Spectate's brother



  • @tster said:

    You should be aiming for 15% (10% if you are more conservative, 20% if [b]completely delusional[/b]).
     

    FTFY. 20% in a year is not impossible. Averaging 20% for 30 consecutive years is a Wall Street fantasy.

    Did you miss the .com bubble, S&L, 70's stagflation? That's just the LAST 30 years. The US markets didn't really emerge from the damage done by the Great Depression until World War II. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    The act of not stating the source of the income may not be used in the case, but it will be the basis of the ensuing investigation against you.

    Yes, but the investigation must proceed carefully.  Once again, you will almost certainly be caught, but invoking the fifth does not provide a sufficient basis for probable cause in and of itself.  Therefore, your refusal to state the source of income can not be used to obtain warrants, wiretaps, arrests or anything else.  It would raise suspicions and it is likely investigators would be able to locate something to establish probable cause if you were engaging in extremely illegal activities.

     

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I highly doubt you would successfully hold up a defense based on the 5th amendment when indicted on tax fraud.

    It would only stand up if the information would incriminate you.  In that case, it's no different than taking the 5th under oath.

     

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    However, the form and your lack of accuracy/truth will no doubt be exhibited in court during your tax fraud/evasion trial.

    You cannot be convicted of tax fraud or evasion simply for invoking the fifth.  You can if you refused to report amounts (which is not incriminating) but by refusing to report the sources (i.e. drugs, etc..) you are within your legal rights.  If the prosecutor had evidence of your drug operation he or she could show the court that the tax return had no source for your income, but this is no more damning than taking the fifth at any other time.  Additionally, it may be harmful to the prosecutor because it might raise questions over whether the investigation was started because of the tax return.  If that happened, some of the evidence might be dismissed if there was not sufficient probable cause to obtain it and it can be shown that the investigators had based their investigation solely on the tax return itself.

     

     



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    200k dollars of drug money is certainly considered a crime.

    Which is why you shouldn't mention drugs as the source of your income on your tax return.  If you did, that could be used against you in a court of law because you had willingly incriminated yourself.  Refusing to incriminate yourself is absolutely not a crime.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Your refusal to state the source of income can not be used to obtain warrants, wiretaps, arrests or anything else.
     

    No, but the reasonable cause garnered by the suspicious income could be used for those purposes, so it is a null point. The court simply could not convict you based entirely on you not providing the information.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    If the prosecutor had evidence of your drug operation he or she could show the court that the tax return had no source for your income, but this is no more damning than taking the fifth at any other time. 

    As I said previously, I don't doubt most prosecutors would steer clear of the tax return to keep the 5th amendment argument away, but by claiming the 200k on the tax return, with a source of income or not, you are admitting to that income. They can certainly use that against you. At no time do you need to admit where the money came from, but if they can prove it came from drugs you are just as guilty. You don't need to admit it. If your cover story is that you are a busboy at the local hot dog palace, and you have 200k of unattributed income on your tax return, you better believe they can shoot all sorts of holes in your credibility with that. You didn't have to incriminate yourself, but you already did by claiming the 200k in the first place.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Additionally, it may be harmful to the prosecutor because it might raise questions over whether the investigation was started because of the tax return. 

    I highly doubt that. You cannot plead the fifth to a suspicious amount of income, and then not expect them to investigate this. This is not what the 5th amendment is for. They cannot try you based upon the single fact that you did not want to incriminate yourself, however they can certainly investigate why you felt this would be incriminating and use that evidence against you.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Which is why you shouldn't mention drugs as the source of your income on your tax return.  If you did, that could be used against you in a court of law because you had willingly incriminated yourself.  Refusing to incriminate yourself is absolutely not a crime.
     

    My argument is that you already HAVE incriminated yourself with the 200k. Pleading the 5th with the source is not going to save you.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:

    You can't claim the 5th on your tax return.

    You can, by refusing to specify the source of the income.

    Okay, agreed.  My point is that you can't claim the 5th in regards to your actual amount of income on your tax return.

    As a side note, where would one report illegal income?  Would classifying your business as "999999 - Unclassified establishment" on a 1040 Schedule C work?

    @bstorer said:
    But they can still use the tax return as evidence.

    Evidence of what?  You have committed no crime.  It would be useless as evidence in a court of law.

    Evidence of any crime you have committed.  While the refusal to reveal the source of income cannot be used, the fact that you had such income can be.  So if they can show that someone claims to have, say, paid you $50,000 to kill somebody, and you have reported $50,000 in income from a source that you refuse to name, they can try to make the claim that the money was the payment for the hit.



  • @bstorer said:

      So if they can show that someone claims to have, say, paid you $50,000 to kill somebody, and you have reported $50,000 in income from a source that you refuse to name, they can try to make the claim that the money was the payment for the hit.
     

    Right the 5th amendment says you don't have to tell them what the money was for. But you don't need to admit it to go to jail anyhow. And the single act of admitting that income will likely be used against you.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    No, but the reasonable cause garnered by the suspicious income could be used for those purposes, so it is a null point.

    Income cannot, in and of itself, provide probable cause.  It can cause suspicion, but not a basis for warrants.  If it could, it would also be covered by the 5th amendment and you wouldn't have to file taxes if you didn't feel like it.  You have the right to refuse any testimony that could incriminate you.

     

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    At no time do you need to admit where the money came from, but if they can prove it came from drugs you are just as guilty.

    Sure, but if they can prove it then why would the tax return even matter?

     

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    If your cover story is that you are a busboy at the local hot dog palace, and you have 200k of unattributed income on your tax return, you better believe they can shoot all sorts of holes in your credibility with that.

    Sure, but you can always claim something more believable than busboy.  If you are claiming your illicit income on your return, you are probably so stupid you will be caught anyway.  Any half-decent criminal will hide the source of his income but then you end up like Al Capone, taken down on tax evasion charges.  A lavish lifestyle without a declared source of income would provide probably cause of tax fraud which would allow for the issuing of warrants, etc..  The smartest thing would be to launder the money through a legitimate front and declare income from your "business", like the Mafia usually does.  There are still plenty of ways you could be caught, but there wouldn't be probable cause for tax evasion if you are claiming the income from a legitimate front operation.

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I highly doubt that. You cannot plead the fifth to a suspicious amount of income, and then not expect them to investigate this. This is not what the 5th amendment is for. They cannot try you based upon the single fact that you did not want to incriminate yourself, however they can certainly investigate why you felt this would be incriminating and use that evidence against you.

    This is the grey area I referred to.  They can investigate you, but they can't just investigate on the basis that you didn't provide a source of income.  If anytime you claimed the 5th (for example, when being interrogated by police) they could use that as justification for warrants, then the 5th amendment would provide no protection whatsoever.  There has to be a guarantee that the police won't use your refusal against you in any way.  That doesn't preclude investigation and the police can think you are guilty if you claim the fifth, but it doesn't provide them with any legal leverage they wouldn't have had had you not testified in the first place.  If it can be shown that the police acted differently after you took the fifth than they would have had you not testified at all, then the evidence could be dismissed.  There's enough wiggle room for the police to still do their jobs, but they have to stay within a pretty well-defined area: the concept is that essentially you claiming the fifth is no difference than you not being asked in the first place, although in practice it is a little bit different.



  • Really I am tired of this argument, I really didn't want to be involved from the start. That's what I get for adding my two cents.

    I disagree that they wouldn't use your income claims against you if they needed to.

    Otherwise it seems we are basically agreeing, and you/we are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Which is fine, but I am just tired of the subject.

     

    I can concede defeat on this one if I need to. Or we could agree to disagree until one of us ends up in court for tax evasion or being a mobster.




  • @bstorer said:

    As a side note, where would one report illegal income?  Would classifying your business as "999999 - Unclassified establishment" on a 1040 Schedule C work?

    You would just leave it blank.  Lying under oath is still perjury so trying to claim a legitimate source is not the same as taking the fifth.  At this point we're in fairly theoretical territory because this doesn't come up that often.  Either you will not report any income, will only report legitimate income or will funnel your funds through a front to make them appear legitimate.

     

    @bstorer said:

    While the refusal to reveal the source of income cannot be used, the fact that you had such income can be.  So if they can show that someone claims to have, say, paid you $50,000 to kill somebody, and you have reported $50,000 in income from a source that you refuse to name, they can try to make the claim that the money was the payment for the hit.

    True, but that's very weak evidence.  If it was all the prosecutor had, you probably would not convicted.  I know I wouldn't return a guilty verdict on such weak evidence.  "Mr. Smith paid $50,000 to have his wife killed.   The defendent has $50,000 of income he will not divulge a source for.  Therefore, he was the one who killed her."  That's extremely flimsy with nothing else to back it up and any other evidence that would support a conviction would be more than sufficient to stand on its own.  I doubt I would be swayed at all by the tax return.

     



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Which is fine, but I am just tired of the subject.

    Yeah, I am too.  We seem to be mostly agreeing, I just don't think a competent DA would bring up the tax return in such a case.

     

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I can concede defeat on this one if I need to. Or we could agree to disagree until one of us ends up in court for tax evasion or being a mobster.

    No need, I'm perfectly cool with agreeing to disagree.  Obviously, IANAL, I'm just basing this on what knowledge of the law I do have and some research I've done on the topic of self-incrimination in the past.  If I ever turn to a life of crime and my tax return is used as evidence against me, I will buy you a Coke.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    If I ever turn to a life of crime and my tax return is used as evidence against me, I will buy you a Coke.
     

    And if I ever turn to a life of crime and my tax return is used as evidence against me, I will sell you some coke.



  • This person is 100% correct - the income tax is unconstitutional, as the 16th Amendment, which most people cite as requiring it, only applies to businesses, not labor.  In 1913 the Supreme Court ruled the 16th Amendment did not convey any additional taxation power on the government - therefore, as there was no tax on labor prior to 1913, and the 16th Amendment didn't grant any additional taxation power, a tax on labor was unconstitutional.

    In addition as others have said, no one from the IRS can cite an actual law requiring one to file an income tax.  The only reference to one claims it's 100% voluntary.

    So we have been duped for nearly 100 years by the government, thanks to the evil known as the Federal Reserve.  It sounds crazy, but do some research - it's entirely true.

    Watch the video "America: Freedom to Fascism" - it'll show you the truth. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    True, but that's very weak evidence.  If it was all the prosecutor had, you probably would not convicted.  I know I wouldn't return a guilty verdict on such weak evidence.  "Mr. Smith paid $50,000 to have his wife killed.   The defendent has $50,000 of income he will not divulge a source for.  Therefore, he was the one who killed her."  That's extremely flimsy with nothing else to back it up and any other evidence that would support a conviction would be more than sufficient to stand on its own.  I doubt I would be swayed at all by the tax return.
    A check I write to the gas company can be used as evidence in a trial for bank robbery.  You just need a lot of other stuff to put it together. I'm not saying that it constitutes probable cause -- it's highly circumstantial -- but simply that it can be used as evidence.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Where does the 16th Amendment say anything about repealing the protections of the 5th amendment? 
    The point is that someone is claiming that the government can't make you file a return because of the 5th Amendment.  But the 16th, which supercedes the 5th, says that the government has the power to collect taxes.  Part of that is to require you to file a return.  They have an enumerated power to make you file your taxes.  That's a lot better than umbras and penumbras.

    Now, if the order of the two were reversed, a case could be made that the 5th altered the 16th such that forcing people to file a return violated their 5th Amendment rights.



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    This person is 100% correct - the income tax is unconstitutional, as the 16th Amendment, which most people cite as requiring it, only applies to businesses, not labor.

    Nowhere does the amendment say that.

     

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    In 1913 the Supreme Court ruled the 16th Amendment did not convey any additional taxation power on the government - therefore, as there was no tax on labor prior to 1913, and the 16th Amendment didn't grant any additional taxation power, a tax on labor was unconstitutional.

    Yes, the 16th amendment did not grant any additional taxation power, because Congress already had the right to levy an income tax.  The problem is that many types of income tax were "direct taxes" and were required to be apportioned according to the Constitutional requirement for equal taxation amongst the states.  The 16th amendment removed this distinction. 

     

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    In addition as others have said, no one from the IRS can cite an actual law requiring one to file an income tax.  The only reference to one claims it's 100% voluntary.

    If you believe this, you are a flaming retard.  There are tons of "actual laws" which establish a graduated income tax and grant the IRS the power to enforce it.  The IRS uses the term "voluntary" to mean taxes are paid by individuals not taken directly by the government.  It is still a crime to not pay.

     

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    So we have been duped for nearly 100 years by the government, thanks to the evil known as the Federal Reserve.  It sounds crazy, but do some research - it's entirely true.

    Watch the video "America: Freedom to Fascism" - it'll show you the truth.

    This has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve.  I am not very fond of central banking myself, but this is a completely different situation.  And whether you like or dislike the income tax, it is still the law.

     



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    ...

     

    Heh. Someone has been drinking the kool-aid huh?



  • Then please, cite an actual law (with page number and everything) that says an income tax is required.  Because no one from the government seems to be able to give an exact reason.  The closest one was from some IRS douchebag who said, basically, "It's a law because we can enforce it in court"  Other than that insane comment (if you don't understand why it's an insane comment, then think about it) no government official has ever been able to show, on paper, a law requiring a tax on our labor.

     And it has everything to do with the Federal Reserve.  The only  reason there is an income tax is because the government wrongly allowed the Fed to print this country's money - you know that its not a real government entity, right, but a private corporation?  And that 100% of the income tax goes soley to cover the interest rate the Fed imposes upon the government for the money it prints.

    Like I said, watch Freedom to Fascism, and it will open your eyes. You might think I'm crazy, but I'm enlightened.  There are a lot of us who are enlightened to how this country really works, and want to put a stop to it.



  • @boomzilla said:

    The point is that someone is claiming that the government can't make you file a return because of the 5th Amendment.

    Yes, and I was the second poster and I pointed out he was wrong.  The fifth does not protect you from filing, only from incrimination.  Read my other posts, I'm not going into detail here.

     

    @boomzilla said:

    But the 16th, which supercedes the 5th, says that the government has the power to collect taxes.

    It does neither of those.  An amendment only supercedes another if it explicitly says so.  The 16th amendmend does not give the government the power to collect taxes (it already had that since ratification of the Constitution) it removes the need for equal apportionment.  Additionally, it mentions nothing about self-incrimination meaning it does not supercede the 5th amendment in any way whatsoever.

     

    @boomzilla said:

    They have an enumerated power to make you file your taxes.

    Yes, still can't make you incriminate yourself, though.

     

    @boomzilla said:

    That's a lot better than umbras and penumbras.

    WTF?

     

    @boomzilla said:

    Now, if the order of the two were reversed, a case could be made that the 5th altered the 16th such that forcing people to file a return violated their 5th Amendment rights.

    No, it couldn't.  That's because FILING YOUR INCOME TAXES IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW.  OKAY?  YOU GOT THAT?  Therefore you cannot invoke the fifth amendment to protect you from filing.  THERE IS NOTHING TO INCRIMINATE YOU.  Therefore, the fifth amendment does not apply.  You are still fully protected from ever incriminating yourself.  There is nothing that supercedes that.  You absolutely do not have to say or do anything that would incriminate you. 



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    In addition as others have said, no one from the IRS can cite an actual law requiring one to file an income tax.
    That's odd, I can.  It's called Title 26 of the United States Code, but its friends call it the Internal Revenue Code.

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    This person is 100% correct - the income tax is unconstitutional, as the 16th Amendment, which most people cite as requiring it, only applies to businesses, not labor.  In 1913 the Supreme Court ruled the 16th Amendment did not convey any additional taxation power on the government - therefore, as there was no tax on labor prior to 1913, and the 16th Amendment didn't grant any additional taxation power, a tax on labor was unconstitutional.
    This argument has been tried many times, and has failed in many times.  The 16th Amendment allowed taxes to be levied on income without apportioning the revenue based upon the states it came from, or upon the size of states.  In short, all the 16th Amendment does is allow income taxes to be used for whatever purpose the federal government chooses.  Income tax was legal prior to the 16th Amendment, but was made more useful for the federal government afterwards.

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    The only reference to one claims it's 100% voluntary.
      Well that's just bunk.  It's only voluntary in the sense that the IRS relies upon you, the taxpayer, to submit your tax return and payment.  Failure to do so is still a crime.  As mentioned above, it's voluntary like not committing murder is voluntary.

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    So we have been duped for nearly 100 years by the government, thanks to the evil known as the Federal Reserve.  It sounds crazy, but do some research - it's entirely true.
    It sounds crazy because it is.  And what does the Federal Reserve have to do with anything?

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    Watch the video "America: Freedom to Fascism" - it'll show you the truth. 
    Or, alternately, look at the entire body of case law which shoots down this stupid theory.

    All in all, this is either the stupidest thing I've read all week (and I'm porting SSDS to .NET!), or the worst trolling attempt ever.



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    cite an actual law
     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson-Gorman_Tariff_Act

    Hows that for you? I am sure you will dispute it.. but you are obviously delusional here anyway.

     Edit: Or this (as bstorer pointed out): http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_26.shtml

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    The closest one was from some IRS douchebag who said, basically, "It's a law because we can enforce it in court" 

    That would be the basis of our law system... yes.

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    You might think I'm crazy

    That is because you are.

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    Like I said, watch Freedom to Fascism, and it will open your eyes.

    I prefer to learn from fact, not by watching cinematics. Otherwise I would believe everything Michael Moore and Loose Change have told us without question.

    And this movie looks no more credible than anything other conspiracy 'documentary': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_Freedom_to_Fascism



  • @bstorer said:

    All in all, this is either the stupidest thing I've read all week (and I'm porting SSDS to .NET!), or the worst trolling attempt ever.
     

    Oh good, my previous sig was getting old.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    And this movie looks no more credible than anything other conspiracy 'documentary': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_Freedom_to_Fascism
     

    Careful, MPS, HE IS ENLIGHTENED.



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    Then please, cite an actual law (with page number and everything) that says an income tax is required.  Because no one from the government seems to be able to give an exact reason.  The closest one was from some IRS douchebag who said, basically, "It's a law because we can enforce it in court"  Other than that insane comment (if you don't understand why it's an insane comment, then think about it) no government official has ever been able to show, on paper, a law requiring a tax on our labor.
    I don't know what IRS douchebags you've been talking to, but any sane ones would give you the same answer I have above: 26 U.S.C.

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

     And it has everything to do with the Federal Reserve.  The only  reason there is an income tax is because the government wrongly allowed the Fed to print this country's money - you know that its not a real government entity, right, but a private corporation?  And that 100% of the income tax goes soley to cover the interest rate the Fed imposes upon the government for the money it prints.
    What. The. Fuck?!  I'm not even diving into this one, because it contains so many half-truths and general wrongheadedness.  But I will point out that if you intend to put a word in bold, you might want to spell said word correctly.

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    Like I said, watch Freedom to Fascism, and it will open your eyes. You might think I'm crazy, but I'm enlightened.  There are a lot of us who are enlightened to how this country really works, and want to put a stop to it.
    Clearly not, if you can't even read and comprehend the 16th Amendment, which is only one sentence long.



  • @sootzoo said:

    Careful, MPS, HE IS ENLIGHTENED.
     

    If that means 'high' then ok.


  • ♿ (Parody)

     @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    Then please, cite an actual law (with page number and everything) that says an income tax is required.

    TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
    Subtitle A--Income Taxes
    CHAPTER 1--NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
    Subchapter A--Determination of Tax Liability

     



  • @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    Then please, cite an actual law (with page number and everything) that says an income tax is required.  Because no one from the government seems to be able to give an exact reason.  The closest one was from some IRS douchebag who said, basically, "It's a law because we can enforce it in court"  Other than that insane comment (if you don't understand why it's an insane comment, then think about it) no government official has ever been able to show, on paper, a law requiring a tax on our labor.

     And it has everything to do with the Federal Reserve.  The only  reason there is an income tax is because the government wrongly allowed the Fed to print this country's money - you know that its not a real government entity, right, but a private corporation?  And that 100% of the income tax goes soley to cover the interest rate the Fed imposes upon the government for the money it prints.

    Like I said, watch Freedom to Fascism, and it will open your eyes. You might think I'm crazy, but I'm enlightened.  There are a lot of us who are enlightened to how this country really works, and want to put a stop to it.

    I stand in silent awe at the depth of your stupidity.  Since I think you are a troll and/or insane, I will make this quick.

     

    U.S.C. 26 -- The income tax laws.

     

    The Fed is a semi-public corporation.  Private banks must purchase shares to with their own money to participate.  The board of directors is appointed by the U.S. government.  The Fed imposes no interest rate on the government and it doesn't print shit, it just controls the flow of money into the economy.  The two primary methods for this are through temporary loans to participating banks (the private part of the Fed) that must be repaid.  This is the "Fed rate" you hear about all the time.  This money is then loaned to other banks and eventually it ends up filtering down to you.  Most of those loans must be repaid in full by member banks within 2 business days.  Additionally, the Fed can permenently add or remove cash from the economy, although this is much more rare. 

    Your income taxes go to fund all kinds of things, from the military to welfare to public education to highways.  I'm not going to list it all.  The point is, your taxes do not go to fund the fucking Fed.  However, the Fed does end up causing very slow, steady inflation of the money supply which does take a small amount of money from your pocket.  This affects the wealthy more than the poor, obviously.  The wealthier a person is, the more they are hurt by small amounts of inflation.  I contend that this leads the wealthy to make riskier investments because they are going to lose money if they don't invest.  This is my primary problem with the Fed in our country, because it leads to a slightly unstable financials market, as there is little cash that is just left sitting around.  You could argue that it's better all cash be working at once, but I think having some cash sitting is better because it tends to buffer against minor market crises.  These small market crises is why the Fed continually tweaks its temporary loan rates, because it is one of the only way to keep the economy from stumbling too bad since there is little buffer.

     

     



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I stand in silent awe at the depth of your stupidity.  Since I think you are a troll and/or insane, I will make this quick.
     

    I find it fascinating that we will defend this with actual legal documents, amendments and other credible references, and yet you know he is only going to keep spouting nonsense and only use the movie as a reference.

     

    I also find is fascinating that the thread's title seems to once again apply. He might just be Spectate's long lost brother.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    This is my primary problem with the Fed in our country, because it leads to a slightly unstable financials market, as there is little cash that is just left sitting around.
    My primary problem with the Fed is that it works through equal parts economics, pop psychology, and black magic.



  • @bstorer said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    This is my primary problem with the Fed in our country, because it leads to a slightly unstable financials market, as there is little cash that is just left sitting around.
    My primary problem with the Fed is that it works through equal parts economics, pop psychology, and black magic.

     

    My primary problem is that they don't have dump trucks backing up to my house every morning and dumping piles of cash on top of me.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I also find is fascinating that the thread's title seems to once again apply. He might just be Spectate's long lost brother.
    Beat me to it.  Do you think it was predetermined as soon as the thread was given the title?



  • @bstorer said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I also find is fascinating that the thread's title seems to once again apply. He might just be Spectate's long lost brother.
    Beat me to it.  Do you think it was predetermined as soon as the thread was given the title?

     

    Yes, I think it was predetermined to turn ridiculous.



  • @bstorer said:

    My primary problem with the Fed is that it works through equal parts economics, pop psychology, and black magic.

    And here I thought economics was black magic!  That is also a good point as well, people pay a lot of attention to the fed, which escalates the financial markets into a sort of confidence game.  I find this a tad disturbing and dislike the government wielding such extensive power over the economy.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    My primary problem is that they don't have dump trucks backing up to my house every morning and dumping piles of cash on top of me.
    It's a problem that they haven't crushed you?  You do know that if you jumped into a vault full of gold, Scrooge-McDuck-style, you'll find it far less pleasant than the cartoon would imply?



  • @bstorer said:

    It's a problem that they haven't crushed you?
     

    I could think of far worse ways to go than to be crushed underneath a pile of money...



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:

    My primary problem with the Fed is that it works through equal parts economics, pop psychology, and black magic.

    And here I thought economics was black magic!

    Actually, my formula is probably off.  It's more like 3 parts pop psychology, 2 parts black magic, and 1 part economics.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @bstorer said:

    It's a problem that they haven't crushed you?
     

    I could think of far worse ways to go than to be crushed underneath a pile of money...

    Still, I'd rather just not go at all.  Well, unless I'm locked in the SwampShack and SpectateSwamp is about to Jam It where the sun don't shine.

  • ♿ (Parody)

    @morbiuswilters said:

    It does neither of those.  An amendment only supercedes another if it explicitly says so.  The 16th amendmend does not give the government the power to collect taxes (it already had that since ratification of the Constitution) it removes the need for equal apportionment.  Additionally, it mentions nothing about self-incrimination meaning it does not supercede the 5th amendment in any way whatsoever.
    @morbiuswilters said:
    Additionally, it mentions nothing about self-incrimination meaning it does not supercede the 5th amendment in any way whatsoever.

    Yes, but I wasn't saying anything about self incrimination.  That's another argument you're having.  And you're right, I should have been more specific.  It gave the power to the government to lay and collect income taxes.  @morbiuswilters said:

    @boomzilla said:

    That's a lot better than umbras and penumbras.

    WTF?

    You're right, I should have said, penumbras and emanations.@morbiuswilters said:
    @boomzilla said:
    Now, if the order of the two were reversed, a case could be made that the 5th altered the 16th such that forcing people to file a return violated their 5th Amendment rights.

    No, it couldn't.  That's because FILING YOUR INCOME TAXES IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW.  OKAY?  YOU GOT THAT?  Therefore you cannot invoke the fifth amendment to protect you from filing.  THERE IS NOTHING TO INCRIMINATE YOU.  Therefore, the fifth amendment does not apply.

    You completely miss the point.  No one is arguing that it's illegal to file a return.  We may start to argue that you don't know how to read.  The assertion made (by the crazy in the OP and some other posters) was that there is no legal requirement to file a return.  Since you like to yell, maybe it will help if I do, too:

    IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO AVOID PAYING TAXES BY NOT FILING A RETURN.  YOU CANNOT INVOKE THE 5TH AMENDMENT TO AVOID PAYING TAXES.

    That is what I am arguing.  Please to not try to read between the lines.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @morbiuswilters said:

    And here I thought economics was black magic!  That is also a good point as well, people pay a lot of attention to the fed, which escalates the financial markets into a sort of confidence game.  I find this a tad disturbing and dislike the government wielding such extensive power over the economy.
    Yeah, it wouldn't be so bad if they'd stick to watching the money supply.  As soon as they try to game the business cycle, you know you're in for some bad times.



  • @dlikhten said:

    The thing is, if you made 200k from selling drugs, as long as you pay taxes on the 200k you are fine. Caz government is happy to get money :)
     

    This may be the dumbest thing ever said on the Internet.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @tster said:

    Anyways, 3.5% is a retarted amount of interest.  You should be aiming for 15% (10% if you are more conservative, 20% if more aggressive). 

    Possibly (!) already asked, but are you including, or not accounting for, inflation in your pretty tables?

    A brief inspection of your post would suggest not and $1e6 in 30 years is most certainly not worth $1e6 today, no matter how you dress it up or fail to ignore the fact that inflation would decrease it it to the equivilant of <probable hyperbole>$1e4.</bole> today.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    This may be the dumbest thing ever said on the Internet.
     

    I agree, but then I fell face first into a different argument.



  • @bstorer said:

    @AbbydonKrafts said:
    @Welbog said:
    That's some pretty hilarious bad financing right there. Using the IRS as a shitty bank that doesn't give interest! What a great idea!

    Really? 3.5% (or less -- I haven't looked it up recently) is not much interest to fool with.

    Ha! I wish it were 3.5%.  I looked at what my bank was offering just yesterday, and the APY for a 60 month CD is only 2.95%.  According to bankrate.com, the best APY you'll find for a 60 month CD is about 4.5%, which is downright miserable.
     seriously?

     over here in Belgium I have a rate of 4% on a regular savings account, and it's not hard to get if you use an online-only account.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    cite an actual law
     


    Hows that for you? I am sure you will dispute it.. but you are obviously delusional here anyway.

     Edit: Or this (as bstorer pointed out): http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_26.shtml

    @ObiWayneKenobi said:

    The closest one was from some IRS douchebag who said, basically, "It's a law because we can enforce it in court" 

    That would be the basis of our law system... yes.

     

    Not that I am defending ObiWayneKenobi's argument from a factual standpoint, but I think the gist of what he was trying to say was:

    (1) There is no law on the books stating that paying income tax is mandatory

    (2) "Some IRS douchebag" said that it's a law because it's enforceable in court.

    (3) Assuming (1) is true (and I think you and others have shown it is not), then (2) is pretty much a circular argument.  If I'm not mistaken, a rule is enforceable in court because it's a law, not the other way around.  You can't simultaneously say that "courts enforce this rule because it is a law" and "this rule is a law because the courts enforce it".


    A non-circular version of the above (alleged) argument would be: 

    "It's enforceable in court because it's a law.  Here's where the law is written...."

    (And I think that's exactly what you, and others, have provided.) 



  • @AbbydonKrafts said:

    Some people have a hard time saving up on their own. For instance, I always come close to an empty account by the time my paycheck arrives. I've told my wife over and over that there's no way for us to move into a bigger house if we don't start saving up for a down payment. Also, we don't have a safety buffer for when emergencies arise. Does this motivate her to quit spending it? Nope. However, if I was to send it all to the IRS, at least she couldn't touch it for a year. Eventually I will do that when I figure out a complete budget.
     

    It sounds like you need to take control of your household finances.  Someone has to.  That doesn't mean being sneaky about it and stashing money in a secret bank account.  That is disrespectful to your wife.  You need to tell her what the issue and how you want to deal with it.  If she has a better idea-- and I doubt it-- then take it under consideration and discuss it.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @operagost said:

    It sounds like [someone] need to take control of your household finances.  Someone has to.  That doesn't mean being sneaky about it and stashing money in a secret bank account.  That is disrespectful to [someone else].  You need to tell [someone else] what the issue and how you want to deal with it.  If [someone else] has a better idea-- and I doubt it-- then take it under consideration and discuss it.

    I suggest some* and their partner either talk about their (mutual! There must/should be others the other half don't know about) finances or stop moaning about their other half online.

     



  • @boomzilla said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Where does the 16th Amendment say anything about repealing the protections of the 5th amendment? 
    The point is that someone is claiming that the government can't make you file a return because of the 5th Amendment.  But the 16th, which supercedes the 5th, says that the government has the power to collect taxes.  Part of that is to require you to file a return.  They have an enumerated power to make you file your taxes.  That's a lot better than umbras and penumbras.

    Now, if the order of the two were reversed, a case could be made that the 5th altered the 16th such that forcing people to file a return violated their 5th Amendment rights.

     

    Just because the 16th follows the 5th chronologically does not mean it supersedes it.  It does supersede a portion of the original Constitution which asserts the federal government cannot lay or collect taxes on income.  The 5th is not directly cited in any way.  That being said, the current method of collecting taxes could be argued to be unconstitutional--- but the 16th does not say how to collect taxes, so it is potentially those potions of the tax code that are unconstitutional.



  • @operagost said:

    Just because the 16th follows the 5th chronologically does not mean it supersedes it.  It does supersede a portion of the original Constitution which asserts the federal government cannot lay or collect taxes on income.
    No, no, no.  Have you even read the 16th Amendment?  Look, I'll reprint it here:

    @16th Amendment said:

    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.

    That's the whole thing.  Now let me explain this to you, and to everyone else here who doesn't seem to understand just why this is important: you seem to think that the important part is "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes," but it's not.   It's the "without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration" part that matters.  All the 16th Amendment did was allow income taxes to be levied and used without regard to where the money came from, for any purpose the federal government so chose.  Income tax was legal prior to the 16th Amendment, it's just that certain classes of income tax deemed to come from real property (income from rentals, stock dividends, and interest, for example) had to be apportioned to the states based upon their population.  Wages from labor, though, could always be taxed.

    Now can we please let this topic alone and never discuss the 16th Amendment again?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @operagost said:

    Just because the 16th follows the 5th chronologically does not mean it supersedes it.  It does supersede a portion of the original Constitution which asserts the federal government cannot lay or collect taxes on income.  The 5th is not directly cited in any way.  That being said, the current method of collecting taxes could be argued to be unconstitutional--- but the 16th does not say how to collect taxes, so it is potentially those potions of the tax code that are unconstitutional.
    OK, one more time.  If you are claiming that the 5th amendment prohibits the federal government from forcing you to file/pay income taxes, then you are wrong.  You're correct, it could be that some method could be violating some other right, but that's not what the posters were talking about.

    If the 5th had been adopted after the 16th, it could be argued that the 5th were also meant to apply to the 16th.  But since the 16th came after, and there is no language saying that the government can lay and collect taxes, unless a 5th amendment right is asserted, then it is reasonable to assume that this is an unreasonable argument.

    I think there are definitely some unconstitutional parts of how taxes are dealt with, such as the basic reversal of burden of proof in tax court.  That's another argument, though. 



  • @boomzilla said:

    It gave the power to the government to lay and collect income taxes.

    As already stated, it only dealt with apportionment.  Read bstorer's post above.

     

    @boomzilla said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @boomzilla said:
    Now, if the order of the two were reversed, a case could be made that the 5th altered the 16th such that forcing people to file a return violated their 5th Amendment rights.

    No, it couldn't.  That's because FILING YOUR INCOME TAXES IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW.  OKAY?  YOU GOT THAT?  Therefore you cannot invoke the fifth amendment to protect you from filing.  THERE IS NOTHING TO INCRIMINATE YOU.  Therefore, the fifth amendment does not apply.

    You completely miss the point.  No one is arguing that it's illegal to file a return.  We may start to argue that you don't know how to read.  The assertion made (by the crazy in the OP and some other posters) was that there is no legal requirement to file a return.  Since you like to yell, maybe it will help if I do, too:

    IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO AVOID PAYING TAXES BY NOT FILING A RETURN.  YOU CANNOT INVOKE THE 5TH AMENDMENT TO AVOID PAYING TAXES.

    That is what I am arguing.  Please to not try to read between the lines.

    I know it is against the law to not file a return, that's what I've said all along.  Perhaps it is you who does not know how to read.  You said "if the order were reversed, a case could be made that the 5th altered the 16th such that forcing people to file a return violated their 5th amendment rights.".  And my reply is that that is patently absurd.  The fifth amendment doesn't say "you don't have to follow the law" it says "you don't have to incriminate yourself to the government".  Because filing an income tax return is not illegal, the 5th amendment doesn't protect you from a damn thing.  Income is just a number and by itself cannot be used to convict you of any crime, therefore it is completely legal for the government to require to divulge it.  What is not legal is for the government to compel you to divulge where it came from, if and only if it came from an illegal source, because that would be a form of self-incrimination.  If your income alone could be used to incriminate you in some way, then you would not be required to divulge it.  Please read the case law on this (I already mentioned on case that dealt with this very issue in a post above).

     

    By the same token, you MUST divulge your name to any officer of the government who asks for it.  That is because revealing your name is not incriminating in and of itself, therefore it is not protected by the 5th amendment.  You have to think critically here: you have a right to withhold any information that is self-incriminating from the government.  That doesn't mean you can lie under oath (you cannot) and it doesn't mean you can withhold non-incrimating information.  If you choose to invoke the fifth amendment, you must do so by refusing to provide the information, not by providing false information.  I could give you tons of examples.  For example, if a police officer asks you "Are you doing something illegal?" you can tell the truth (yes or no) or refuse to answer.  Refusing to answer will probably arouse his suspicions, but he is not able to make an arrest solely on this fact (or else we'd be living in what is classified as a "police state").  Now, if the officer saw you do something illegal or has a really good reason to suspect you have done something illegal, he can still arrest you: this is known as "probable cause".  You are still not required to tell the police anything that would incriminate you.  If it turns out there is not enough evidence to make a conviction stick, you are free.  You can even turn around and sue the department for arresting you, but the only way you will win is if there was not probable cause for the arrest.  Obviously, this is a tricky area and there are no absolutes in what is considered probable cause.  If you were minding your own business and the officer just asked you out of the blue and you invoked the fifth, that would almost certainly fail the probable cause test.  However, if the officer was investigating an incident of graffitti and he saw a spray paint can in your bag, then that would almost certainly pass the probable cause test, meaning even if you were found not-guilty (remember, courts never declare innocence) you would not be entitled to damages because the officer had a reason to suspect you given the circumstances.

     

    The point is, law is fucking complex and don't take advice you find on the Internet.  Just do what the cops say and look out for yourself and you will be fine (so long as you are innocent and white).  If the cops violate your rights (they'd be idiots to) you will almost certainly be let off the hook, even if you are guilty as a son-of-a-bitch.  If they don't, then you should be fine as well.  The only other thing to remember is that without a warrant, you don't have to let the police search anything.  They will try to trick by with language like "I'm going to search your car, sir", because if you don't protest then it is assumed you agree.  Just refuse and let them arrest you if they want to.  Usually it's not worth the effort or risk for them, unless they are damn sure you are up to no good.  Also remember that you never have to incriminate yourself to any agent of the government.  That is all. 


Log in to reply