OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

Sorry, but taxes are an obligation we have to support our own society. No government = anarchy. Many will not like this statement but taxes are based on the relative rewards we reap by being members of this society. Those who make money and pay taxes do so because they receive the benefit of having lived in our society, received opportunities from it and reaped its rewards. Each and everyone of us who has lived here has an obligation to pay society back for what we have enjoyed by being part of this society. Only the selfish feel they do not have this obligation and feel everything they have and enjoy was entirely their own doing, driven by their effort and talent. Effort and talent mean nothing in the absence of structure and opportunity. Taxes are used to make investments and we are all responsible to help pay for those costs, like it or not.

Are you not paying attention? I said there are better ways of collecting taxes rather than taxing income. It's ridiculous. I know that taxes are inevitable, but taxing money that you receive is unnecessary. I will have to refer you to Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto which calls for "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

Ohhh im sorry, where you referring to the benefit of living in a bankrupt nation that all it can do it borrow and spend spend spend? The benefit of having no jobs and producing NOTHING! It pretty sad when I have to go to Chine to get a job. Or where you referring to the benefits of having big government? Sorry, I'm at a lose on seeing this "benefit" you speak of.

Peter & Force,

Peter, firstly of all, you're simply not educated on your comments.

What Say Ye, Gentlemen to the proposed Constitutional Amendment?

An Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Section 1. The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United State is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes on incomes, without apportionment among the several States.

Section 3. No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless equal and in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

COMPARE WITH:

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. Amendment 16.

You will note I dropped the two following phrases from the 16th Amendment “From whatever source derived. . . “ and “without regard to any census or enumeration.”

In final analysis of my Model Tax Law, Sections 2 and 3 are merely restatements of Article 1. Section 8, the first and last clauses of the same. So, this is hardly mine and hardly new. It’s just never been tried before even though it was in the Constitution from the beginning.

Sounds good to me

Then I need your help at http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/6553-4049 against a nincumpoop who wants a "sales tax!" He'd rather pay thousands that only a couple hundred dollars. Sigh!

Well sales taxes are apportioned... income tax is not.

Force, it's not now, but with my amendment it would be. It was apportioned in the beginning, but only to the states and THEN to the people. Why would you rather a sales tax that would make you pay many hundreds of times more than a true apportionment of the actual costs of government? Am I missing something here?

Im not for a mass sales tax or anything, i was just referring to it being apportioned.

Thank God you're not for Federal Sales Tax!!! But the damage on my question is already done. At least I have the support of mr.barrysoetoro. I wish I could take the post down and name it REPEAL THE 16TH AMENDMENT. A few more people would have understood it without having to read it. :-/

I believe we could/should abolish the income tax laws entirely. By 1913, we were the richest country on the planet and our dollar was as good as gold. It could be redeemed for gold at any time. Then, just then, in 1913, they imposed the 16th Amendment and the Ferrel Reserve Banksters.

But suppose we find we just HAVE to have an income tax.

If you look at http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/6609-4049 you will see a short examination of the Ferrel Sales Tax and the Flat Tax. Both concepts are flawed. Read to see why and you'll see that, if we're to tax ourselves at all, then we should take the sum total costs of legitimate government and divide equally by the sum total taxpayers. You would reduce the tax code to a couple of pages because there would be no need for deductions, bookkeepers and records to be kept for seven years.

The only reason the income tax on individual wages was started in 1913 was to pay the "interest" on the Federal Government's debt. Every time the Congress passes a bill requiring money to be spent, the Treasury Department must borrow this money, at interest, from the Federal Reserve, creating the "national debt".

Astonishingly, the private owners of the Federal Reserve (also started in 1913 just a few months before the income tax) do not loan the Government their own money; they create "new" money out of thin air. Since they are not loaning their own money, they do not want the Government to pay back the national debt. They make their profits on the interest. Since the "ever increasing debt" is never paid off, the American people will be paying this ever increasing interest forever and ever.....

The "hidden" purpose of the Federal Reserve Act and the individual income tax is to transfer the American people's wages into the hands of the private owners of the Federal Reserve. For almost one hundred years, we the people have been lied to and conned into believing that paying this unConstitutional tax is patriotic.

As an "informed" patriot, I wholeheartedly support getting rid of the income tax and repealing the Federal Reserve Act. No more national debt, no more interest, no more income tax, no more IRS, no more lies.

I am one with 1withtheforce.

The comments in support of this idea are ridiculous. The income tax has been used for nearly a century because thus far it reflects the best measure of ones relative benefit from society and the best indicator of our total disposable income. We are taxed based on our relative ability to pay for government. Sales taxes are regressive taxes that hit the lowest wage earners the hardest. A graduated income tax assesses a greater tax on those who have reaped the largest rewards and have the greatest ability to support government. Originally, the income tax was restricted to the top 1% of wage earners. As more people have reaped the rewards of our society and moved into the middle class, more can contribute to the cost to maintain government.

It sickens me to see the selfishness of people who feel they are taxed too much and don't want to contribute their fair share to this society. They worked so hard to earn their money and they figure they deserve to keep more of it. They lack any interest in being responsible or meeting their obligations as adults. There are 18 and 19 year old kids going off to war, risking and in some cases sacrificing their lives and limbs while these selfish yoyo’s sit on their butts trying to figure out a way to get out of contributing their fair share to society.

A claim like income tax is fascism is designed to encourage distrust and hate of income tax and convince others to ignore true purpose and basis for it. Every responsible adult has to give back to the society that gave them the opportunities they have today to make money and a living. I hear Somalia doesn't have an income tax, why not go live there? See how well you do without the social infrastructure, the regulations, the protections provided by this government. After a year perhaps you will come to appreciate the fact "in this Democracy we are responsible to pay for the cost of government" and people need to quit bellyaching and do just that. If you have to tighten your belt a little more to do it, so be it. Life is tough for everybody.

Well peterwedlund you could move to somewhere like Denmark where 6 months out of you pay check goes to the government if you love income taxes so much. Income Tax is not a claim, it is fact. Check you history.

Income tax being fascist* sorry

Giving to other people is called CHARITY. Being made by the government to give to other people defeats the purpose of charity. It's no-longer If I want to give charity I will do it by my own accord NOT by the will of so called "law". You collectivists are so funny you don't even realize you are screwing yourselves over ha ha. You are as a dog being wagged by it's tail.

Peterwedlund, I think you may need some insight on Individualism Vs Collectivism. Here this may help:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=8D3505022FA27691&search_query=individualism+vs+collectivism

Ignorance is bliss so that may explain some of the inane comments being made. Some of you need to take a basic civics lesson or at least quit listening to FOX news, Hannity or Limbaugh long enough to figure out the purpose of government. Clearly, you neither understand the function or the purpose of government. You think of taxes as money that is stolen from you. Don't waste my time whining about how unfair taxes are. They are your obligation and responsibility, period. If you don't like it move to another country or a deserted island and start your own society. I realize for some of you selfish, self-centered yoyo's who think the world owes you something you probably won't ever get it. No surprise there.

I agree that we must fund our government. It provides a lot of truly useful things that allow us to live free. It also wastes tons of money on truly silly things and out right graft. Taxes are sometimes imposed on things that society/congress wants to discourage. Examples would be the new carbon tax idea that is getting kicked around. For it or against it hopefully you will agree that if you tax something you get less of it. Seems like, by taxing income and savings, we are discouraging work and savings.

As for the dividing the bill equally angle. That is an fascinating idea. One problem I see with that is if I am struggling to make ends meet, making 15K a year, and the government tells me I owe 16K, I'm screwed. This is where the progressive nature of the income tax helps. Our current income tax system is a train wreck. It is expensive, impossible to fully comply with, and full of favors for the well connected. We need a better way to fund the government. I am a BIG fan of the FairTax system. Check it out at www.fairtax.org.

Obviously you should take a look at history. For the last time, YOU DO NOT NEED AN INCOME TAX TO FUND GOVERNMENT! At least not the form of progressive income tax as we have now. I do not watch Faux News. The Banking cartels have completely screwed over this country.

P.S. am in full support of the FairTax system. The name says it all, it's...well.... fair.

And I also know what the role of Government is, and I know it's role is NOT to take 3 months out of my pay check so it can go into the pockets of BIG BANKERS. It's not the governments role to have all these wasteful government programs now is it? You obviously didn't look up individualism like I told you. Don't worry you stay stuck in your little bubble where the government is there to help you and see how far you get.

peterwedlund, the income tax has been used for almost a century because, in 1913, a State Department Official issued a fraudulent letter stating that the 16th Amendment, which gave Congress the ability to tax the wages of individual citizens, had been ratified. In fact, there was no such ratification. Exhaustive legal research from both State and National archives documented conclusively that the Amendment did not even come close to being legally approved by the required number of states. The State Department Official purposely lied. Because of this lie, the U.S. Government has fraudulently taxed the hard-earned wages of its citizens for almost one hundred years. You can learn more about this at: http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/theman.asp

I also suggest you examine the U.S. Constitution, which clearly intends to "protect" individual citizens from taxes on their labor. Such taxes are from the feudal system when citizens were not free to dissent. It is responsible and patriotic to protect our Constitutional rights.

Well said.

Peterwedlund,

I ask this question courteously, and not as a jab. Are you a Communist? I would assume you would think not, giving you the benefit of the doubt. However, wouldn't you agree that it doesn't matter what one calls something, it matters what it is? I mean the IRS has a doctrine called "Form over Substance" which essentially says, it doesn't matter what the form of something is. For tax purposes, it will be taxed for what it is.

I'm stating these things, because a great majority of our People believe in Socialistic / Communistic doctrines, but would never admit to being either a Socialist or Communist. So, if you are a Communist and are willing to acknowledge that you are, then just say so. It's not a crime, it's just unAmerican. If you would abhor the idea, then you should check your thinking out. Most of our thinking is stinking due the forced TUBE diet we're on.

For example, you said, "The income tax has been used for nearly a century because thus far it reflects the best measure of ones relative benefit from society and the best indicator of our total disposable income. ***We are taxed based on our relative ability to pay for government. Sales taxes are regressive taxes that hit the lowest wage earners the hardest. A graduated income tax assesses a greater tax on those who have reaped the largest rewards and have the greatest ability to support government.*** Originally, the income tax was restricted to the top 1% of wage earners. As more people have reaped the rewards of our society and moved into the middle class, more can contribute to the cost to maintain government."

Do you consciously realize that you have just spouted Plank No. 2 of the "Communist Manifesto?" If you really are aware of that then I understand, but I'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt that you'd abhor the idea of being a Communist. ???

I recommend taking "My Little American Test." http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgqtv9ff_354jqfbh6fc

In that little test are other areas which you can identify your status either as an American or as a Communist. But please, Sir, let's call a spade a spade if it IS a spade.

With all respect, Don Wood

Wibatman,

With all due respect, Sir. Do you know what a euphemism means? It's a nice sounding word or phrase for something that's not good. For instance, Social Security. Everyone is FOR social security, but if a governmental program is called that, and it's really a Ponzi Scheme, then TRUTH requires we call it what it is. Fraud.

Please look at the so called "fair tax." For starter's it's a WHOPPING 23%. Only serf's were required to pay such amounts!!! WHY would anyone in their right mind suggest such a thing???

It does nothing to solve the fraud of our "legal" but immoral Ponzi scheme euphemistically called Social inSecurity. We are stealing our grandchildren's incomes and that is simply immoral. I'm old enough to collect it but out of moral conscious in the 1970's I turned it down though I legally had to continue paying into it. :-/ Come on folks, this HAS to stop one day. If not now, when? If not on me, who?

"The FairTax preserves the overall progressivity of the federal tax burden." Well, at least they're honest about the Communistic approach. See "My Little American Test." http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgqtv9ff_354jqfbh6fc All I can say to this is GREAT HEAVENLY HONK!!!

They claim these things improve our economy and International competitiveness. WHAT a royal crock of manure! Heavy, progressive taxes are what got us into this mess -- along with the Ferrel Reserve Banksters. These people have only interviewed the gullible American People who were sold these worthless goods nearly a hundred years ago and think it's in the Constitution. It is NOT! See again, "My Little American Test."

"Simplifying tax compliance" and thus eliminating "tax evasion" (at 23% and growing rates! Read: TOTAL CONFISCATION!), is not a very friendly sounding thing ... IS IT! They are hinting to the absolute loss of your life. You will be a serf slave if you buy into this one!

Now just a few quotes: "Although Linder's FairTax bill languishes in the House Committee on Ways and Means each time it is introduced, it has always had a number of cosponsors, including Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter — but not Ron Paul, the acknowledged taxpayers' best friend." More>>http://mises.org/story/3389

Also see "The Fair Tax Fraud" http://mises.org/story/1814

Don Wood

Interesting debate. Two things are guaranteed in this world: Death and taxes. I guess it's on a question of how you will die and how you will be taxed.

only*

I am a 3rd generation American. I have lived here all my life. I've never belonged to either the Communist party or the Socialist party and I've been an Independent for decades. I don't like paying taxes any more than the next person. However, there is a big difference between what I like and what I recognize as my obligation and responsibility. I don’t like work, but I still do it. I don’t like crowds, but I still go to parties.

Presumably most of you received a public education. Who paid for that? Who paid for the infrastructure while you grew up? Who paid for the roads you use today? Who bought the land for those roads? Who operates the ports and airports from which you receive goods from around the world and who built them? Who pays to man the boarder crossings? Who pays for the Federal courts and pays for the department of defense? Who pays for the lawyers who bring cases against people and businesses found cheating and abusing the public?

People complain all the time, "I pay too much in taxes". To them I say, look at the 18 and 19 year old kids who sacrificed their lives for this country. Did they have a chance to say, "I’ve done enough, I don't want to do this anymore? Or did they suck it up and accept their responsibilities and obligations like men and the consequences that went with it. They have given far more than you or I so we can have a country.

I think all of us can tighten our belts, be grateful for what we have and start paying the real cost of running government instead of just complaining about it. The US has one of the lowest, not highest tax burdens in the Western World. Whether we like it or not taxes are a necessity and income tax is probably a fairer way of assessing relative ability to pay taxes and relative reward than any other method you might propose. I'm for closing some loopholes so everyone pays their fair share. Taxes are not designed to take everything you have. They are designed so you pay based on the relative benefits you have received. The first few thousand dollars are not taxed at all and then you are taxed on a graduated scale that does not exceed 33% of your disposable income. That is down, I might add from the 98% tax rate on the highest wage earners decades ago.

What I see are very selfish individuals who want to reduce taxes and pretend smaller government is better government. They love to equate taxes with waste and often use the words tax and spend together to suggest taxes are collected only so government can waste their hard earned money. When the federal debt is getting larger, government is not collecting enough taxes to pay for the cost of government. When government is cutting back its programs what is typically happening is the investments that need to be made in social infrastructure are not being made. Taxes=INVESTMENTS not waste. They provide opportunities to others to be successful and pay taxes to contribute to our society. Taxes provide the infrastructure necessary for our society to work. When they are cut, government is typically putting off investments, reducing infrastructure and leaving the problems for someone in the future to pay instead of accepting responsibility for those investments and the maintenance of our society.

In the 5,000 years of human civilizations there have always been taxes and the cost of government never goes down with population, it goes up. Did George Washington worry about terrorist attacks or nuclear threats? Did Abe Lincoln have to worry about cyber security or abusive business practices? As a Democracy the cost of operating government has and remains a public obligation. I would suggest you get a lot more active in government to make sure it doesn't waste your tax dollars than to sit around complaining about the taxes you pay for its operation. The operation and cost of government is your and my obligation and responsibility. I have no problem with that because I can appreciate what government actually does and the role it really plays in society. Those who complain I find only care about themselves and what they get not the other side of the coin -- their responsibility and obligation to maintain it. That obligation and responsibility exists regardless of which society you live. The real issue is efficiency and effectiveness of government not size or cost.

Don't try to make me feel guilty. I come from the now extinct middle class. My family has always been here, since their migration from Asia back in the ice age. If I want to give to others, which I do every chance I get, I will do it by my own accord as I have stated before. I DO NOT need the government to tell me to do so. Trust me I give a lot more than I receive. To Live a pure and unselfish life it is important to count nothing as ones own in a world of abundance.

As I also have said, 50 times now, OF COURSE TAXES ARE NECESSARY. The problem with today's tax system is that its going to the WRONG things without anyone's say so. Why are my taxes going towards unnecessary things? I'll give to things that are important, and to say that all taxes go to important things is really really naive! Our tax system needs reform and if you deny that then you just aren't paying any attention.

If you take money from someone illegally, it is called "stealing". The illegal individual income tax is money that is being stolen from us. Only the uninformed would blissfully pay illegal taxes. The rest of us are sickened by the knowledge that not one dime of our tax money goes to support the U.S. Government. As I explained in an earlier post, it goes to pay the interest on a bogus debt owed to the Federal Reserve. Read on and learn.

The final report of the 1984 Grace Commission, convened under President Ronald Reagan, quietly admitted that none of the funds they collect from federal income taxes goes to pay for any federal government services. The Grace Commission found that those funds were being used to pay for interest on the federal debt, and income transfer payments to beneficiaries of entitlement programs like federal pension plans. Read the entire report at: http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm

Few people realize that the income tax is a "slave tax." It can never be compatible with the life of a free people. If we want to remain free, it is our patriotic duty to dissent and work to repeal illegal government laws.

Learning is the beginning of becoming a responsible citizen. Peterwedlund, It is not my intention to pick on you; but, have you researched this topic? Do you realize that if we-the-people permit our government to pass and implement illegal laws, that we will soon be completely enslaved by our government?

Use your search engine to find information on the income tax, the Federal Reserve and, especially, the U.S. Constitution. You will be astonished at what you find. Try it. It's fun.

Exactly cgdewey, you brought up a great point. The income tax goes to pay the debt owned by the Fed Res, our debt is over $11 trillion and rising over $3 billion dollars a day! And its expecting to be almost tripled that in the next few years. So my question is: if we are in that much debt, how is an income tax even going to pay for all that!? It is a debt slave based tax.

Hi Peterwedlund,

Well, I see my post didn't make it. It was just before cgdewey's. Dunno what happened, but I don't have the time to rewrite it now. I'll write later. However, please do pay attention to cgdewey's post as it's the truth.

All the best,

Don Wood

Thanks 1withtheforce. I just read the answer to your comment, in the Grace Commission Report, I mentioned earlier. When the national debt reaches $13 Trillion, the interest will be $1.5 Trillion per year. That works out to roughly $20,000 per taxpayer per year. Whew! I guess we better get a third job. Oh! What was that idea you had? Yeah! ABOLISH THE INCOME TAX. FREE THE SLAVES.

Hi Peterwedlund,

Here's my rewrite. Firstly, I was a bit annoyed that you didn't take "My Little American Test" and continue to blaspheme our REPUBLIC by saying, "As a DEMOCRACY the cost of operating government has and remains a public obligation." [Emphasis DLW]

I say these things courteously, but without pulling any punches, just as you did in your courteous reply.

Peter, it doesn't matter that you don't call it "SOCIALISM" or that you have never been a member of their party. It matters what your worldview actually is, and it's socialist. Again, I do not mean to be rude, but merely to be objective. Allow me to prove this to you.

Go back through your post, and read it very, very carefully. It's full of "fraternalism." In religious communities, that is good, but in a government it is absolutely WRONG. Lemme prove why.

A legitimate, honest, righteous government is one that does NOT go beyond the lawful perimeter of protecting life, liberty & property. Lemme prove that. Such a limited form of government is the one that our forefathers set up.

Firstly, you, Force & I each have the moral right to (even violently) protect our lives, liberties and properties against thieves, killers and destroyers. It equally follows that we can form a body politic and hire policemen to do 24 hours a day what we have a right to do for ourselves.

We select one amongst our number on a periodic basis to be our President and the Executive Office or branch of government is formed together with the police to protect our lives, liberties and properties. Next we pass the laws saying, "If you deprive us of life, liberty or property, we will execute the judgment that fits the crime." We now have the Legislative Branch of Government. Finally, we will have to set up the Judiciary Branch to determine the law, facts and evidence of each criminal or civil case. We now have the three branches of government. [There is one more branch I won't talk about in this post. The Trial by Jury is the last bar of liberty for determination of unjust laws, finagled evidence, and the facts of each case. See http://fija.org to learn we haven't had one of those for well over a hundred years.]

If Force, you and I have formed such a body politic and government, and then Force and I decide that we will vote on a pet project that Force & I have, and we vote as a majority against your wishes to take X number of dollars out of your wallet to fund our project, when we take your dollars we are actually thieves. We would not be legally able to take your money without your consent and just because we formed a government doesn't suddenly make taking your money under the guise of "law" legal or moral.

Whatever is not legal or moral for an individual to do does not suddenly become legal and moral for a government to do just because they passed a law saying it's okay. ANY GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD that steps beyond the perimeter of protecting life, liberty or property is in that moment the thief, killer or destroyer.

Therefore, My Friend, Peter, you're a functional socialist whether you want to use the term or not, because you're worldview says it's okay for a government to do more than simply protect life, liberty & property. Remember, it doesn't matter what you call it, it matters what it is.

The American FORM of government was initially limited to just those ideals and that's why Thomas Jefferson said, "In matters of power let no more be heard of the confidence in man but bind them down from mischief by the chains of the constitution." Those who disobey the "Supreme Law of our Land" are the usurpers, thieves, killers and destroyers. This is also why TJ said, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

As we speak, there are those who are ready to spread the manure liberally, because they cannot and will not take the abuse of going beyond Constituted Legal and Moral Authority any longer. As it appears there is no 1st Amendment place or authority to petition for a redress of grievances any more, you've got the WORLD's LARGEST STANDING ARMY ready to reclaim what was taken by force of blood. Now, I don't even own a gun, and I escaped America when I saw the hand writing on the wall, but I have to say, I understand their plight.

Therefore, it is right and proper to abolish what was set up as a fraternal socialized transfer of wealth. Those people broke the law with an amendment that shouldn't have even been considered. They would have to have changed the whole constitution to make the 16th amendment legal. But as it is "legal," it is what Frederic Bastiat called "legalized plunder." Please look him up and down load somewhere for free his booklet entitled, "The Law." It will help you realize that you've never educated yourself in this area and that what seems to be okay is actually the destruction of our country.

Best regards, Don Wood

Don Wood,

I took your "My Little American Test" thingy and got all of them right except the one about the bible and the last one, lol...(I'm not or rather no longer Christian)... What can I say, forgive me. I'm not totally against Christianity, I just see things differently.

But you bring up excellent points thanks a lot.

You did very well, Force!

Don and 1withtheforce:

First, if you don't like how tax money is spent then get involved and active in government instead of complaining about it. The goal is effectiveness and efficiency in government, not size or cost. The size reflects the issues and requirements. The cost is related to how well it does its job.

Second, if you live in a democracy you follow the rules of the democracy. If you don't like those rules you can leave. I don't have to agree with everything our government does (and I don't). However, there is a process for changing it and that process does not involve ignoring our responsibilities and obligations because we don't like them.

Third, you can place labels on any actions you like, but it doesn't change the facts. You have not offered one bit of evidence you have a better way to tax. You have merely opposed the income tax as a means of collecting revenue. In my book, the type of people who are against paying for their responsibilities and obligations are individuals who care only about what they want and care nothing about anything else.

Finally, the role of government is about more than life, liberty and protecting your property, although we can start there to describe some of the cost of government. Protecting your life requires a defense department which is pretty expensive, border security, immigration rules and laws, State department that oversees your help and safety when outside this country. It requires an OSHA for protecting you from employers who might put you in excessive danger. It requires an FDA to make sure the drugs that get on the market are safe and effective. It requires an EPA to make sure businesses don’t foul the air you breathe or the water you drink. It requires mine safety for those who work in mines to make sure the owners are following the safety rules. Protecting your liberty is even more expensive because this requires the country or anyone else not be allowed to infringe on your rights. We have a legal system to which you can appeal wrongful acts, a prosecution and department of justice that helps to ensure justice is fair and impartial and will help you if someone breaks the law in a way that hurts you. Protecting your property requires a public safety and prison system. All cost money. Now let's discuss what you did not cover, opportunity, jobs, infrastructure, maintenance and personnel to make everything work. They all cost money too, require enforcing regulations, laws that also protect you from unscrupulous individuals, bad and exploitive business practices, it all costs money. Who pays for it? You and I pay. We pay for it so society works a little better, so people have a chance to learn, get good paying jobs, create new businesses, expand old ones and people can live in peace, raise a family, go to church on Sunday, enjoy life and have hope.

Anyone can complain. Anyone can say I'm tired of paying so much and I don't want to do it anymore. Complaining is easy. Fixing problems is not. Ask for greater transparency in government. Ask for more accountability in government, I do. Demand your tax dollars are used wisely and hold those responsible for spending your tax dollars accountable for how they spent them. Get involved with the decision making process if you are so inclined. Complaining, describing people as socialist who disagree with you or who see the world differently than you is no answer. Proposing we all pay less, we cut government back and they do a minimalist job is not the answer either. Why does the President have 16 cabinet seats today instead of the 4 cabinet posts George Washington had in his administration? You think this was foolish expansion of government? As the population grows, so grow the problems and then needs to address the problems.

When I was younger, they use to talk about a single missile costing $30,000 and I thought, god I don't pay enough in taxes to pay for even a single missile fired by the air force. However, some people paying taxes were paying more than that. We pay based on our ability to pay. If we each paid our fair share it would help. If we all worked to make sure government operated efficiently and effectively the entire country would be better off. If we pay too much in taxes and government is not doing what it needs to be doing it is because we are not engaged enough with our leaders in Washington. I'm all for demanding greater accountability and improved responsibility. I'm not for decreasing my obligation or my own responsibility to society that allowed me to have a home, a family and a life. When I look at what I have compared to what others have in poorer areas of the world, I thank my lucky stars that people have fought and died so I could have what I do. At the very least, I owe them for their sacrifices and if that means paying a little more so things will be a little better for the next generation, so be it. I call it social responsibility, you can call it whatever you like.

Hi Peter,

You said, "First, if you don't like how tax money is spent then get involved and active in government instead of complaining about it."

Force did say he didn't like how the money was spent, but I have more trouble with how the money was collected. :-/

You said, "Second, if you live in a democracy you follow the rules of the democracy. If you don't like those rules you can leave. I don't have to agree with everything our government does (and I don't). However, there is a process for changing it and that process does not involve ignoring our responsibilities and obligations because we don't like them."

Do you consider the process of change to include just ignoring the law and violating it because it's the "in thing" to do? I would assume you would say no (but I'm beginning to have some doubts). The Rule of Law in our country, until the last while has been to acknowledge the REPUBLIC for which our flag stands. But you don't seem to recognize anything but a DEMOCRACY.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

Why do you profane our Constitutional Republic? I've talked to you about this before, but you haven't said a word about that yet. Why?

You said, "Third, you can place labels on any actions you like, but it doesn't change the facts." Peter, that's MY LINE. I have said you're a de facto socialist though you've never been a party member. Where do you find that form of government in our Constitution? I'm getting real close to saying you're an enemy of the state, and a friend of those who are selling our liberty out. However, to offer you a Constitutional way to tax, please see my model taxation amendment which is fair and Constitutional: "Repeal the 16th Amendment" http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/6609-4049

You said, "Finally, the role of government is about more than life, liberty and protecting your property, although we can start there to describe some of the cost of government." Apparently you don't care to argue the moral and legal limited form of government we're SUPPOSED to have, and apparently you're one of those who just breaks the law because it's a popular thing to do?

I got a kick out of what you called, "social responsibility...." I think I could agree with you that we have a social responsibility to pay taxes for the things you mentioned, but you blatantly left out the things our tax dollars ARE going for -- SOCIALISM!

If you look at my model tax law at the link I gave you perhaps you'll find something we can agree upon too?

Finally, Peter, I'm disappointed you have dodged many of the points I made in my posts. Isn't it fair that you actually reply to a few of those?

Don Wood

First, not only do I not like how the money is spent, I also do not like how the money is CREATED. It is a debt slave based system. Which is why we also need to audit the Federal Reserve. Actually, we should just do away with is completely. I am trying to do something about it, that is one reason I am on this sorry excuse for a government idea sharing web site.

Secondly, like Don said, WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY, WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC! Please see my other idea post: http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/6701-4049

I'm sorry I thought we were referring to America were the constitution clearly lays out the role of our REPUBLIC: protecting life, liberty, and property (remember, rights stem from property. No property, No rights). Which is why Socialism is EVIL :). But with that said you cannot rely on govt to protect these things because govt is the biggest criminal organization in the world, which is why we have a 2nd amendment.

Think about this if you would peter: If we break the law, we go to jail. What if government breaks the law? Who watches the watchers? The fact that most people do not even know what form of government we have is part of the problem. I understand tho, I also went to public schools :P

Thoughts from our Founding Fathers:

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Ben Franklin

"Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention... incompatible with personal security or the rights of property." - James Madison

"Democracy... wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." - John Adams

So long as government takes it upon itself to run our private lives, anything that takes money away from government works for me.

I don't support the contention all rights flow from property, and those without property have no rights. If all men are created equal than all men must have equal rights whether they have property or not. Indeed, I believe all PEOPLE are created equal, not just men.

You are welcome to your beliefs about the tyranny of government and you are welcome to change it as you wish. I don't happen to support your views because I see the issue of government size as more complex. You can have a simple, small government, few laws and regulations, low costs when there are few people and few problems. It doesn't work when the size of the population increases, the problems increase and the social issues are magnified. You either do something about those social issues or the stresses and conflicts they create in society grow until they tear it apart or hinder its ability to adapt in a world environment.

The issue has always been how to balance individual rights and social needs. Individuals want more for themselves and a peaceful society requires more equality, greater fairness and opportunity for all. The cost of that social peace is less individual freedom. In other words, you can do a lot of things in a world in which there are very few people and no one cares what you do. However, you can do far fewer things in a very populated society in which your freedom starts to conflict directly with the attitudes, beliefs and rights of others. Do you blame other people for reducing your rights and freedoms or do you accept the fact that to have a peaceful society you have to make sacrifices and give up some individual freedom you used to have?

You can take any aspect of life in the US and see the reduction in freedom as time progresses. For example, freedom on the roadways in the US has decreased dramatically since the early 1900's when there were few cars, few problems and few accidents. Your freedom has been reduced radically to address some of these issues as the roadways have become more populated. Your freedom to carry on a profitable business has decreased dramatically over the last century as business practices have been forced to consider the rights of employees, risks to their health and the right of the public to be protected. Those growing restrictions have been necessary to balance the interests of others with respect to freedom once enjoyed and sometimes exploited by the individual business owner. The internet started off as a pretty freewheeling entity where anything went when there were few users of it. Today there are restrictions on your individual freedom in order to protect a growing population of people who use it. All of this regulation, oversight and enforcement costs money.

I'm not for deficit spending. I agree that every generation should pay its own debts as it goes. I would appreciate it if people paid their fair share of the cost and if government would not spend what it doesn't have. However, I view government not as wasting money so much as investing it. I don't agree with everything the government does and I have a profound dislike of many politicians. I actively work to get some of them out of office. I don't agree with every law or every regulation, some are overdone and excessive in my view. However, I generally understand that society works as a unit because we respect the rights and interests of others instead of thinking only about what we want. Individualism sounds great, but it is in direct conflict with the need to live peacefully with one another in a collective society. There is a give and take in any social system that requires balancing individual desires with the need for peaceful co-existence in a complex society.

I am as ferociously independent as the next person, and I would fight to the death to keep my rights. But I also recognize my rights have to be balanced with the rights of others. I am a single entity in a far larger entity we call society and how well our society works depends on how well each of us understands that relationship. To ensure peace and to ensure my own rights will be respected in this complex society I in turn must respect the rights of others. When we work together toward the common goals we have peace, security, life and equality and we all benefit. If we work at odds with one another, each interested in only what they want it hurts us and society.

Take from that what you will, but cooperation is the key to success in any complex organization. Fairness, justice and equality are not achieved by seeking only your individual desires but in recognizing how your desires must fit within a much larger social organization of similar entities who seek the same as you. Taxes are a burden, but they are manageable if government uses and invests them wisely, efficiently and effectively to maintain that social order and structure we seek. I am all for the efficient and effective use of taxes and against government deficit spending and waste. Define where the waste is and I will support its removal. However, I don't see everything in government as wasteful or capricious as some. I have a broader appreciation for the value of some government programs than others even though I am not a Federal employee.

1withtheforce, I loved your last post. Keep it coming.

Peter, you are not property of yourself? Every single right that is listed in the Bill of Rights and be connected to property in one way or another....

You should really look into the errors of collectivism and see how history has proven it leads to tyranny...always. Individualism is not selfishness as most would have you believe. Here, as before this will help: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=8D3505022FA27691&search_query=individualism+vs+collectivism

Peter, Force is right. All of our “rights” originate from our “property”. Your property includes your physical body, your mental and physical labor, and, by extension your wages; your original creations (protected by copy write and patent); your liberty (from this you have many freedoms); any real estate or other items of value which you inherit, purchase, or otherwise gain by legal contract; your privacy, and of course, your life. Our Constitution places no limits on these rights except that we respect the same rights of all others. To protect our life, liberty and property, our Constitution gives us the right to own guns and to form militias; and, provides for a standing army/navy. Today, because we have governed so poorly, we are about to lose all our rights without a shot being fired.

Force has also twice suggested that you watch the videos: “Collectivism vs. Individualism”. I recently watched these videos and had a real eye-opening experience. This “experience” caused me to rethink some of my long-held beliefs. As most, if not all, of us went to public school in the U.S., we were taught (read brainwashed, conditioned) to be collectivists even though we live in a Republic designed for individualists. This has caused much confusion within us and between us. I discovered that I was part collectivist and part individualist. After watching these videos, I chose to give up the collectivist part of me. This choice did not come easy, as I was heavily invested in supporting collectivist programs. I eventually came to the conclusion that I really did prefer to live in a Republic rather than a Democracy. Having always thought they were the same thing, I now know there are BIG differences between them. Now, I will have to break the life-long habit of calling the U.S. a Democracy.

Peter, please watch these videos. Millions of Americans suffer from the same confusion I did. This is why we are not able to govern effectively. We keep sending mixed messages to our representatives, and the big corporations that designed our school curriculum end up controlling our government instead of us. Maybe you will change your mind like I did; maybe you won’t. If you watch the videos, you will, at least, know for sure who you really are.

Peter, with all due respect, your education is woefully lacking. Your worldview is one great big lie. Proof:

"You can have a simple, small government, few laws and regulations, low costs when there are few people and few problems. ***It doesn't work when the size of the population increases, the problems increase and the social issues are magnified. You either do something about those social issues or the stresses and conflicts they create in society grow until they tear it apart or hinder its ability to adapt in a world environment."*** [Emphasis mine.]

Peter, you really should be ashamed. Firstly, your argument is pure socialism. Is it not!!! Secondly, while more people would create a large governmental force of people, it does not grow out of bounds until the very moment it decides to do MORE than protect life, liberty & property. The INSTANT it steps outside that lawful and righteous perimeter it, itself, has become the law breaker. Please, please, PUHLEEEZE, read Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" which he wrote more than a hundred years ago.

Thirdly, what record in the annals of civilization will you show as proof for your worldview that, "...You either do something about those social issues or the stresses and conflicts they create in society grow until they tear it apart or hinder its ability to adapt in a world environment." Peter, I ask again, because I doubt your honesty in answering the question; What historical record can you produce to prove your hypothesis which fell apart which was ONLY protecting life, liberty & property?

Peter, I hope you don't miss my question immediately above.

You have finally given a statement with which I can agree. You said, "The issue has always been how to balance individual rights and social needs." How right you are, but in a form you haven't stated. The American form of government met this issue head on and did NOT give any social powers to the government. Would you please just read Article 1 of the US Const. [http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html] and do yourself a favor. COUNT how many "rights" the government was granted, and COUNT how many "powers" were granted to the federal government. Let me help you count just this much. There are ZERO RIGHTS given, but as you COUNT the powers granted, ask yourself where all the other powers are that are being routinely exercised today! Where did those powers come from? And now, people with your worldview, believe that those extra constitutional powers are the LAW!

Peter, you said, "Do you blame other people for reducing your rights and freedoms or do you accept the fact that to have a peaceful society you have to make sacrifices and ***give up some individual freedom you used to have?"***

PETER!!!! I'm not even going to quote Benjamin Franklin. You should be very ashamed! You Google it up!

Peter, your illustration about the highways and cars is simply ignorant. I do not use the word to bash you. For ignorance there is a cure called education, for stupidity, it is a terminal condition. I'm NOT calling you stupid, never have and have always stated it's your lack of understanding. The state is not yet to my knowledge passing our free coffee on the highways. As far as I know that's civil groups who are doing that. Right? The INSTANT the state starts passing out the coffee, they will be in violation of the LAW. Our highways are in no way an example or an excuse for Socialism. Get it straight!

About your paragraph on "deficit spending" you use the words I laughed at yesterday, "social system" as though it was a badge for socialism. A social system that is supposed to ONLY protect life, liberty and property is not a socialist government. Puleeze, Peter.

On your "ferociously independent" paragraph, I find some hope for your future understanding of all of this. You speak of "your rights," but fail to understand that a woman with independent children (as an example) is NOT the responsibility of the government. In fact, that's one of the things that has debased the churches in America until now it's popular again to be an atheist (OF ALL THINGS!). Get the government out of the business of being God. Every time "fraternalism" comes out of government, you have a corrupt government, every time. Read Bastiat. Did I mention that fraternal governments are ALWAYS corrupt?

As to your paragraph saying, "but cooperation is the key to success in any complex organization. Fairness, justice and equality are not achieved by seeking only your individual desires but in recognizing how your desires must fit within a much larger social organization of similar entities who seek the same as you. Taxes are a burden, but they are manageable if government uses and invests them wisely, efficiently and effectively to maintain that social order and structure we seek. I am all for the efficient and effective use of taxes and against government deficit spending and waste. Define where the waste is and I will support its removal. However, I don't see everything in government as wasteful or capricious as some. I have a broader appreciation for the value of some government programs than others even though I am not a Federal employee."

there is no need to prove how your term of "investment" is illegal and wrong. The basic worldview you need of our country and government has been written for over 200 years. It's time you read it. I suggest you start in Article 6, Section 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, ***shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.*** [Emphasis mine]

Therefore, Peter, I accuse you of violating "the Supreme Law of the Land" and for committing treason and blaspheming our REPUBLIC which you still haven't repented of. I also believe, however, that such violations must come with a willful intention to do so. So, I'm asking that you cease and desist from the same in the future. You are on notice that your actions are deliterious of our precious Republic. I think you did it ignorantly, but now you are on notice. Please help us!!!

Your FRIEND, Don Wood

Peter, I am 12 hours ahead of you so that has made me behind in my replies. You said: "I don't support the contention all rights flow from property, and those without property have no rights. If all men are created equal than all men must have equal rights whether they have property or not. Indeed, I believe all PEOPLE are created equal, not just men."

I agree with you that all rights do not flow from property. Life and liberty are just as important. And you can have the women too, I have no legal quarrel about that, but I do have a biblical worldview. So, we agree to disagree about that one, but I'll warn you here in writing, it was NOT the man who was deceived, it was the woman, but the man didn't exercise his authority over the situation. :-/

Peter, you said, "You are welcome to your beliefs about the tyranny of government and you are welcome to change it as you wish."

WRONG, you're going to have to get out of the way first. Our patience with you folks who have violated the law, and perverted justice in our land has reached the limit of intolerance. It is your crowd who have violated the Supreme Law of the Land. We want it back, and we're legally entitled to it, and if you don't give it back we're coming to take it back. I wouldn't get in that way, if I were you. Again, I'm not coming. I'm an old man now, but I recognize the legal, moral and righteous right our forefathers announced that we have to take back a limited form of government and get the hell out of the way.

You went on: "I don't happen to support your views because I see the issue of government size as more complex. You can have a simple, small government, few laws and regulations, low costs when there are few people and few problems. It doesn't work when the size of the population increases, the problems increase and the social issues are magnified. You either do something about those social issues or the stresses and conflicts they create in society grow until they tear it apart or hinder its ability to adapt in a world environment."

Well, you have to rethink this, Peter, because our law did not give us the individual or collective power to change it at will without amending the law first. You're all law breakers, and we're demanding that you repent of this and change it the way you want, but legally.

Peter, I could go on. You're in great ignorance, but ignorance of the law is no excuse, My Friend. Do some studying and cease and desist. You are on notice, Friend.

Don Wood

One thing you have to remember: NO ONE GRANTS YOU RIGHTS! You are born with these rights. No matter what your belief system, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, even atheist [I myself am Buddhist :)], these rights are endowed to you by nature. If you were to say someone gave you rights, they are no longer defined as rights, they are privileges. A common misconception is that rights come from government. Anyone who thinks that is dead wrong! Nor does the Constitution grant any rights; it protects them. But you cannot only rely on the Constitution because you only have the rights you are willing to die for...

Theoretically, socialism sounds great. With it's false advertisement of oneness and peace, etc etc etc. You know the whole hippies holding hands in a field thing. I mean trust me, I'm Buddhist. I am all about oneness and enlightenment, the whole sha-bang. But social style govt doesn't work, period. Never has, never will. Why, you must be asking? Why does something that sounds so peaceful and giving not work? It should right? Well the answer is quite simple really, socialism, fascism, communism and the like are prone to 'evil' people. I don't like saying the word evil because a lot don't even see what they are doing is evil. They are more misguided and fall into greed and influence by special interest. It really comes down to ignorance.

That is why, over 200 years ago, 13 colonies came together into a union and formed our Constitutional Republic, to protect us from tyranny be it from one man or a few legislators. They came together to make man what he was meant to be: free and independent.

That which governs least, governs best.

In ancient china there was the Qin Dynasty, it was an authoritarian government that had a bunch of laws and rules....it lasted 16 years. The dynasty to follow it was the Han Dynasty. It kept only a few laws, mainly 2: Don't kill other people, and don't steal other people's crap. Basic right? Well it lasted almost 500 years. One of the greatest time periods in China's history.

So I say again, That which governs least, governs best. In Taoism, there is a concept called Wei Wu Wei; action through non-action. If you let things be as they are and not try to control things with, for example government, everything will work out fine.

I also have to add, more to the point of the posted topic, that the Federal Reserve is NOT a government program. It is more of a privately own corporation. More appropriately, a 'Public-Private Partnership' they call it. Another name for it that is better recognizable is FASCISM. Now I do not mean Nazism which is more military fascism. This is economic Fascism or Corporatism as Mussolini (founder of fascism) called it. Even though the Nazis did use corporatism as well. This is against the law. Only government can issue money, sound money made from gold and silver.

The Federal Reserve is a central bank. Andrew Jackson's whole political campaign was based on dissolving the central bank at them time. It's a monopoly of the creation of money. By a printing press none-the-less....its so sad. The they hand this money out like lolly pops. Soon that money is only going to be good for whipping your rump because it will take wheel barrels full of cash to buy toilet paper. Just look at what happened in Zimbabwe.... that is VERY possible right here in the great ol' U,S of A.

So that is why the Income Tax is Fascist and evil. And if can't see this, then sadly you just aren't paying attention.

Okay, I have watched and videos on individualism and communalism. Now let me respond. If we WERE trees, seeking our own patch of earth and producing our own energy, obtaining our own resources and totally independent of all the other trees I would agree with the individualistic view of the world. In fact, in that world where we act as independent entities we don't really need organization, a forest or other trees. Each of us is totally independent and free to do as we wish.

We are not trees, we don't produce our own energy, we don't obtain all the resources we need to live and we do depend on the others for our survival. As society has become larger and more complex, our dependence on others has grown, not diminished. Do you keep all the money from your paycheck at home or do you use a bank? Do you grow all your own food or do you buy most of it in a supermarket? Do you manufacture your own transportation or do you buy your car? Do you use electricity, bridges and highways? Do you make your own appliances and furniture and did you build your own home? If not, then you are depending on others in society. You are not a totally independent entity in a larger social structure. You are a dependent entity that is part of that larger social structure.

If you die tomorrow, will society perish? If society collapsed tomorrow, would you survive? Would you likely live to a ripe old age you have a chance to reach today if you did survive the collapse of society? Why has the life expectancy of humans increased to 70-80 years of age from 30-40 years of age just 150 years ago? If you break a leg, suffer a serious infection from a wound or get hurt, are your chances of survival going to be as good as they would be without a society? Why not? We depend on others to facilitate our lives. In fact, the advantages of communal life is what has driven the development of human civilizations and government. Because we could have artists, teachers, engineers, builders, farmers, doctors, furniture makers, etc. no one has to do it all and everyone can become better at what they are good at or want to do in society. However, the result of that interdependence is also a need for CONFIDENCE everyone will be responsible and accountable for what they do. Thus, you need to trust the builder will not cut corners and make that house he builds unsafe. You need to trust that engineer will not ignore the issues of stress and wear when he builds that bridge so it doesn’t collapse when you drive over it. You need to trust the farmer and the shop owner will not sell you bad or tainted food that could hurt your health. You need to trust the doctor is qualified to practice medicine, the drugs you buy are safe and effective, the appliance and the car manufacture will produce safe, reliable goods, the banker will not cheat you or steal your money.

In a perfect world where individual values and responsibilities coincide with those of the society, there is no problem. In fact, I think the vast majority of people do act responsibly and with the interest of others in mind. However, we do have the Bernie Madoff's who don't. We see bankers and financial institutions that were not honest when greed got the better of them. We see KBR's electric work in Baghdad was so poor it will need to be completely redone in the hundreds of buildings in the US Embassy. We see Enron leaders who lied about the balance sheet and cost people their retirements, investments and jobs. We had a S&L crisis in the 1980's caused by similar faulty business practices. We have seen cigarette companies that put profits before the public interest and we see health insurers do the same thing. We have seen businesses that would rather pollute our water and air than lose money to prevent it. We have seen truckers drive when sleep deprived, and people drive under the influence of alcohol. The problem is, not everyone does obey the rules, responsibilities and obligations they have as members of this society and in some cases the financial, health and life changing implications of that are horrendous.

Society must establish rules, laws and regulations so that all people understand that "your freedom (and mine) ends where my nose(or your nose) begins". It is not good enough to say everyone should be responsible and independent to do what they want. Some people clearly assume their independence extends to the abuse, exploitation and hurting of others.

In a social system in which individual freedom takes precedent over social responsibility that is okay. However, that independence actually contributes to the social problems we now face. Not controlling or limiting it means there will be more individuals who will see their opportunity in following a similar path that ignores the rights of others and tramples on their freedoms. If there are no consequences or mechanism for preventing it, explain why there will be no more Bernie Madoff's? So long as many see the short term rewards outweigh the long term costs they will see their greater independence as a positive means for exploiting, abusing and reaping the rewards from society because they have nothing to lose.

Whether one likes it or not we are not individual trees, or completely separate entities independent of one another. We are more like the cells that make up a single tree. Each of us carries out a specific function, each or us is part of the tree, but not indispensible to it. We receive our nourishment, our protection, our defense, our help and our structure and relevance by being part of the tree with many cells carrying out the various functions that allow the entire tree to live. If we die, the tree still lives. If the tree dies, most of us that make it up will die as well, unable to survive on our own.

There are advantages to this communal life and there are disadvantages. The advantage is each one of us has a greater opportunity to achieve things that would never be possible were we not part of this bigger social existence. Working together society flourishes, the arts, humanities, science and medicine advance at a far faster rate than anyone could imagine possible. The down side is that as society becomes more complex, more interdependent and more crowded, our individual freedoms, our independence becomes curtailed so that we all can work together, depend on one another and have confidence and trust that others that are also part of this society will not abuse or exploit it and cause us harm. Each person will do their part and contribute to it. Weaker individuals can survive now who may have special talents and abilities that contribute to our society but who would never have survived on their own. The potential of people is expressed when before their time would have been invested in hunting and gathering functions that were necessary for survival but not creative or productive aspects of life.

There is no perfect social system. All systems require sacrifices and have problems. However, your body is made up of hundreds of trillions of cells all with identical information. Your body has transportation and delivery systems, storage, communication, production, central processing, defense and structural issues, repair and waste disposal that are not unlike that of a human society. Each cell carries out certain functions and in return is provided the energy, resources and nutrients it needs for survival. There are individualist cells, we call them cancerous tumors. They feed off the body and rob it of its nutrients. They steal resources from the community for their own benefit, never carrying they are destroying the very fabric of life that feeds them, never worrying about the negative impacts it has on others in the community. They think only of themselves and what they want. They are real and an anathema to a healthy, vibrant social organism.

Any social system can be improved. It can be made to work better and more effectively. However, opening it to the robber barons of the past is not the solution. Society works best when people understand their part in it and their responsibility to it. Some day take a trip to a city like Seattle. Drive into the city at night from the south on I-5 or take a ferry into the downtown area. The buildings, the lights, the beauty of the city will amaze you and perhaps make you aware there are literally millions of people, no different than you required to make a city a city. It has a life all its own, an existence greater than that of any single person and it is beautiful to see it lit up at night and glowing in the darkness. You can't create that life by yourself. You can only be a part of it and be amazed at its potential, how it grew and blossomed and now shines and lights up the night sky. There is both happiness and peace in knowing we aren't the most important entities, but merely a part of something bigger and better. If we do our parts the growth will continue and the beauty will multiply. If we don't, if we embrace the individualism you so deeply desire, all you will do is open society up to the cancerous types who would gladly feed off and destroy it for their own benefit, not caring if it all dies because they will die either way so "who cares?"

Suggesting communalism leads to tyranny is silly. We decide if we will tolerate tyrants as leaders. Society sets the rules of conduct for all people in it, we have just forgotten we need at times to demand a higher standard from those who represent us. Society grows in fits and starts, adjusting the rules, laws and regulations to make things work better, sometimes worse, but always with the same goal in mind – to improve how well things function, their reliability and dependence. We must be slowly improving because human civilizations have gotten larger and more complex. We are solving problems never before imagined. We still pollute, we still hurt, we still make mistakes but that is alright, so long as we still learn to try and improve ourselves. Going backwards is not improvement, it is regression and that is where I part with those seeking greater individual freedoms. That concept directly conflicts with the social need for having confidence, assurance and trust in the efforts by others on whom we must depend because we simply don't and can't do it all.

You still don't get it... No one is saying it is free for all do what you want. This is a Republic, rule by law. Anyone who breaks that law will suffer the consequences, including those in govt. The income tax is AGAINST THE LAW!

A group cannot have rights that are NOT delegated to EACH individual. If you say otherwise, who gives that group authority to have those rights that the individual does not have?

Trust me, I know that EVERYTHING IS INTERCONNECTED. Nothing exists entirely alone. Wherever there is light, there is shadow; wherever there is length, there is shortness; wherever there is white, there is black. Just like these, as the self-nature of things can not exist alone, they are called non-substantial.

Government is not MEANT to set up welfare and take over private companies, and do all these wonderful things for man-kind like feed them shelter them, etc etc etc. That is NOT and SHOULD NOT be the role of government. PEOPLE, INDIVIDUALS are meant to do these things! Governments are meant to protect us while we do these good things. Bad Apples are dealt with by LAW. When government tries to provide these things it becomes inefficient. A nationalized federal government cannot control the amount of people in the states. It gets too unorganized. That is why we have states rights. That is why we are a REPUBLIC!

If you want people to be BETTER people, then change the MINDS of people. Don't rely on the government to hand out prosperity. You see the suffering in the world and want to do something so you go to government thinking it is the right organization to this , but its not. That is why we are FREE and INDEPENDENT, we the people need to do come together on our own, not by the pen of some legislator. You cannot force people to be good and happy.

1withtheforce:

Sorry, but you don't get it. The rule of law includes all laws, not a couple or a few laws. The laws increase as the size of society increases because new problems arise and we need to effectively deal with those problems. We need to clarify the consequences of abuse, exploitation and lack of respect for the rights of others. Each new law reduces your freedom, whether you expressed or took advantage of that freedom or not. The rights of the group, the collection of individuals in society is more important than the Bernie Madoff's, Kenneth Lai's and the individual rights of others who may wish to exploit society. Those of us who do not are not the problem or issue or the reasons these laws exist.

No law is going to be supported by 100% of society so we have majorities or sometimes super majority rule (2/3rds support). We pass laws because people have free choice. We don't control how people think. What we attempt to do is regulate their behaviors and actions so it is not detrimental to others in society. I don't try to make people happy what I want is to give them the OPPORTUNITY to be happy. Whether they are happy or not is their choice.

I don't ask for handouts from government. I pay for my cost of living, my food, my health care, my home and the costs of my family. I pay my fair share of taxes. Most people in our society do the same. No one is asking government to hand out prosperity by stealing from others as you claim. What we do ask government to do is ensure a level playing field of competition. Provide the opportunities for us to be productive and successful and make sure people do not exploit our system, abuse it, put us at risk or steal our resources for their benefit at our expense. I can tell you this: the abuses in the market in the last decade have cost me far more than all the taxes I paid to the federal government in my entire life. So, guess who I worry about more, unscrupulous people in society or the cost of government?

You are a fear monger. You encourage people to be afraid of government, afraid of its purpose, afraid of its function by attaching names like "socialism, communism and tyranny” to its purpose and objectives. Forget names and focus on the function of government instead. I talk about a society in which each person is free to pursue their dreams and hopes without the worry someone will kill them, steal from them, abuse them or exploit them. A society that is not based on everyone thinking alike or trying to convince everyone to think alike, but on everyone required to respect the rights of others in society and laws, rules and regulations that clearly define what those expectations are. You talk of a society in which everyone is free to do pretty much what they like, limited by few laws, few barriers or restrictions others than those to which everyone agrees. YOu believe that one can instill in people a more idealistic view of their relationship to others. I know better than this and history shows society has never achieved and probably will never achieve such an idealistic goal when it is composed of people with independent ideas and views and varied backgrounds. We don't brainwash people in our society. We want them to be independent thinkers, but free will has its price!

We have very different people in our society, which range from those who are extremely independent and productive to those who are not. Some are incapable of taking care of themselves because they are weak, sick or mentally unable to do so. As a society we can say, "go fend for yourself and if you die, you die it is not my concern." Alternatively, we can say, "if you can work, work. If you are sick and in need of help or assistance we will help you so you can become an independent and productive member of society." It is not in the interest of any government to facilitate either the lazy or the abusive in society as both are cancers depleting society of its resources and health. It is in the interest of government to facilitate people being productive, contributing members of society, period. We do that by contributing to the opportunities people have available to them and providing them the resources and means necessary to be productive. Providing the infrastructure, the basic resources and the opportunities so each can have an equal chance for success (which no society has every really achieved). These efforts cost money. Do not confuse opportunity with handout. Opportunity does not guarantee success, only the chance for success if you work at it and apply yourself. No one needs government help if they are productive contributing members of society. Most people don’t want help and most people feel better if they are productive, independent members of society. Most people can and would rather purchase their own resources they require ofr life. You are constantly confusing the role of government in providing opportunities and the resource availability to society with all support like food, shelter, clothes, etc. It is the typical extrapolation like this that prevents any meaningful dialog.

Government takeover of private companies continues to dominate and worry you. How does a complex organism deal with the death of a portion of that organism? It seals it off and prevents it from damaging the rest of the organism. It often sends in its defensive forces to clean up and dispose of the mess left behind. If government were interested in taking over and operating private companies, you should be concerned. However, Chrysler is going to become part of Fiat. GM units are being sold off to others or being closed down. These companies are not going to remain under US government control. The government is doing to them what it does to banks that fail. It comes in, facilitates the sale of assets to others and absorbs the bad assets so they don't cause further problems or delays. It then moves on to the next failed institution. The goal is to prevent damage to society because of the disease called business failure. The government has been doing this successfully with banks since the 1930's. The government doesn’t run the banks it merely helps to maintain confidence in them by preventing their collapse and broader damage to others. Due to the size of some businesses like GM, Chrysler and AIG the government is now forced to address similar issues associated with large multinational companies. It does this to prevent the spread and the potential toxic damage these failures could have on the broader society. It isn't doing this to nationalize businesses as we see in Venezuela. The government would rather none of the businesses fail, but government is not responsible for the operation of public or private companies.

When I see suffering in the world I know that I alone am not going to solve the problem. I realize that to address problems in the world it takes the coordinated efforts of many, not one. Even our government cannot solve the problems in the world without the help of other nations with is why you see Obama speaking to many of the players in the Middle East attempting to develop a single strategy and coordinated effort.

This is called “cooperative development” by the way and it is the foundation upon which complex organisms have developed – by cooperating and facilitating the shared interests of the many so they dominant individual freedoms and individual desires. Your body is the epitome of the cooperative development policy Obama is now pursuing in the Middle East. You could not exist today were it not for the cooperation of the cells in your body with one another, a system and process that has been learned by trial and error and perfected over billions of years in order to create a living you. You are more complex, more able and capable to achieve things than any one of your individual cell parts. You owe your life and very existence to their complex cooperative interaction. Like it or not, that cooperation is the direction of human society. Those societies who fail at it will not survive. Those who excel at it will dominate this world and then reach out to the cosmos to populate the Universe. How do I know this? Look around you. The life you can see is dominated by complex cooperative organisms. The individualists –those are the bacteria and viruses that feed off the rest of life. They are selfish organisms that care only about themselves, only about what is required for them to live. Sometimes they live in loose groups but they always favor their individual rights above the interests of any community in which they are apart. These are your trees. These are your independent entities. God has placed them right where they deserve to be, at the bottom of the food chain.

Let's just go with the federal sales tax. I don't think they should tax income. It is unpopular, it creates record keeping nightmares, and the I.R.S., as well as provides an avenue for cheaters.

LOL

We should repeal the 16th. We should then add an amendment that says sales tax must be capped at, say, 10%.

So simple, even the educated can understand it. LOL

Posted successfully, hit a moderator filter of some kind. Bummer.

God must be a forbidden word.

LOL

Idea Posted Successfully

If God is content with 10%, why should the Federal Government need more?

sobi a few seconds ago

Revise Flag

Looks Promising!

0

I'm Not So Sure...

Pending Moderator Approval

LOL.

Repeal the 16th.

Add amendment:

Federal Government shall be content with a 10% sales tax, and shall apply no other taxes.

Federal Government shall confine itself to its means and stay within its budget.

Federal Government shall be free to petition God for extra money if they make budgeting mistakes.

All, and I mean ALL excise taxes are prohibited.

Obama, give back the SCHIP taxes. That was wrong, and bad.

Bad, bad, bad.

Corporations must go to God for loans, give aways and redemption.

Why Is This Idea Important?

Because people are upset with taxes.

Idea # 3649Do-It-Yourself Government, open government, collaboration, participation, tax, fail

Comments

You still aren't listening. Who utilizes fear huh? I don't want anyone to be afraid. I want people to be aware. There is a difference between fear and awareness. I think you need to re-read your last post friend. You were talking about people being murdered stolen from and these terrible things as well. And does the government not use fear mongering too. They want you to fear the "terrorists" that "hate us for our freedom". Obama is the same as Bush.

You say you want cooperation. Everyone wants this. It is a matter of HOW to accomplish this. It is not moral to MAKE people do these things. The end does not justify the means. It is obvious you aren't paying any attention to what I have said. So I am just going to let go and let it be. May it be well with you.

Just know big government is not the cure, it is the cancer. Our system is heading down the path of fascism whether people are intending to make it that way or not. Everything that is happening here has happened before in places like the USSR, Germany, etc etc. We are taking the same path these other failed states took. And it is because of the path they took that caused them to fail and continue to fail. It illogical to do something that has been tried before and didn't ever work! Like Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

I'm not telling people to be afraid. Fear, in this situation, is a weakness and unwholesome. I'm telling people to be aware and mindful. All actions have reactions, this is the law of Karma. And giving to much power to the wrong group of people are going to have consequences. This is based observation, not faith. You have faith that when someone with a microphone and a teleprompter comes on TV and spits out their usual problem action solution based propaganda, people believe them and blindly follow like sheep. I'm saying be careful. Look deeply. Know who you are trusting... this administration comes right out of wall street, ran by big bankers, this rich elite while the majority suffer. And we are too trust these criminals?

Peter,

You said, "The rule of law includes all laws, not a couple or a few laws."

DON REPLIES:

Sorry, Peter, you're simply wrong. There are many laws which are unconstitutional and when that happens they are to be thrown out. Our very first tax law was overlooked because Lincoln imposed it for paying for the costs of the Civil War. Most people just ignored the facts that it was unconstitutional. It was reenacted in the 1890's and this time the Constitutional watch dogs barked the alarm. It was thrown out as being unconstitutional in 1895. They got busy and offered the 16th Amendment to keep the tax the Congress had voted in.

Article 1 Section 8 gave the federal government the power to tax, but it was to be equal. At that time, taking the sum total of the government's costs and dividing them between the states and the people of those states paying the tax was considered equal. Today it would be very unequal because the people of states like Rhode Island would proportionately pay much more than the people of the state of California.

We cannot just ignore the Constitution and impose a new law without any consideration at all of the Constitution. This is patently wrong. You have to first repeal the old law and amend the Constitution the way you want it to read. I have given you this help to which you have offered no opinion. But what's wrong with just obeying the LAW?

I offer it here for you again:

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/6609-4049 >>

An Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Section 1. THE SIXTEENTH ARTICLE OF AMENDMENT OT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IS HEREBY REPEALED.

Section 2. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes on incomes, without apportionment among the several States.

Section 3. No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless equal and in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

COMPARE WITH THE PRESENT 16TH AMENDMENT:

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. Amendment 16.

You will note I dropped the two following phrases from the 16th Amendment “From whatever source derived. . . “ was interpreted by the IRS to include world wide income. If you earned money anywhere in the world you have to pay taxes on it.

"Without regard to any census or enumeration" . . . gave the IRS the legal ability to tax us without a census, but the Constitution had required the census specifically for the tax. Therefore, the 16th Amendment became quite odious and it wasn't even ratified properly. That's been known for years, but a lot of people have gone to jail who used that as an argument to not pay. So, GOING BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION, Article 1. Section 8, BY REPEALING the 16th Amendment, would mean that the census would ONLY BE USED FOR counting the people and their ages. It could be used for no other purpose, because no other purpose is provided.

In final analysis of my proposal, Sections 2 and 3 are merely restatements of Article 1. Section 8, the first and last clauses of the same. Let's RESTORE the Constitution of the United States. Article 1, Section 8 is still there. Let's use it.

Any laws that are in violation of the US Constitution are struck down. This is the job of the Supreme Court. As yet no one has successfully challenged the 16th Amendment as unconstitutional or illegal. Until there is evidence and a ruling to demonstrate this we follow the law. Anyone is welcome to challenge the laws and contest them. I have no problem with that and believe it is healthy for society to think about alternatives. I'm not a revolutionary. I'm pretty happy with what I have in life.

I never supported the idea that we needed to be afraid of terrorists as the last administration did constantly. I thought the homeland security alerts were for one thing only, instilling public fear. In fact, I didn't agree with most of what Bush/Cheney did and felt they should have been impeached. Unfortunately, not enough people put pressure on Congress to force them to act on that suggestion. If there had been millions calling and writing instead of tens of thousands asking them to impeach there might have been a little more action. This is why people have to get engaged. We can't really depend on Congress to act unless we push them to do it, that is clear. Most are too spineless to stand up for what is right or wrong.

People have complained about the income tax since it was ratified and used to collect money. We need some mechanism for collecting resources so government can run. I want it to be fair as much as you. If you can convince others you have a fairer system that will produce the resources necessary to run government, great. I'm on board. Until then, I don't support the view all laws are granted to society from the individual. I don't believe it in the individualist view that we all do everything ourselves and have little dependence on society. I believe we are part of a society and depend on that society for most of what we need. It is because of that dependence we require these laws to ensure we can have trust in other members of society.

While I liked the comment: if God only takes 10% why should government get more? I think the answer is : God only created things once, he only judges once and the rest of the time he just listens and offers his sage advice. Government must create everyday, maintain continually and deal with all the nitwits in society on a daily basis that don't listen to God. It looks like doing that is more expensive.

I did not say laws come from the individual. What I said was the individual has RIGHTS and no group such as law enforcement, for example, may be given any rights that the individual does not have except for enforcing the law. Law is determined by the vote of the whole. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I do not contend to the fact that it is more beneficial to work as a whole rather than personal gain. But the system that is running now is set up for personal gain to be directed towards the top 1% elite. This is not free market capitalism; this is crony corporatist capitalism and until it is changed things are going to continue to slide downwards.

It is my belief that in order to have a more efficient tax system, we first have to repeal the 16th amendment. You cant put on a new pair of shoes without taking the old ones off first.

Sorry, I meant I don't deny the fact that it is more beneficial to work as a whole rather that personal gain

Dear 1withtheforce:

I'm not against individual rights and I have been as upset as you about the top 1% essentially receiving all the benefits from increased productivity rom the entire US over the last 8 years. You are absolutely right, that is completely wrong. Concentrating wealth within a narrow segment of the population is detrimental to all of society. This reflects a problem with the regulations and controls when this happens. There is nothing inherently wrong in people being rich. There is a whole lot wrong when only a few are able to be rich.

I'm not against alternative ways to collect revenue to operate government. If one can make the system more fair and just I'm all for it. My biggest objection is with language and intent. We have to start with a common understanding of intent and purpose and to use language that avoids extreme words that encourage people to embrace fear or anger. Do that and I'm all in. May the force be with you.

:) I am glad we can come to agreement. I apologize if my language appeared offensive. It is more for the purpose of humor than anger. I'll be sure to make it more apparent that the intent is good although the language appears threatening it is more for just a rant to be laughed at.

Balancing the budget comes first. Tax levels in the US are relatively low. A 2 trillion deficit is an outright disaster.

During the Great Depression in Wörgl Austria a new monetary system was introduced. Money circulated 14 times faster and tax income rose 1,300%. Because the money was backed by Austrian Schilling, it had the same value. If tax income in the US rises 1,300%, there is room to end the income tax.

Now you have a realistic plan. You can read more about it here:

http://www.naturalmoney.org/introduction.html

What stupid americans don't realize is that there is no money of substance because the US went bankrupt in 1933 (HJR 192) and "money" is created by your signatures (isn't this a mindblower)

You could begin to get your collective heads out of the sand by going to this very site and read the infor under this post:

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/8477-4049

...also plesae read James Trafficant's speach to the House

which came to a great price. You can use Google for that...

Really, the bank creates money w/ your signature then "lends" you the money and charges you a fee of principal and interest on the money you just created. Most stupid people will not even research this...or even ask the bank and guess what, this information is right out of the Federal Reserve's manual 'Modern Money Mechanics'

Now, this is roundabout way and part of a long winded post to let you know that "your" government prints as much "money" as it wants (shades of bailout mania) out of thin air and imagine, if I am right (which I am...) then why don't they print 1/3 more to cover their supposed costs again? Why are we all paying taxes, so called?

You've been duped big time but don't worry you have company:

"Great masses of the people will more likely to fall for big lie, than for small one."