the phrase and not you being insufferable
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
Kanine posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
In which our brave early 2000s libertarian explains how you don't have to pay any income taxes unless you volunteer to do so: The Voluntary Income Tax by Jacob Halbrooks Every year, millions of Americans pay what they believe to be is a required federal income tax. The income tax is a tool that the federal government has successfully manipulated in order to deceive people, and though many love to complain about giving up hard-earned money and filling out 1040 income tax forms, few bother to research the subject. Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Code is written in such a way that most people cannot understand it on their own. As a result, they turn to tax consultants to determine what they will pay the government. In turn, these tax consultants often rely upon publications that the IRS distributes to tell their customers their tax liability. This cycle makes it easy for the IRS and the government to enshroud the true nature of the tax system in mystery and to deceive people into believing that they are liable for something called an income tax. The first topic that merits recognition when discussing the federal income tax is the constitutionality of it and the difference between direct and indirect taxes. The Constitution of the United States of America is actually quite clear on what powers Congress has to impose taxes. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence (sic) and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." (Article 1, Section 8) From this section, it would seem that no power has been given to Congress to lay an income tax as we know it, and also that all taxes that Congress can lay have to be equal throughout the states. Taxes are also mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution. "No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." (Article 1, Section 9). This section makes it quite clear that Congress does not have the power to lay a direct tax unless equally divided upon everyone. At this point a distinction needs to be made between direct and indirect taxes. A direct tax is a tax that is imposed upon everyone and to which everyone pays an equal share. "If for example, the Congress (which now has 435 representatives) needed $435 million for the general defense of the country, they would divide the total amount by the respective representatives, and each state would get a bill. In this case, Rhode Island which has 2 Representatives would get a bill for 2/435ths of the bill, or 2 million dollars." (Robbins). Another example of how a direct tax might constitutionally be imposed is if the federal government taxed every individual for a set amount, say $5. This form of taxation would be a capitation tax.[Note: A reader has pointed out to the author that this would in fact not be a constitutional form of taxation (direct capitation), since Article 1, Section 2 states, "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers."] An indirect tax, on the other hand, generally takes the form of an excise tax and is laid on activities or privileges, such as the current federal indirect taxes on purchasing gasoline or making long distance phone calls. However, these taxes must still be uniform throughout the states, and you will never pay more federal tax on pumping gas from one state to another. The difference between the types of taxes is that indirect taxes are imposed upon activities such as the sale of certain goods or government privileges and are thus avoidable. Direct taxes, on the other hand, are unavoidable. Now, it must be determined which type of tax our federal income tax would fall under. As applied by the Internal Revenue Service and the majority of Americans, the tax is an unavoidable tax on any wages earned. However, the amount paid is determined by the total wages earned in a year, among a multitude of other factors. Since the tax is unavoidable, it must be a direct tax. However, the tax is not imposed in proportion to the census as dictated by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, so it must be an unconstitutional direct tax. Since earning a living is not a government-granted privilege, the tax cannot therein be considered indirect. Since it must then be of the direct form, the only way it could be constitutional is if everyone was required to pay the same amount, for example $1000 a year. As we will see later, the courts have ruled that an income tax is in fact by nature indirect, but people have been voluntarily paying a direct tax on their income regardless. The question of the constitutionality of the federal income tax has arisen many times, and the IRS responds by pointing to the 16th Amendment of the Constitution, which states "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The 16th Amendment is the quick answer many give to Congress' authority in laying direct income taxes and upon first glance seems to actually grant them the power to do so. Further inspection of this amendment, however, will reveal that the amendment granted Congress no new power of taxation. On the surface, the 16th Amendment appears to grant government an unlimited taxing ability. However, if the amendment did in fact grant this power to Congress, then it would lie in direct conflict with Article 1, Sections 8 and 9, both of which prohibit the type of direct tax many believe the 16th Amendment authorizes. The amendment did not alter or repeal these previous articles in any way, so it can therefore not lie in direct conflict with them. The only viable conclusion is that the 16th Amendment did not authorize Congress an unlimited power to tax. The key part of the phrasing of the 16th Amendment is "from whatever source derived," describing where a tax on incomes would originate. A casual reading would seem to imply that this means that it does not matter where the income is derived. However, as we know, an indirect tax can only authorize taxes on certain activities. Therefore, it must then be determined which activities that enable the income, or sources, can be taxed. Those sources can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 1.861-8(a) states "The rules contained in this section apply in determining taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code referred to in this section as operative sections. See paragraph (f)(1) of this section for a list and description of operative sections." This means that only certain specific sources are liable for taxes and that these sources are listed in paragraph (f)(1). However, all of the sources listed under paragraph (f)(1) refer to such foreign related sources as foreign mineral income, income derived from Guam, foreign base company income, and so on. None of the sources listed are applicable to a US citizen who lives and works in the fifty states. The reason is that Congress could not constitutionally lay a tax on income of US citizens, so they laid the taxes on those that they could, people who have foreign income and people who live in US insular territories. Therefore, the "whatever sources" referred to in the 16th Amendment apply only to taxable foreign sources. Court cases also support the fact that the 16th Amendment did not authorize a direct tax on income. In the 1916 case of Brushaber vs. Union Pacific R.R., the Supreme Court decided that "the propositions and the contentions under (the 16th Amendment) would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another." This is because if the 16th Amendment did in fact grant unlimited taxing power, like many thought it did, then Article 1, Sections 8 and 9 would have to have been repealed. Obviously, though, they were not. Furthermore, the 1916 decision of Stanton vs. Baltic Mining stated that "by the previous ruling (Brushaber vs. Union Pacific) it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited 'power of income taxation' from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged" (qtd. in Robbins). The Brushaber decision reasserted that government was not granted infinite taxing authority and that an income tax is indirect and thus inapplicable to individuals who do not engage in the specified taxable activities. Now that it has been established that an income tax is by nature indirect and that the 16th Amendment is not applicable to citizens working and living in the United States, it must be determined why people have been paying a direct tax on their income. In order to do this, we must define the income tax and determine who is liable for it. The income tax is an indirect excise tax imposed upon certain privileged sources. In order to find if one is liable for such tax, one would refer to Title 26 of the United States Code entitled the Internal Revenue Code, where tax liabilities are listed for all parties and activities. Subtitle A covers the income tax, but an extensive search of it will produce no liability of an individual who lives and works in the 50 states to pay the income tax (Robbins). In fact, the only section in the code that imposes a tax on individual income is section 1461, which states "Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby liable for such tax." This establishes a liability on anyone who is required to withhold for taxes, or a withholding agent. In order to determine the definition of "withholding agent," we turn to section 7701 (a)(16), which states "The term 'withholding agent' means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of section 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461." So now, in order to see who exactly is required to withhold, we now turn to section 1441, 1442, and 1443. The titles of these sections, respectively, are "Withholding of tax on nonresident aliens," "Withholding of tax on foreign corporations," and "Foreign tax-exempt organizations." Again, we see that whereas Congress cannot impose an income tax liability on citizens in the US, they imposed it on people who they could, nonresident aliens and various types of foreign corporations and organizations. It is important to reassert here that the federal income tax is an indirect tax, though it is treated by the IRS and most people as a direct tax, in which case it would be unconstitutional. However, the tax is constitutional as it is defined because it levies a tax on the income derived from very specific sources. These sources must be privileged activities to fit the meaning of an indirect tax. Since earning a living within the fifty states is a right and not a privilege, the only sources of income that can be taxed are foreign-related. As further proof that the income tax is inapplicable to citizens living and working in the states, we can turn to the Office of Management and Budget. The OMB was authorized under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 to require approval of any government form used to collect information from the public. Upon approval, an OMB number is issued to the form, which the form must display or be voided. According to the OMB the appropriate form to fill out for an individual tax return is not the 1040 that most people fill out but is instead Form 2555, entitled "Foreign Earned Income." Form 1040 is actually a supplemental form to 2555, which states on the top to "attach to the front of Form 1040" (Huff). We see once again that income taxes are only applicable to foreign income. Since most people live and work in the states, they have not ever been liable for the federal income tax until they make themselves liable by agreeing to have their earnings withheld. Another tax that people unknowingly make themselves liable for is the employment tax. People see the money for this tax removed from their paychecks every week in the form of FICA and Social Security contributions. The employment tax is covered under Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code but is applicable to withholding agents only. As was discussed before, the only withholding agents required to make returns are those involved in foreign income. However, American citizens can volunteer, if they wish, to have their earnings withheld, thereby making themselves liable for the employment tax. A person would want their earnings withheld to ensure that they contribute the proper amount to the government programs that they are participating in. Anyone who wants to be involved in Social Security would have their earnings withheld, and section 3402 (p) describes voluntary withholding agreements. "The Secretary is authorized by regulations to provide for withholding if the employer and employee, or the person making and the person receiving such other type of payment, agree to such withholding." This agreement of withholding is done through the W-4 agreement that most people sign upon entering a job. The W-4 is entitled "Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate," and is just that, a voluntary agreement for the employer to withhold the earnings, which are now referred to as wages, of the employee. Now taxes must be taken out of the withheld wages, as dictated by the IRS, for such programs as Social Security and FICA. Despite the voluntary nature of withholding one's earnings, most businesses believe it is mandatory and require it of employees. Participation in Social Security is also voluntary, as the fact that withholding is voluntary would seem to imply. The Social Security Administration, in its standard form letter, states "The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work in the United States, nor does it require an individual to have a SSN simply for the purpose of having one" (qtd. in Robbins). Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 405 (2)(B)(i) states that Social Security numbers are assigned "to aliens at the time of their lawful admission to the United States" and "to any individual who is an applicant for or recipient of benefits." In other words, people who wish to participate in the Social Security program are welcome to, but it is not mandatory or requisite to obtain a job, though most companies are led to believe otherwise. By voluntarily filling out W-4 and 1040 forms, people make themselves liable for taxes that they otherwise are not required to pay. However, the government and IRS need to keep this fact well-guarded lest people would stop giving their earnings to the government and drop out of the unstable Social Security program. The 16th Amendment was worded in such a way as to appear that it granted Congress unlimited taxing power, and the government has constructed an illusion of authority around it. Unfortunately, people do not question this authority and unknowingly make themselves liable for taxes. The methods that the IRS uses to hide the truth of what "voluntary compliance" means is evident in their standard reply electronic mail to questions regarding the legality of the federal income tax and authority of the IRS. This letter states "the mission of the Internal Revenue Service is to encourage voluntary compliance with Federal Internal Revenue Laws and Regulations" and that "we say our system is a 'voluntary compliance' system because as citizens we voluntarily comply with the laws of the land and choose to obey it voluntarily without force." However, "voluntary compliance" with regard to laws only seems to be invoked by the IRS, as no one ever hears of murder or burglary laws referred to in this manner. However, despite the IRS claiming that voluntary really means mandatory, people who educate themselves on the subject realize that the tax is in fact truly voluntary. In response to the question of whether people are required to file income tax returns and pay tax, the IRS states "Sections 6011 and 6012 of the IRC require the filing of an income tax." These sections merely state that people who are liable for taxes must file returns. While this is true, the IRS makes no mention of who exactly is liable for the income tax. As was discussed earlier, only nonresident aliens and people involved with foreign income are made liable for the income tax by the Internal Revenue Code. Laws should be clear enough for the average American to comprehend and follow. Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Code is a challenging book to extract relevant information from. However, a larger culprit than the tax code itself is the administrators of the tax code. The IRS and the government take advantage of the difficulty in understanding the code to implement their own plans and to convince the public that they need to give their money to the government. As a result, people make themselves liable for the income tax and the employment tax, though neither are mandatory. The first step that must be taken is to expose the truth regarding taxes and foster education on the subject. People must demand that the IRS discontinue their techniques of deception and instead work with the public toward determining who is liable for what taxes. Finally, the tax code must be rewritten so that ordinary people can understand it and determine for themselves what they are liable for. However, since in most cases it is nothing, the government will continue to keep the true nature hidden until the people demand otherwise. [Author's note: Further research has indicated that people might make themselves liable to pay income taxes not just from voluntary withholding but also from voluntary participation in the Social Security program. A person who voluntarily participates (according to the courts, anyone who has a Social Security number assigned to him) must withhold wages and ensure the proper payment is made. A direct tax on income would then be legal, since it is not a tax at all but a "contribution." This reasoning rests on the premise that participation in Social Security is voluntary, an idea the government never forwards and does not want people to think.] The Constitution of the United States of America. Reprinted in The Federalist Papers. New York: Penguin Books USA Inc., 1961. The United States Code, Titles 26 and 42. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1997. Huff, William. "Now You See it Now You Don't!" Reasonable Action #232, newsletter of the Save A Patriot Foundation. Copyright at Common Law. Robbins, Jay. "The Truth about the Income Tax." Copyright at Common Law. Electronic mail letter received from null@irs.gov. Subject: IRS Email Tax Law Assistance. October 1998. Rhjamiz posted:If you were a tankie you’d be unironically singing the praises of North Korea and be on China’s side in this Hong Kong protest situation. Case in point: Bob le Moche is on China's side in the Hong Kong protest situation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
Doctor Jeep posted:yeah it was the phrase and not you being insufferable I was being totally reasonable saying what I said, die mad about it
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
Kanine posted:I was being totally reasonable saying what I said, die mad about it Lol yes it is us who are the angry ones in this exchange. Really cracked the code on that one, ace.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 00:44
|
|
|
Kanine posted:die mad about it https://twitter.com/dril/status/549425182767861760?lang=en
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 07:45
|
|
|
Disappointed that I read all that and there wasn't one reference to Ohio not becoming a state until 1953 which means that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution is not legal and therefore...
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 11:44
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Lol yes it is us who are the angry ones in this exchange. Really cracked the code on that one, ace. you sure got me good there my goon
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2019 14:49
|
|
|
do stock buybacks do anything beneficial for a company's employees?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:do stock buybacks do anything beneficial for a company's employees?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:do stock buybacks do anything beneficial for a company's employees? Stock buybacks artificially raise the price of stocks by having the company purchase a bunch. It does literally nothing for anyone who does not own stock, for example most workers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:You probably mean homex / R. Guyovich. Just think it's worth circling back around to this one... yes, the forums do have a tankie problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Just think it's worth circling back around to this one... 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Just think it's worth circling back around to this one... (Extremely 1960s communist voice) hey, I didn't know about the purges or the genocide denial then, be fair!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Stock buybacks artificially raise the price of stocks by having the company purchase a bunch. It does literally nothing for anyone who does not own stock, for example most workers. I could see an ethical, employee owned company doing such a thing, but why you'd be publicly traded would be another question. But this is all theoretical, anyone who wanted to would just finance whatever it cost, and it's hard to argue that it is a good use of money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:do stock buybacks do anything beneficial for a company's employees? That depends on the company. Sometimes the answer is "gently caress all except the C-levels that own 87% of the place." Other times a company that has a lot of employee stock ownership does end up benefiting them. Companies that have profit sharing programs will end up, in theory anyway, paying fewer dividends to the fewer stock shares which increases the profits that get shared. Usually it just shovels more money into rich peoples' pockets in the end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:(Extremely 1960s communist voice) hey, I didn't know about the purges or the genocide denial then, be fair! I'm not blaming you at all, but I do want to point out that the posts that got him the axe were not the most virulent by a long shot, and they were a year old. Like, this has got roots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 04:07
|
|
|
\/
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 04:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 23:47 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm not blaming you at all, but I do want to point out that the posts that got him the axe were not the most virulent by a long shot, and they were a year old. Like, this has got roots. yes, roots in guyovich being about two orders of magnitude more tankie than anybody else on the forums by virtue of being the only tankie who enjoyed protection from probation, mostly
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2019 04:23
|
|