Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
At 8:52 Indianapolis time, Channel 13 broke in on the TODAY show with live, eye-in-the-sky reporting from above Indianapolis Baptist Temple, showing vans, campers and motorhome sized vehicles approaching and surrounding IBT.
Agents are on the grounds and roof of the building at this time, no IBT members have been seen yet.
Hope these guys don't screw this up. Nobody has seen BATF thugs yet have they?
I'm ignorant. What's the IBT, and why are federal agents moving on them?
Thanks. Keep us posted
They have a gripe with the feds. They do not accept tax exempt status from the feds and claim that the feds cannot force them to collect income tax and SS from it's employees because they are not agents of the state. The feds claim that the IBT owes them millions of dollars in back taxes and have sued to take away their building. Many have sworn to fight to the death to prevet this.
Is Reno back as attorney general???
The IBT has been at a standoff since before the elections.
It is a church that the government is taking for back taxes they do not owe.
The church does not take tax out of paychecks and the people have paid them directly to the government. The government says thats not the way it works and is taking the church.
"Many have sworn to fight to the death to prevet this."
Presumably, they will be postvet after the fight!
THe feds won't back down on this one. Imagine all the other problems that would immediately follow if they did back down.
Too bad we haven't eliminated the IRS yet. Too bad we still have an income tax/payroll tax.
This would make an interesting Freeper demonstration! It would probably be well worth it if freepers went there to demonstrate their support for the abolishment of employers having to take money out of employees income for tax purposes.
Eliminate the income tax and the IRS.
Eliminate the income tax and the IRS
There is a proposal in Congress right now that would eliminate income, payroll taxes, and the IRS. Many of you know about the proposal already. If not, take a look.
If we eliminated payroll deductions, the income tax would soon disappear. There would be great public outcry as literally millions of people could not pay their taxes due to poor planning and by the next election cycle, we would have a new Congress that WOULD eliminate the income tax.
BTTT bmwcyle! I have discussions with some who think business pays tax. Your cartoon reminds me of their ignorance....
If we eliminated payroll deductions, the income tax would soon disappear.
Yep. If folks knew their federal tax burden, they'd refuse to pay it.
I've just grabbed these pictures from Ch 8......
Greg Dixon, Jr.
Dr. Greg Dixon, Sr.
I don't like the law, but it's not like it hasn't been the law for decades. If my employer didn't withhold taxes, I would expect the tanks to come rolling in, too.
The proper course is to work to change the law, not this "fight to the death" crap.
So what's the deal with Ashcroft? Is this his idea of a good start? Or are those Indy cops in the raid?
What's the latest on the thugs, Elsie? Any movement at the church?
Elsie, I'm at work at Lilly and can't get anything on this, keep up the good work keeping us posted on what's going on over there. Are they getting peaceful resistance as Dixon said they would? Is that why they are bringing people out on stretchers?
! I have discussions with some who think business pays tax.
I owned my own business, and even though there are many tax breaks, businesses still end up paying more than their fair share of taxes. You have no idea for what you speak.
Richard W.
Good. Hopefully justice will be done and these miscreants will have plenty of time for "religious" contemplation behind bars.
FReepers typically don't turn out en masse to support lawbreaking.
Thanks, Dog Gone, my sentiments exactly. But prepare now to be flamed as a Communist of the reddest hue. These people don't understand law, except in the unilateral sense.
You can argue with them "rendering unto Caesar" all you want, but they simply LOVE the spectacle of martyrdom.
Most people here find sloganeering to be far more satisfying than rational discussion.
...but they simply LOVE the spectacle of martyrdom.
Amen...hehe!-)
...businesses still end up paying more than their fair share of taxes. You have no idea for what you speak.
Ooops. You don't. I am a business owner. Perhaps we mean to say the same thing.
My assertion is that although taxes are levied on business, the tax itself is always paid by an individual, always.
Taxes that any business is required to pay ONLY come from
1) lower wages to workers (individuals)
2) lower return on investment (individuals)
3) higher prices on the product (paid by individual consumers)
Taxes are just one more cost associated with production. Like any other cost, they go into formulating profit. If you ignore the cost of taxes in compensation, ROI, or pricing then you must also agree to ignore other costs associated with production- meaning your product would be free.
I do know of what I speak, sir or madam. If you can show me JUST ONE instance where a tax levied on business is not passed on to an individual, I will kneel. However, I can show in EVERY instance that an individual (aggregate), not a business, will be paying the tax.
.........
Frank Anderson, US Marshall
"No one was injured, nothing other than passive resistance encountered."
Ahy person who thinks any entity other than a person, and more specifically a labor-producing person, can pay taxes needs to go back to junior high school..... and we need some much better junior high schools.
Excellent article by Linda Bowles:
She's One Of Us!
hells bells why didn't they move the church to switzerland wait 17 years and get a pardon?
Maybe Ashcroft feels like he needs to pick on a Christian evangelical group first to prove that he is not going to be biased by his faith...
The federal gov is awash in cash, yet they have to make thier point on a church. I'm not surprised.
Amazing there has not been any coverage of this in Nebraska where I live...nothing.... pathetic..here we go again
Question: When you talk about eliminating IRS, I assume you mean switch to a consumption tax, which I support. But where do corporations fall in such a move?
local militia offered help to IBT on several occassions; the pastor refused their offer.
(See #29 & #31)
Could you give me your take on the question I posed to Principled?
If we eliminated payroll deductions
ADP would be out of business.
They move hundreds of billions a year in payroll and other tax financial monies, earning float in the process. Not only that, but Uncle Sam gives them long-term low interests loans on the monies that are due, allowing them a longer time to earn more float.
I'm sure they spend quite a bit on lobby.
I would bet $1 billion that it aint gonna happen.
Thanks, that helps. But how is the revenue lost from businesses replaced in the consumption tax senario?
I do know of what I speak, sir or madam. If you can show me JUST ONE instance where a tax levied on business is not passed on to an individual, I will kneel. However, I can show in EVERY instance that an individual (aggregate), not a business, will be paying the tax.
Who do the farmers pass their taxes onto? They are told what they are to be given for their crops, they don't set their own price.
I'll take your bet but we need someone to hold the money.
Make no mistake. IBT is no martyr standing up for righteousness, God, or country. Their god is mammon-- they are in htis bind because they refused to pay taxes to the government, claiming they didnt have to because all their employees are "independant contractors"
Never mind the pastor excommunicated the tax lawyers or whatever that told him "Hey, you cant do this! It's illegal."
Somewhere along the way, this church changed "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" into "Damn it, we wont pay those taxes!" I have no sympathy for such.
'Thanks, that helps. But how is the revenue lost from businesses replaced in the consumption tax senario?'
The 23% of gross sales tax replaces most of the federal taxes. Corporations/Businesses must track everything they buy and sell. Things they sell to resellers or manufacturers are not taxed, assuming they have the company's information to show that they are a qualified business. If they sell to a consumer, then they must send a check of 23% of the gross sale to the federal government or state agency acting on the feds behalf. This 23% tax doesn't replace any of the state's revenue.
So, wouldn't that still require an IRS? I'm not being a smartA, I really want to understand this.
I'll take your bet but we need someone to hold the money
I'll hold both sides . . . not really you can trust me.
You can argue with them "rendering unto Caesar" all you want, but they simply LOVE the spectacle of martyrdom. I agree.
'So, wouldn't that still require an IRS? I'm not being a smartA, I really want to understand this.'
I ask the same question all the time. The IRS will supposively be abolished. In it's place, the states will use their sales tax agencies to collect taxes. Then the new IRS will just be responsible for collecting the taxes from the states. Of coure the states will get a cut of the sales tax to fund their collection efforts, which could create armies of tax collectors that are even bigger and well funded throughout the country.
Can"t say they didn't get a white church today whan they get Jessies this afternoon.
Hey! This is just a practice run for Jessie Jackson's Church
"Maybe Ashcroft feels like he needs to pick on a Christian evangelical group first to prove that he is not going to be biased by his faith..."
Ashcroft didn't start this, Reno did..a few months ago.
BTTT bmwcyle! I have discussions with some who think business pays tax. Your cartoon reminds me of their ignorance....
If business' don't pay taxes, why the cry by corporate fat cats for "eliminating" corporate income tax in your sales "gross payment" tax scam?
Corporations, under the scam written by cororate fat cats would be the only ones NOT sharing in the tax burden.
In your "revenue neutral" tax scam, the truth is, the tax,in fact NO tax is eliminated, but shifted directly to the consumer...and that includes the death tax, a tax some consumers may otherwise never have to pay.
For those businesses/corporations whining about their tax burden (you claim they don't pay) we can fix that real quick by not buying their products/services.
In todays world, if the tax burden on corporations was so terrible the term "American corporation(s)" would be an oxymoron.
It's about time!
Indianapolis Baptist Temple Home Page
INDIANAPOLIS BAPTIST TEMPLE OWES NO TAXES
You're not thinking correctly. What happens when a business has to pay taxes? The business has to raise its prices or pay its employees less or not hire as many people, etc. It is always people who pay taxes. The notion that some inanimate thing called a business pays taxes is an effective demagoguery used to convince morons that there is a free lunch.
You greatly show that you are a communist, and have no desire to live as our Constitution was founded. The Render unto Ceaser arguement makes me sick!! You are Ceaser, I am Ceaser, and every Citizen in this country is Ceaser. We have our PUBLIC SERVENTS that we contracted (the Constitution) stating what they could and could not do!!!
We need to nip it in the bud before 1776 happens all over again because we do not have a government approved church.
If you can show me JUST ONE instance where a tax levied on business is not passed on to an individual, I will kneel. However, I can show in EVERY instance that an individual (aggregate), not a business, will be paying the tax.
There is a way to graph the rise in prices which basically shows that while part of it is passed on to the consumers, the entrepreneur inevitably soaks some of it from his profit margin. Only on products where demand is entirely unresponsive to price (cigarettes for example) can the entire cost of taxes be passed onto consumers. If consumers respond to prices then they buy less product when the price goes up due to taxes which forces entrepreneurs to act to mitigate the loss by accepting less profit.
It is true that since the revenue stream comes from consumers that they ultimately pay for everything. But it is also true that when the government raises taxes the entrepreneur, in most cases, takes a hit.
Maybe Ashcroft feels like he needs to pick on a Christian evangelical group first to prove that he is not going to be biased by his faith...
This has been in the works WAY before Ashcroft.
Is Reno back as attorney general???
First Linda Tripp, and now this.
I wonder if there are any "I voted for Buchanan" bumper stickers available.
To the render unto Caesar thinking ...
At what point are Americans going to say, "Hey, enough is enough!!!"
The taxation system is out of control. They don't know how much money they are taking in. They don't know where the money is going. And they are losing money. They is money unaccounted for.
I think the whole point is that private wealth is NOT ceasers.
It truly would have been interesting if 10,000 patriots had showed up to protest.
Here is what is happening to some of the money.
Too bad we haven't eliminated the IRS yet. Too bad we still have an income tax/payroll tax.
Change your job.
Forget local mititias, and other whacos. I respect everyone's religion, but there is also the "render unto Ceaser..." element.
I'm a bit cynical over this but it comes from experience. Have produced TV programs for a few of these people. Found most were huge ego-centric dictators who were not hesitant about stiffing contractors for bills, etc. In addition, at least 30% had direct knowledge of scams in their fundraising, etc.
Please understand, I am not condeming religion, God or Christianity. I only object to those who use his name in the worst form of vain to promote their own scams... and that's not restricted to Jim and Tammy. They are everywhere.
FReepers typically don't turn out en masse to support lawbreaking.
You don't speak for Freepers. You never will.
Doh! Screwed up the link. Sorry.
If my employer didn't withhold taxes, I would expect the tanks to come rolling in, too.
Your employee withheld taxes because you told him to by filling out a W2 form. No W2, no withholding.
4) lower income for business owner.
Guess what? Not all businesses are "investor"-owned corporations. The country is full of mom and pop proprietorships. The first thing that gets cut is mom and pop's income and standard of living.
I believe you misunderstand the verse about rendering unto Caesar, and to God. I think most modern Christians are reading that passage carelessly.
Fox News Has Just Covered it....
Don't be such an agent provocateur. Violence will not change the tax code as it pertains to religious organizations. Get in front of the cameras and make a coherent argument, sell it.
God Bless America.
The BATF wouldn't be involved with this. It's out of their jurisdiction. This is probably US Marshalls.
And Ashcroft didn't have to allow it to be finished. Regardless of any position on taxes, anypone supporting any govt thug group (US Marhall's, DEA, BATF, FBI, etc) is suspect.
Cheer all you want about the "rule of law", then remember the purposes of so many laws, a la Atlas Shrugged.
You're next, (insert name). Everyone's turn will come sooner or later, just some frogs won't be picked from the pot quite so soon.
We really are living in The Fourth Reich.
prambo
Reminder, the Michigan Milita offered to stay put and defend the church but Mr. Dixon declined their offer, he wants no violence. If any of you have a shortwave radio on sideband 12.172, Mr. Dixon was just speaking live. He said that President Bush said they would have the time to work this out in court. Makes me wonder what court he was referring to, the court where they get to post bail, loose the church and then go to the appeals court? Listen up folks, they do not owe tax money, it is about control from the government. Is your church next? I'm ready for the flames. If you go to a 501C3 church you are pretty safe from being raided. But if you are not, you are in danger, because you are not a government controled church. The government has already shown their contol over the military chaplins. They are not to use the name of JESUS in their sermons, if they do they can no longer give sermons. Control is the name. Whats up with not using the HOLY ONE's name in church??? Why the renig with Bush? Keep your eyes open and study up on what a 501C3 church really mean.
I think most Christians today misunderstand the passage where Jesus said to render unto caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's. I have thought a lot about this, and have written a treatise on it for someone who asked me my take on it. Maybe I'll clean it up and post it here, and see what you and others think.
That said, I'm afraid you're right about the fraudulent nature of, I would say, most of these big churches. They are dishonoring to the Lord, but will have to answer to Him one day.
I'm relieved there was no violence today. This is one of those deals where I agree with this church, but don't think I like them. there is therefore no good outcome, really, except that it is good there was no death and destruction, and I thank God, and both sides in this controversy, for that.
There are a lot of waco so called Christians, Muslims, business men, etc...
You can't stereotype everyone into the dregs that you may have been involved with.
Additionally, even if they may be doing something wrong, it doesn't mean that the overall driver and general mission of groups is wrong. It just means that someone or a group of someone's has some areas to work and grow through.
I am saved by Christ and go to a very good church, however I know they don't do "everything" right.
I don't know if you have heard the quote "Their is no perfect church, and if you find one, when you go there it won't be perfect anymore; anyway". That would go for militias or any other group.
That's because the IBT did NOT follow the rules on who is and who isn't an independent contractor.
The DAMN law was a "temporary" law that was put in place to pay for WW II. That war, and several others, is over. It is time to repeal this abomination of concealed theft. Your TAXes aren't due and payable until April 15 but by withholding, the government grants itself an interest free loan until you file.
No bet.
And if you didn't have to pay those taxes, you could pass that along in the form of lower prices to your customers.
Let's be precise: you may FILE taxes, but the money comes from your customers who pay MORE money than they should have to for your goods and/or services, so your customers are the ones REALLY paying your taxes.
Dear Richard,
The business owner does not pay one thin dime in taxes. The consumer who buys the product pay's the "producers" taxes. The tax the producer doesn't pay is part of the price of aquiring the product, and another subject entirely.
I see illbay is being his normal self.
It's not God's Church--it's a Baptist Church, not a Roman Catholic Church.
I owned my own business, and even though there are many tax breaks, businesses still end up paying more than their fair share of taxes. You have no idea for what you speak.
That's true. But what this Freeper was getting at is that the consumer, one way or another, ends up paying the tax through higher prices, etc.
Either you work for the IRS or other Jack Booted Thug organization or you are willing to bend you knee at the alter of government. All of you keep saying "change the law". None of you have said how, when congress is as out of control as the BATF. It may not be time to shoot the bastards but it is definitely time to warn them we are fed up to the teeth.
No, no, it's okay... Closing down their church certainly doesn't infringe on their practicing religion in any way. The US Marshals were just following our laws when they took control of the church. Our laws can't be bad. We're America!
/ sarcasm>
My students are having a test tomorrow on the Constitution. I told the History teacher they don't have to worry about the Separation of Church and State anymore, or that part of the pesky First Amendment about infringing upon people's "free" exercise of religion.
When laws were broken by churches in the past, the law appropriately prosecuted those PERSONS who acted irresponsibly. Now it's the CHUCH ITSELF that must learn who's boss in this country.
Any word on what the IRS is going to do with its new State-owned Church?
< Sarcasm on! >
I wonder how their attendance will do?
Will it be open for flagellation and purging on Sundays, or everyday?
/sarcasm>
I will kindly ask you to explain your statement. Are you saying that the only church of GOD's is the catholic church?
It may not be time to shoot the bastards but it is definitely time to warn them we are fed up to the teeth.
Be careful. Idiotic language makes you look like one.
Will it be open for flagellation and purging on Sundays, or everyday?
You sound too eager, despite the < /sarcasm >, thingee....hmmmm....let me guess.... S&M?!-)
"Maybe Ashcroft feels like he needs to pick on a Christian evangelical group first to prove that he is not going to be biased by his faith..."
More plausibly, this is a leftover Clinton mess and we ought to be glad they waited until an adult took over for Reno before completing the exercise.
FReegards...MUD
The Render unto Ceaser arguement makes me sick!! You are Ceaser, I am Ceaser, and every Citizen in this country is Ceaser. We have our PUBLIC SERVENTS that we contracted (the Constitution) stating what they could and could not do!!!
You are correct (except for your spelling of "Caesar" ;)
It never fails to amaze me how many so-called "conservatives," many of them "Christians," have the basic mind-set that the United States is a Kingdom. In this country (or what's left of it), WE THE PEOPLE are Caesar. The feral government is SUPPOSED TO BE merely our elected representatives, not our rulers. But in 225 years we've forgotten that already. Ah, well - as Franklin said, "A Republic, madam, if you can keep it."
Obviously, we haven't.
I'm not interested in being a provacature. I am interested in truth and rightiousness.
I have no desire for violence, I abhore the thought. However, if a rober is in my house and my families life and/or future hung in the balance, violence is called for.
The founding fathers gave us the perfect example of how Christian's should handle this situation.
I am on that path and many many others are. However, we should hope for the best, and be prepared and and ready for the worst.
As painful as the thought is remember the 2nd ammendment was moved from the 5th to the 2nd ammendment for the unfortunate rightous use of violence, when the government gets to far out of line. Read the Declaration of Independance carefully.
In Christ
I should take my own advice and not type angry :)
Uh, yes, I am, actually--I am a devout Catholic, I cannot believe otherwise.
The guy squawking that "GOD'S CHURCH" is exempt from having to deal with taxes raises an important issue--which church is God's Church? (I am assuming that the churches that are NOT God's are therefore subject to taxation, since he didn't say that "all churches are immune to taxation.")
And how do you recognize God's Church as tax-exempt when the First Amendment forbids establishment of a state religion? The First Amendment requires the government to be impartial in its treatment of religious organizations.
Is all that is required is the entity's self-declaration that it is a church? In that case, I will establish the First Church of Poohbah, MCSE. My denomination's doctrine: Salvation and Eternal Life through purchasing IT consulting from Poohbah, a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer.
Hey, that might make the difference between GM losing money and making money--declare themselves the Church of General Motors--Salvation through buying Suburbans and Silverados.
Both examples I offer are silly in the extreme--and make my point clear. This idea is unsatisfactory.
The alternative would have the government defining what is and is not a church, and thus tax-exempt. I am extremely uncomfortable with that idea.
Patty's a personal friend of mine. That woman, do know how to write, don't she?
Patty's a personal friend of mine.
Cool... I like what she puts on paper. (I found her stuff through Claire Wolfe)
Somewhere along the way, this church changed "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" into "Damn it, we wont pay those taxes!"
Not so. Like many businesses, they "hired" employees as contractors, and thus left tax-paying up to the contractors. It's up to the individual to pay the taxes, not the church.
Claire thinks Patty's the best. I think Claire's better. But I think they're BOTH delightful :)
Can you just imagine if What's Left of America's women woke up like those two have?
He said that President Bush said they would have the time to work this out in court.
Did Bush say this? Or was Dixon talking to some lower-level Justice flunky? I have a hard time believing that Dixon spoke directly to President Bush.
Taxes are ALWAYS paid by those at the end of the food chain who don't have someone to pass the cost onto. ALWAYS. Everyone else doesn't so much pay taxes as act as a conduit for their collection. Not that taxes don't affect the economic viabilty of the intermediaries.
And let us NOT forget that this happened on GWB's watch.
log on to www.infowars.com..alex jones has been keeping up with this as well as the folks in east texas
Except that the IRS has very tight restrictions on who is and who isn't an independent contractor, and these folks didn't meet the requirements. The restrictions are in place because "independent contractor" status was frequently abused by employers seeking to chisel a few bucks out at the expense of their employees.
'Hey, that might make the difference between GM losing money and making money--declare themselves the Church of General Motors--Salvation through buying Suburbans and Silverados'
The only problem is, the Church of GM would not be able to pass profits on to it's investors. An out of control federal government is a bigger problem than a few phoney church's. And even if it is a phoney Church, every penny of tax still gets paid by the individual. Can't wait what you say when the feds strip away the Catholic Church's tax-exempt status because they discriminate against gays.
The Church is the Church, regardless of its tax-exempt status. If losing that status is the price of preaching the Gospel, so be it.
Except that the IRS has very tight restrictions on who is and who isn't an independent contractor, and these folks didn't meet the requirements.
Not true. The IRS has guidelines, but those are not written in law. The guidelines list about 20 criteria to consider when making that determination, and it is about as clear as mud. When the IRS agents interpret those guidelines, they usually conclude about everybody is an employee.
Yeah, right. Then why do so many of the people I know count as independent contractors?
I respectfully will remind you that the ONLY way to eternal salvation is through JESUS CHRIST. Not a church, not a doctrine, nothing but CHRIST. To count on anything else is a false doctrine that will send you to hell in a hand basket. We too at one time were catholic, but have since learned that praying to patron saints, Mary or anyone other than GOD our FATHER, through JESUS is not what GOD's word tells us to do. Read a King James Bible, get a good conordance and study the greek/hebrew translations of GOD's word, and you too can learn who we are to pray to.
The Church is the Church, regardless of its tax-exempt status. If losing that status is the price of preaching the Gospel, so be it.
That's what IBT thought....
Is there any Constitutional requirement that government dictate that Churches, regardless of denomination, be taxed or be appointed tax collectors for the government? What just happened to you separation of Church and State in that argument?
Fine. Then no church, according to you, is God's Church.
I don't want to over-react to this and will most certainly wait to see what comes to pass.
I have to admit I am somewhat disappointed over this...
Yeah, right. Then why do so many of the people I know count as independent contractors?
It could be because they haven't been audited. A few people pass mustered with the IRS, but this is the #1 area the IRS screws people on. They switch their status to an employee and then go after the company for million of dollars in back taxes, penalties, and interest. This is an ugly area of our tax system.
Quote from Channel 6 story:
“The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 16 turned down the church's argument that to preserve its religious freedom it does not have to pay Social Security, Medicare and income taxes for its workers. The decision cleared the way for the church's seizure.
The church stopped withholding such taxes from its employees' paychecks in 1984, saying payment would make the church an agent of the government. The church refuses to register for tax-exempt status.
Registered churches are exempt from certain taxes, but still must pay employee withholding taxes.”
Can someone make a video tape of the this raid. I would like to buy any live coverage for a documentary I am doing. Please make a VHS tape in SP mode. I will put the video up on Free Republic. Jimbaugh recallcrooks@hotmail.com
Is there any Constitutional requirement that government dictate that Churches, regardless of denomination, be taxed or be appointed tax collectors for the government? What just happened to you separation of Church and State in that argument?
You're phrasing this wrong.
The question is, "can an entity that is engaged in an otherwise taxable activity be exempted from that tax, solely on the basis of being a 'religious organization,' without violating the establishment clause?" The answer to THAT question is "No."
Churches that engage in taxable activity must be treated EXACTLY as any other activity that engages in that same activity. "Separation of Church and State" does NOT mean that churches are exempt from the laws of the land. The solution is childishly easy to resolve: the church should not engage in taxable activities.
Well said in your post number 95
Keep the faith, watch your back and mind your knot.
A Modern American Declaration of Liberty
Give me Liberty or Give me Death
Where's Jesse? Where's Al Sharpton?
Audited in one case. Still a "contractor."
No, they thought they were above the laws of the land. Very different idea.
As the Federal Government says "This is a church" or "This is not a church" the Federal Government is violating the constitution.
The IRS quite regularly establishes different churches as valid. The IRS is mutually exclusive with the Bill of Rights.
How long will people put up with it?
No, they thought they were above the laws of the land. Very different idea.
They just mistakenly thought the Constitution protected Churches. It doesn't anymore. The power to tax is the power to destroy. Great ruling if you like big powerful federal governments which control churches....
Fine. Then no church, according to you, is God's Church.
Poobah, while I can't really speak for him, I'll try anyway ;)
The "Church" is made up of all the people who believe in salvation through Jesus Christ, and who have given Him their lives in return for His promise of eternal life through His atoning death and resurrection. Denominational lines do not exist in the Church - it's only people.
But, "churches" are individual denominations and/or groups of people who worship God. They may or may not be Christian churches.
I would guess that the pastor was referring to the former, although I can't speak for him either ;)
The Federal Government is NOT saying "this is a church." It IS saying "this is a 501(c)(3) organization and is thus tax-exempt."
I know of several churches that do not have 501(c)(3) status and are prospering in their ministries. They simply abide by the Internal Revenue Code. What a concept.
Excuse me, but the Dixons were REPEATEDLY advised, by CPAs and tax specialists in their church, that this was illegal and would land them in a ton of hot water with the IRS. This was way back in 1984. The response from the Dixons was to excommunicate the infidels who dared to tell him what he didn't want to hear.
Yeah? Name for me ANY official FReeper-sponsored event in support of those who have broken the law!
Typically, we're protesting LAWBREAKERS, not law enforcement!
And if you consider that YOUR opinions are closer to the heart of FReeperdom, guess again.
And in turn, I believe those who support these crooks who call themselves "Baptists" have no conception of what "law abiding" means.
If you do not think that the IRS is in the process of crushing a religion, then I urge you to attend services at the tabernacle in question this coming Sunday.
All the 501(c)(3) status hyperbole is a very transparent justification of tyranny.
You sound like one of the 0.4% who voted for Buchanan. And the rest of us are REALLY scared...
Oh, what a crock! Somebody's been giving these people lessons in political theater! Looks like one of those stupid "die-ins" the socialists used to engage in back during the days of the "nuclear freeze" silliness.
Haaa. I think you got it. If there is a name above the door, we put a name above GOD. The church is us, the temple in us, so says GOD's word. The building is just a structure, no more, no less. What you learn inside that structure is important. Do you only learn what is interperted to you or do you activly seek HIS word on your own so that you know if what your being told is on the mark?
The founding fathers gave us the perfect example of how Christian's should handle this situation.
Not all the founders were Christians (Jefferson was a Deist), neither did they intend that a handful of idiots unilaterally take the law into their own hands.
"No taxation WITHOUT REPRESENTATION," remember? These crooks had representation; they just wanted to take advantage of the system like all crooks do.
Unless your employer is a church, then you are mixing apples and oranges.
And if you employer is a church, then you don't understand the First Amendment.
You, sir, are a Fascist. These officers were "chust followink ohduhs!"
Let's see now... Marc Rich defaults on $48Million in Federal taxes AND renounces his citizenship -- and is rewarded with a Presidential pardon, while a God-fearing church that DID pay its taxes (it just didn't withhold according to IRS dictates) and loves the Constitution, is raided?
We should be "up in arms" over this.
The quote appears to paraphrase Claire Wolfe. Somehow I don't think you have the "oomph", as it were, to label anything she writes as idiotic.
Don't you have a BATF/HRT Christian weenie roast to attend?
prambo
No, they thought the Law of the Land (i.e., the Constitution) was above Federal IRS/DoJ tyranny. They were wrong.
Lawbreakers? The Constitution, sir, IS the Supreme Law of the land. It TRUMPS all contradictory inferior laws, rulings, or policies.
The IRS, the courts, the DoJ, the Congress, and the White House all regularly flout the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is on record saying that any unConstitutional law has NO force of law.
I declare myself a church.
I am now exempt from taxes and the laws don't apply to me because of the First Amendment, right?
Spuds.... your back... And here i thought you had DIED and gone to HELL!!. Damn that was only jus' dreaming on my part. Now go crawl back to the Hell hole you came from and jus' SHUT UP
"If my employer didn't withhold taxes, I would expect the tanks to come rolling in, too."
The taxes were all paid.
The controversy is over who the government can force to collect them. Individual teachers in the Church's school paid their taxes themselves. The IRS sent half the money back demanding that the church collect it as their agent and submit the money. The church refused and here we are. The power to tax churches or only allow a church to be legal if they meet the requirements of the government, is the power to destroy and control religion. Everyone should be concerned for the constitution because of their blatant illegal disregard.
Sir, I thank you for your comment. But, this is the Mrs. of the house. So right you are, it is the people not the building that a place for GOD to come and minister.
"I assume you mean switch to a consumption tax, which I support. But where do corporations fall in such a move?
Take a look at this site. It will answer your questions.
"http://salestax.org/
I'm not sure why I am responding to you because I've listened to your marxist, communistic, hitlerees for at least a year.
As a socialist, you should at least understand a contract. Please read the contract(Constitution of the United States) that was created with the U.S. Government. It EXPLICITLY states what they can and can not do. If they violate the contract, it has NO force. None, notta, zero force. It is Color of Law, Color of Authority, Extortion, etc...
However, I even would fight and die for your right to speak and be an idiot, becuase you are protected by what you fight against.
Hello there my friend.
We need to begin posting the essays from Claire's site as individual threads again ... the information, logic, insight and patriotism evident in them is sorely needed.
"Somewhere along the way, this church changed "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's" into "Damn it, we wont pay those taxes!" I have no sympathy for such."
That statement was made to individuals concerning their responsibilities not to "The Church"
The taxes were all paid by each individual thus meeting their responsibility to Ceasar.
The controversy is over who the government can force to collect them. Individual teachers in the Church's school paid their taxes themselves. The IRS sent half the money back demanding that the church collect it as their agent and submit the money. The church refused and here we are. The power to tax churches or only allow a church to legally exist if they meet the requirements of the government, is the power to destroy and control religion. Everyone should be concerned for the constitution because of their blatant illegal disregard.
"You don't speak for Freepers. You never will."
You are certainly right. Illbay is obviously a bleeding heart liberal who enjoys jousting on FR. You will find him on many post taking the liberal position. I usually notice him on posts having to do with the Southern Heritage or Confederacy or Confederate Flag, etc. I would bet he is on others taking the same old ultra liberal positions. Anyone seen him?
If it sounds like a duck, looks like a duck and smells like a duck; it probably is a duck. From the posts I usually see him in and his positions, I would guess that he/she is a person of color, a very liberal democrap and lives in Texas. Illbay, am I close?
"I am now exempt from taxes and the laws don't apply to me because of the First Amendment, right?"
The law does not apply to you unless by your actions you show that you are really something other than a church simply trying to scam your way out of taxes. The bible says, that you will be able to tell what kind of tree you have by the fruit it bears. If you call yourself a church and look like a church and smell like a church and sound like a church and do works like a church and take only church positions then you probably are a church. If you smell like Clinton and Larry Flint, sound like Clinton and Larry Flint and look like Clinton and Larry Flint, then you probably are like Clinton and Larry Flint. I think The IBT easily qualifies as a church, don't you?
Heavenly Father,I pray you bless these dear saints at IBT. May this persecution all turn for the good to those dear saints who love you at IBT. They have stood up to evil. Comfort them in their time of travail. In Jesus Christ's precious, holy name.
Truly a sad day for liberty in this nation!
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.
Lawbreakers? The Constitution, sir, IS the Supreme Law of the land. It TRUMPS all contradictory inferior laws, rulings, or policies.
The IRS, the courts, the DoJ, the Congress, and the White House all regularly flout the Constitution.
The Supreme Court is on record saying that any unConstitutional law has NO force of law.
Good words, Ben, and a key to so much understanding.
I'm not sure if there is any point in this church resisting at all, because the problem is much deeper than some interpretation of contractor rules for a 5013Cqxt65 organization. or whatever. I think we have a combination of two problems here. Churches aren't what they are meant to be, and the nation is not following the Constitution. Both therse problems have been going on for quite a long time.
Hey slinkyspur let me intoduce you to illbay. You remeber the old saying about birds of a feather? Why don't you both look at post 146 by HappyAndFree and take his advice.
Claire's the best.
I'll have to dust off some of her old stuff.
For some reason, I have the impression Illbay is a Mormon. Don't know why.
I actually agreed with him the other day, to my surprise. I don't remember what it was about.
You remeber the old saying about birds of a feather? Why don't you both look at post 146 by HappyAndFree and take his advice.
It's funny to watch some of you laud the actions of tax cheats.
You cheer these guys on, not realizing that we're the ones left holding the bag when these charlatans get away with breaking the law.
Lots of neck veins bulging around here today!
"I actually agreed with him the other day, to my surprise. I don't remember what it was about.
"I'm in shock!! I promise that if I ever do agree with him, I will let him know.
"You cheer these guys on, not realizing that we're the ones left holding the bag when these charlatans get away with breaking the law."
I'm sure that Hitler had laws that were used to justify the killing of the Jews, therefore, I wouldn't get to excited about unconstitutional, illegal laws.
Yeah, I had to let him know. I even agreed with sinkspur the other day, and had to let her know. I agreed with her AGAIN the other day, but I decided not to bother letting her know that time. Not sure what's happening - I hope I'm okay.
"I hope I'm okay."
Alleluia, they have seen the light! Sorry, I probably got excited a little prematurely. I jump their cases all the time but I imagine that if we tried hard enough there might be areas on which we agree. They certainly make for a lively if not frustrating discussion.
Wow. You link your opposition to a law you don't like (here's a hint: YOUR personal dislike of a law does NOT equal that law being unconstitutional), that merely requires you to pay money to the government, to opposing the Holocaust.
Thank you for managing to trivialize both the Holocaust and the ongoing effort to repeal the income tax and abolish the IRS.
"Thank you for managing to trivialize both the Holocaust and the ongoing effort to repeal the income tax and abolish the IRS."
BULLSH**!
Read your constitution and you will see that the actions in both cases were and are unconstitutional thereby making them illegal in this country. I have not minimized the holocaust but have hopefully maximized the problems with the government using 'Jackbooted Thugs" to make the church their agent.
Excuse me, but the income tax is constitutional, unless you would care to prove otherwise.
Come on Poohbah. I'm waiting to see your arguments trying to make us believe that just because a country, president, dictator, king, etc make a law that we must accept that law as above the laws of God.
OK, here goes:
Article I, Section 8 and the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution give Congress a very wide power to tax. Would you please demonstrate how the income tax is actually unconstitutional?
I'm waiting for YOU to do something besides pound the table...
Well, the sixteenth amendment clearly gives the Feds the power to tax income. I do not agree that any other part of the constitution does, however. That is why they had to pass the sixteenth amendment.
"Excuse me, but the income tax is constitutional, unless you would care to prove otherwise"
Only because a bunch of socialist promised eternal bliss if we would just give them our money to spend through their infinite wisdom. While the Income Tax is technically legal the stretching of that law to encompass making religion a tool of the state is not. I'm sure you know exactly what I am saying and having read some of your post before can't imagine you disagree..
Patty's a personal friend of mine. That woman, do know how to write, don't she?
Where's Claire? Alive? Writing?
Spuds and Ill'ing are the same person ;-)
Poobah gets paid by the same team ;-)
i think their monthly allotment is 20 shekels a month for playing DISRUPTERS on FR threads.
Statists S,I,P the illegalLAWS on the books these days are only laws in color, not in accordance to the supreme contract called the CONSTITUTION. I know for all 3 of you, YOU JUST CANT GET THAT THRU YOUR HEADS. These colorful laws only have legitimacy because FORCE is used to extract the monies from the sheopledumb. You are the same kinds of people that would allow for a Hitler to arise because guess what, he used the color of laws in germany to do the same. Start thinking like a FREE american and stop pushing your Statist bile upon us. still HAF c'ya
Between the two sections I have cited, the Congress has a VERY broad taxing authority. I was not stating that Article I, Section 8 gave them broad authority to tax income (but it does let them tax damn near anything else).
I agree, I didn't mean to imply that you did say that 1,8 had that authority on its own. I just wanted it to be clear to others.
I want to get rid of the income tax. I do not, however, think it will just magically disappear--it takes a lot of ard work and educating my fellow citizens about just how MUCH the income tax cripples people.
My modest proposal: repeal withholding. Once withholding is undone, the rest follows--but withholding is the battle to fight, not tinfoil nuttiness supporting IBT and its dishonest pastor (just before the IRS seized it, Pastor Dixon sold the land to a member of his congregation, neglecting to inform the congregant that there was a huge tax lien on the property--Pastor Bob kept the money, and the IRS got the land from the congregant).
". I know for all 3 of you"
I don't know how you joined me with those two but believe me, you got it wrong
"These colorful laws only have legitimacy because FORCE is used to extract the monies from the sheopledumb."
Go back and read all my posts and apologize, those are fight'in words. If I'm not mistaken, I think you and I are brothers in the cause. It's a Harley sort of thing. If I have to explain it to you , then you wouldn't understand.
..the income tax is constitutional, unless you would care to prove otherwise
See: Bill Benson's The Law That Never Was
also helps if you don't have "Social Security" number.
The law does not apply to you unless by your actions you show that you are really something other than a church simply trying to scam your way out of taxes.
Who are you to judge whether or not I am a church? If I say I'm a church, then what gives you or the government the power to trample my First Amendment rights and say that my religion isn't worthy of being recognized?
And, if you say you can do so by looking at specific actions, then go ahead and further violate the First Amendment by establishing state-sanctioned religions. Let me know what actions I have to take so that I'm free from any laws. I want to be a state-sanctioned church.
P.S. I want my state-sanctioned church to have religious ceremonies involving incest and let's see, um, sacrifices of Spotted Owls and Whooping Cranes. You don't have a problem with that, do you?
So you work under the table and have no assets. OK, fine.
BTW, if "The Law That Never Was" is correct in its argument, you just voided the entire Bill of Rights as well.
tberry...it was directed at spuds, illing and poobah, not you brother...
Matthew 5:11-12
11. "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say
all kinds of evil against you because of me.
12. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way
they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Matthew 5:44-45
44. But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute
you,
45. that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the
evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
Matthew 10:23
23. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the
truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Matthew 24:9-11
9. "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and
you will be hated by all nations because of me.
10. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each
other,
11. and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.
Luke 11:49
49. Because of this, God in his wisdom said, `I will send them prophets and
apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.'
Luke 21:12
12. "But before all this, they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They
will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and
governors, and all on account of my name.
John 15:20-21
20. Remember the words I spoke to you: `No servant is greater than his master.' If
they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my
teaching, they will obey yours also.
21. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One
who sent me.
"Who are you to judge whether or not I am a church?"
You are the one saying that the government can say what a church is and can therefore say what is not a church and tax it or legislate it out of existence. I would rather err on the side of religious freedom than give the government the right to make churches their agents. You are arguing for the right of the government to have the right to tax and decide what a church is and if they feel like it (as in the IBT) close it.
The IBT was obviously a church. Their only problem is they wouldn't become the agent of the government. So!! The government shuts them down. That is unconstitutional!!
"not you brother"
Whew!! Had me going for a minute.
I think I know where everyone stands. If any of you are interested in the 2nd Amendment then you will want to take a look at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a895a4148ed.htm
You are the one saying that the government can say what a church is and can therefore say what is not a church and tax it or legislate it out of existence.
Nope. I'm arguing that the government's laws DO apply to churches, and you're arguing that they don't. You're arguing that the government can't force a church to act as its agent, and I think that's nonsense. Merely complying with a law does not make someone or something an agent of the government. You are not an agent of the government because you file a tax return, are you?
Yes we need to get rid of the IRS; and whatever happened to that "CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN" idea? Bring back tariffs; stop supporting big business over small proprieters in their own home. Just think what it could be like. But scepticism has tainted our enthusiasm; even those of us who see the problems can't really see the solutions because we have been brainwashed to think that the past is impossible.We've been duped again, the status quo remains. We get a little tweeking of the situation.
The truth is that when the Church gives money to the government then they are giving money to commit murder. Just as we all are when we pay our taxes. It is called government funded abortion. And that is not all we are supporting either. So why should the church have to do this ? You will find that there are many people here on FR that think God is a bunch of crap. Those are the ones that love watching the feds go into that church and take it over. Personally I Think the members of that church should have left nothing standing.
Heres another point. If I understand correctly, the 16th Ammendment was never ratified by congress, making the IRS illegal. And, according to the IRS wording, they could tax corporations but not individuals. Does anyone know anything about this?
I like what you have written Revel. If the church will not take a stand against abortion, who will?
But what this Freeper was getting at is that the consumer, one way or another, ends up paying the tax through higher prices, etc.
You won't get any argument from me on that point. All costs, including taxes, are passed on down the line.
Richard W.
You fill out a W-4 for the employer and the employer gives you a W-2 at the end of the year.
You fill out a W-4 for the employer and the employer gives you a W-2 at the end of the year.
Yeah, I screwed that up. No W-4, no withholding.
By your analysis, then, every condemned criminal is holy.
The 16th was ratified by Congress. The allegation is that not enough states ratified it.
And if that argument ever prevails, Handgun Control, Inc. now has its tool to destroy the 2nd Amendment, because the paper trail on THAT one is in even sorrier shape. The rest of the Bill of Rights is in similar condition, BTW.
Slick move. Destroy our freedoms because you dislike paying money to the government.
Who do the farmers pass their taxes onto? They are told what they are to be given for their crops, they don't set their own price.
I didn't say that farmers don't pay taxes.
I said that all tax is paid by individuals, not business.
In your example, taxes levied against a farmer can't be paid thru higher prices (since prices are set by our omniscient government), hence the tax is either paid by reducing wages to the farmer's workers, or is paid by reduced return on the farmer's investment.
Either way, the tax ends up being paid by an individual.
It is clear that business doesn't pay tax, individuals do. From that we see that ALL tax on business is actually a "hidden" tax on individuals.
Indeed it has been shown that the price of every single good and service in these United States is inflated by 20-40% due to the costs of taxes and their associated compliance costs.
So when you calculate how much ta you pay to the feds, remember to include 30% of every dollar you spend going to them.
When you talk about eliminating IRS, I assume you mean switch to a consumption tax, which I support. But where do corporations fall in such a move?
Indeed, a consumption tax....
The measure I speak of (HR 2525) eliminates the income tax, defunds the IRS over time (4 years I think), eliminates the payroll tax and associated compliance issues, and slaps a % onto the purchase of NEW goods and services- all of them, no exceptions.
Corporations, when purchasing goods to be used in the production of a good to be sold for final retail consumption, would pay no tax on that good. The only goods that are taxed are goods that are being consumed. All services will be taxed.
This has the effect of lowering prices of goods and services by the amount that tax and compliance costs have driven prices up...20-40% depending on industry.
So AFTER the tax and compliance costs are eliminated (via competition), prices fall by 20-40%. The tax I speak of is a 30% sales tax- which is a 23% tax inclusive rate. So prices will remain stable.
Corporations will really dig this. It will make their products 20-40% cheaper overseas and will make imports more expensive.
If business' don't pay taxes, why the cry by corporate fat cats for "eliminating" corporate income tax in your sales "gross payment" tax scam?
It's really simple, for most folks.
The "fat cats" don't want to reduce thier dividends or their ROI. Those "fat cats" are some of the very same individuals (just like you and I are) that pay these hidden taxes.
Simple.
The notion that some inanimate thing called a business pays taxes is an effective demagoguery used to convince morons that there is a free lunch.
Bears repeating, Ming_the_Merciless.
It is true that since the revenue stream comes from consumers that they ultimately pay for everything. But it is also true that when the government raises taxes the entrepreneur, in most cases, takes a hit.
I did not say that entrepreneurs didn't pay taxes.
What I said is that business never pays tax, only indivivduals pay tax.
Indeed, in your example, the entrepreneur (an individual) pays the tax ("takes the hit"). So, all tax on business is actually a HIDDEN tax on individuals. That hidden tax is 20-40% of EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR YOU SPEND.
Learn to like nobody knowing their federal tax burden
Learn to like nobody thinking they need a tax cut
Learn to like everybody clamoring for more goverment because they perceive no cost
Learn to like politicialns using our hidden tax dollars to buy votes
Or consider the national sales tax.
OK, I understand. Thanks for the clarification.
Guess what? Not all businesses are "investor"-owned corporations. The country is full of mom and pop proprietorships. The first thing that gets cut is mom and pop's income and standard of living.
Duh, sir.
The backbone of America is small business.
Did I say Mom-n-Pop stores were investor owned??? No.
What I said was business doesn't pay tax, only individuals pay tax. I also said that all business taxes are paid by either reduced wages, higher prices, or reduced return on investment. Well, sir, the investment I speak of is that of the MOM AND POP!
Indeed, Mom and Pop are both individuals, and both pay what is supposed to be a "business" tax.
There is no such thing as a tax on business- tax on business is merely passed on TO AN INDIVIDUAL- creating inflated prices to the tune of 20-40%.
OUCH!
Imagine how competition would drive prices down if the "business tax" didn't exist-
but that would mean folks would actually see and be aware of (gasp!) their real federal tax burden...there'd be a revolt....
Yes we need to get rid of the IRS; and whatever happened to that "CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN" idea?
That idea can still be found here.
My pleasure...
We need to begin posting the essays from Claire's site as individual threads again ... the information, logic, insight and patriotism evident in them is sorely needed
I agree. It seems that too many of us are argueing at cross purposes to each other. For instance, on this subject, we have the legalists, and the moralists, and the insane....coherence is sadly lacking.
Didn't mean to bite your head off, it's a sore point for me, spent a long time as the "pop" half of a mom & pop business. I remember the long hours I spent at the store working until 3 and 4 in the morning redoing the work (mix of walk-in and wholesale camera repair) that the employees botched during the day, and then doing extra work they didn't do, so that we'd be able to make payroll.
They did better than we did but still acted like we were taking advantage of them.
The first thing to go was always our income. It was pretty much the only "flexible" expense.
. The notion that some inanimate thing called a business pays taxes is an effective demagoguery used to convince morons that there is a free lunch.
And some morons have never owned a business...nor have a clue how business really works.
The revenue may come from "the people" but the tax is imposed ON the business.
The business has to raise its prices or pay its employees less or not hire as many people, etc. It is always people who pay taxes.
You might take note of who is not thinking clearly...once again, ONLY the revenue comes from "the people", All of the things you list there are taxing the "business"... In your own words you wrote of what business' must do when they're hit with higher taxes, not what "people" (as if business is "an inanimate object" and not people?) must do.
When you've owned a business, filed your quarterlys and signed the front of a paycheck you'll know that businesses are indeed taxed.
Let's see, the Gov. can take a whorehouse out west and operate it as usual. What can they do with a church? Sell it back to its members?!!!
You know the tanks would never roll against your business, employer, or anything that is not religious. That is not how it works in Amerika.
Any tax on business ends up being paid by an individual. No ifs, ands, or buts.
I challenge you to provide one single situation in which I am unable to show that it is actually an individual that pays a tax levied on business.
Of course you won't respond to this with any specific situation that proves your point, cuz there isn't one. Instead you'll do the same old name-calling and bring up unrelated topics to attempt to change the subject.
Just wait and see. Or perhaps you really will reply with a situation which you believe shows that an individual doesn't pay the tax levied on business??? THen it will be up to me to prove my point.
Whaddaya say, lewislynn? Challenge or wimper?
You misunderstood what I was trying to say. Some people apparently believe that a business is an inanimate object that actually pays taxes, when in reality it is the business owner, the employee, and the customers who get tooled by taxes. Therefore, real people are hurt by taxes, even when it's called a business tax. I'm on your side.
I challenge you to provide one single situation in which I am unable to show that it is actually an individual that pays a tax levied on business.
US Code : Title 26, Subchapter B
US Code as of: 01/05/99
Go for it.
Show me precisely where it was ever YOUR money.
Just wait and see. Or perhaps you really will reply with a situation which you believe shows that an individual doesn't pay the tax levied on business??? THen it will be up to me to prove my point....Yep it is, and,
I'm waiting....
Day one.
I'm not going to some link to attempt ot decipher your "understanding" of law- as if that has anything to do with what I asked.
My assertion was NOT whether the law levies tax on business you moron- well, I guess you know that and you're just trying to change the subject, as you always do.
Clearly the law DOES levy tax on business. However, that does not mean the business does anything more than simply include tax as another production cost that is passed on in the form of
1) lower wages
2) higher prices
3) diminished return on an individual's invesmtent.
Again, to be clear, I assert that all taxes that ARE levied on business end up being paid by an individual. So duh we both know taxes are levied on business- so get back to it lewislynn. See if you can avoid the question AGAIN by attempting to change the subject through misrepresenting my assertion. This is kinda embarrassing for you, ya know.
I assert that all taxes that ARE levied on business end up being paid by an individual.
OK, I'm waiting.....day one.
.....day two begins shortly, I'd thought i'd check in.
Again, to be clear, I assert that all taxes that ARE levied on business end up being paid by an individual. ...who's wimping out now?
Now you "assert they end up being paid"...
Guess what Einstein, taxes is a cost of doing business. Providing there's enough cash flow, ALL costs of doing business end up being paid by individuals.
Before it was:"I challenge you to provide one single situation in which I am unable to show that it is actually an individual that pays a tax levied on business."
I did just that. One single situation is employer tax, now "show that it is actually an individual that pays a tax levied on business" (your words)...the employer tax is a tax levied on business....Who pays it?..If it's not the business, then live up to your big mouth and prove that "an individual pays the tax."
It appears you're unable, but I'm still waiting.
OK, I'm waiting.....day one.
214 Posted on 02/17/2001 06:38:56 PST by Principled
.....day two begins shortly, I'd thought i'd check in.
215 Posted on 02/17/2001 17:48:07 PST by Principled
It looks like you have as big a problem understanding time as you do taxes...
Day one is usually at THE END of the first 24hrs and day 2 usually begins after that...day's one and 2 can't be in the same day.
"I'd" thought I'd clear that up for you...How did you do in school, BTW?
just as I thought, and just as I posted. your reply has nothing to do with the topic. So predictable.
BTW some folks count days from midnight to midnight.
Keep trying lewis.
I did very well in school, thanks for asking. Good prep schools and university training. Your name-calling skills need some work, BTW.
Yawn.
just as I thought, and just as I posted. your reply has nothing to do with the topic. So predictable.
You replied to my #217, you overlooked my response # 216....Must be all that University "training" clogging your mind.
Taxes on employers has nothing to do with business???
Still can't come up with an answer, can you?...You don't even know what the tax is do you?
BTW some folks count days from midnight to midnight.So in prepschool and university "training"(?)they taught you: From 06:00 in the morning of one day to 06:00 in the morning of the following day is really 2 days?....even though only 24 hrs (one day by most any standards) has elapsed.
BTW, what were you "training" for, it certainly wasn't time management or business.
You are clearly more interested in fighting in a name calling battle than you are interested in convincing me, or anyone, that your tax assertions are accurate.
I did not overlook any post. I simply would prefer to spend my time discussing taxes. SHould you change your mind and decide to do so also, I would be interested in understanding your point of view on "employer's tax" as you put it.
Until then, enjoy yourself...alone.
You are clearly more interested in fighting in a name calling battle than you are interested in convincing me, or anyone, that your tax assertions are accurate. ....I didn't attempt to convince anyone of anything and I didn't make any assertions, you did.
YOUR challenge was for me to provide a "situation"...I did, and now, since in several responses you've avoided responding to your own challenge, you, yourself, (once again) have proven you only have a big mouth and don't know what you're talking about.
Once again, your challenge:"I challenge you to provide one single situation in which I am unable to show that it is actually an individual that pays a tax levied on business."
By your own challenge, I don't have to prove anything, it's YOU that has to show us "that it is actually an individual that pays a tax levied on business"....My challenge was to provide the situation...
All that university "training" and I have to explain the meaning of YOUR challenge to you?...
Who's wimping out and changing the subject here?
Still waiting.
I would be interested in understanding your point of view on "employer's tax" as you put it.
My point of view is: I have a business and choose to not participate in "employer taxes"....
What's your point of view of "employer taxes" and prove how they are paid by "an individual"?
What's your point of view of "employer taxes" and prove how they are paid by "an individual"?
"Employer taxes" is a term I am not familiar with. If if you mean income taxes levied on business, those are paid by either lower wages to individuals, higher prices paid by individuals, or lower return on individuals' investments. In the case of income tax, the most likely payor is an individual buyer thru higher prices, then an individual worker thruough lower wages, and least likely is the lower return on investment to individual investors. In either case, the tax is paid by an individual.
If you mean payroll tax, the same is true. Although it is more likely that the primary hit is taken by individual wage -earners, then consumers, and finally investors.
Now we've been over this a million times, so you either mean something other than income or payroll tax, or you disagree with some or all of the above. I'm trying to learn, and I have done a good deal of research and study on the above. I would like to know what you disagree with, and why. I prefer not to be in a name-calling game with you, and I have answered you, again. You have not been specific on the tax you want me to address. I will not continue to be abused by you in this forum. You may stop the attacks or post to yourself. I note that with all but me, the latter has aleady taken place. I am a forgiving individual, and I don't take things personally. But it's neither fun nor informative to be involved with you on this forum. Rather than attempt to persuade me on your point of view, you just call names. Well, if that is your purpose, have at it. I'm here to learn.
From your own post, "...taxes is a cost of doing business...ALL costs of doing business end up being paid by individuals."
Indeed you then agree with my assertion, that all taxes end up being paid by individuals.
Hell, we're saying the same thing!
I have done a good deal of research and study on the above. I would like to know what you disagree with, and why. I prefer not to be in a name-calling game with you, and I have answered you, again. You have not been specific on the tax you want me to address.
You haven't studied enough, the title I gave you is the exact wording of the law...YOU call it payroll tax, the law says otherwise...here in part is what the law says:
(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121(a)) paid by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121(b)) ...
When a business is levied a tax, it isn't capable in most cases to just raise prices, cut pay, or somehow magically collect more money for the tax...in fact it isn't any easier for a business than it is for "an individual"...if it were just a matter of raising prices to generate more revenue, then businesses would be able to do it anytime...not just wait for tax hikes.
Use a hypothetical that there were no payroll taxes, then the government imposed a new excise (payroll) tax on the employer (pretty much what happened)...the employer (business) had to find a way to come up with more revenue, not the individual...The "individual" didn't suffer a loss at all, in fact the money is credited to the "individual" without ever being income or taxed. And it NEVER was, never will be the "individuals" money untill it's credited to his/her account at SS....
Indeed you then agree with my assertion, that all taxes end up being paid by individuals.
No, I don't beleive you pay my businesses taxes at all, in fact I know you don't...I'm the one that has to generate the revenue...do you beleive an "individual" is somehow paying your taxes?...You as an employee are no different than a business, you have a value, you provide a service, you generate revenue and you pay tax based on that....or does someone else pay it for you?
Why did you leave out the most important part of the sentence then gloss right over it? taxes is a cost of doing business. Providing there's enough cash flow, ALL costs of doing business end up being paid by individuals.
If you had a retail outlet for example, and no customers....who pays the rent?, now add wages into that mix...
If you manufacture a product and the product doesn't sell too well who pays the "employer taxes" on the wages?.....individuals or the business?....it's no different with taxes...BTW both of those situations and more are more common in business than you think. Like it or not, both are a cost of doing business and businesses pay both, not individuals.
You're getting better but still no proof, never will be either.
You're confusing paying the tax with passing the tax on....Businesses pay their own taxes and then pass them on just as we do with any "cost of doing business"...IF POSSIBLE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |