Plane crashes into Austin office building

[Kangaroo]

Sorry the IRS is nothing but Government thugs who Job is to extort money from people and guess what we are guilty until proven innocent to the IRS.

Lets not add in the complicated fiasco of tax law the reform act of 86 made have helped but did not do nearly enough. It stills needs to be gutted redone and yes the Flat Tax is a preference because it is simple yes it can be a regressive tax but how many more billions do we save from shrinking the IRS to a fraction of its size it is today.

Most law makers do not what a simple tax code they have a lot of power because of the IRS.

Yea I can see why people hate the Government and has hostility towards it

 

[trickblue]

Yes, but don't forget about the importance of precedents, which become laws themselves each time a new case is decided. And that's what I'm referring to when I say the body of laws are a Herculean flux. Which is also what I interpreted to be included in what theo was saying. I don't see where he was wrong. And now you're pretty much saying the same thing we are.

You said, "no" and then went on to agree with us. LOL

Precedent is ridiculous...

Just because a judge ruled in favor of a ridiculous decision doesn't make it right...

I would rather them judge by the rule of law as opposed to trying to make a name for themselves...

 

[theogt]

Precedent is ridiculous...

Just because a judge ruled in favor of a ridiculous decision doesn't make it right...

I would rather them judge by the rule of law as opposed to trying to make a name for themselves...

Past precedent *IS* the "rule of law." So if they follow past precedent they're following the rule of law.

 

[Thatkidbob]

Past precedent *IS* the "rule of law." So if they follow past precedent they're following the rule of law.

Thats the issue. A judge may make a ruling that the document does not support, and before you know it an entire edifice of shaky law can be built atop such an equally shaky foundation.

The commerce clause is repeatedly reinterpreted as giving the government broader and broader power and now effects things that were never contemplated by the founders (ie: intrastate commerce sometimes indirectly effects interstate commerce, so, because there potentially could be an effect, it can be regulated under the commerce clause. Wickard v. Filburn). If such power was intended to be wielded by the federal government, wouldn't they have said " all commerce?" Or perhaps "interstate and intrastate commerce?"

The 10th amendment has been castrated by precedent (and is some of the only text in the constitution to be almost completely ignored, as if they skipped from the 9th amendment to the 11th with nary a step between.).

I understand what you're saying theogt, but what about when precedent is wrong?

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Big on the regressive taxes, huh?

How is everyone paying the same % regressive? You buy a Mercedes Benz and pay 5% or you buy a Hyundi and 5%.

the rich will pay more physical dollars by buying the Benz but they will pay the same percent. What is wrong with that?

 

[theogt]

How is everyone paying the same % regressive? You buy a Mercedes Benz and pay 5% or you buy a Hyundi and 5%.

the rich will pay more physical dollars by buying the Benz but they will pay the same percent. What is wrong with that?

It's regressive because poorer people will pay a higher percentage of their income.

Let's say you and I buy the exact same things ever year; we drive the same cars, the same food, etc. And let's say you make $10,000,000 per year and I make $50,000 per year. If we both bought the same things we would pay the same about in taxes, say $5,000. If that's the case, then it means my effective tax rate is 10% of my income in taxes and yours is .05%.

That's regressive.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

How is everyone paying the same % regressive? You buy a Mercedes Benz and pay 5% or you buy a Hyundi and 5%.

the rich will pay more physical dollars by buying the Benz but they will pay the same percent. What is wrong with that?

It's just the terminology that's used. The term progressive applies to a graduated tax scale, which gets progressively larger as one's ability to pay increases.

You're advocating a consumption tax, which can actually be made progressive through deductions and rebates. Of course, these can create the very complexity that we're railing against.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Precedent is ridiculous...

Just because a judge ruled in favor of a ridiculous decision doesn't make it right...

I would rather them judge by the rule of law as opposed to trying to make a name for themselves...

Then you're a positivist and not a realist (in terms of legal idealism), which isn't a bad thing. Like theo said, precedent is law, aka case law that can be applied to cases with similar or same circumstances. Although judges do often deviate from precedents based on how similar they deem cases to be. Judges are not infallible and they are also very much swayed by their own hunches and personal biases. First they have a hunch, then they apply their conclusion to the premises (or facts) to get the law to come out how-they-want-it-to come-out. So it's literally backwards thinking, but they do it (most of the time unaware they're even doing it). It's how judges reach their decisions.

But when a good lawyer presents to a judge a precedent and makes a solid argument in terms of case law, then it does indeed become the law of the land, sometimes regardless; even if the judge himself/herself deems the precedent ridiculous (depending on the ideals of a certain judge and how important their reputation is to them vs. how they want it to come out. It all depends on what *kind* of judge we're talking about. It varies from judge to judge. Some are strictly positivists and some are social activists who try to sympathize with one side or another base on their own biases. So there is variety in how the system works. But, again, precedent is law.

There are two kinds of law: precedents and statutes. However, someone can file a case at one time. We will call this T1...then time goes on and a new precedent is established... when the law on the books during T1 said one thing, it meant the ruling would follow what the law said during that time. However, when a new precedent is established and the case from T1 has not yet been settled, then the precedent established at T2 becomes the law...and then T3 ends up being T1 settled by precedent established at T2, a law that never existed when T1 happened, because of the new precedent established at the time of T2. Thus, T3 becomes the ruling by which T2 is applied to T1 because of the T2 precedent even after the fact and Even though T2 never existed at the time of T1, it is still applied as the law to the T1 case.

Precedent is not ridiculous. It's reality. To deny it is to deny the reality of our system and how it is set up to work.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Many of those statements are factually incorrect (the ones that refer to the tax code without reference to the regulations), not to mention they mostly contradict one another (is it 40k pages or 1 million?). And notice that most do, however, refer to the regulations, which I specifically excluded.

The regulations are filled with thousands of factual examples and explanatory language (as well as substantive rules, obviously), which take up much of what people consider "the code." However, when lawyers refer to "the code," they do not refer to the regulations.

I could get my copy of the code out and measure how thick it is, but I may have burned it in the fireplace.

Edit: You edited all of it out and posted this article. The article is wrong. The code is not 60,000+ pages. And if it takes anyone 37 hours to fill out a 1040, it's because they can't read.

I will try to find a more accurate article tomorrow. But I maintain that tax code is ridiculously dense.

 

[CF74]

Why are we ruining a very good suicide rant over tax law?

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Thats the issue. A judge may make a ruling that the document does not support, and before you know it an entire edifice of shaky law can be built atop such an equally shaky foundation.

The commerce clause is repeatedly reinterpreted as giving the government broader and broader power and now effects things that were never contemplated by the founders (ie: intrastate commerce sometimes indirectly effects interstate commerce, so, because there potentially could be an effect, it can be regulated under the commerce clause. Wickard v. Filburn). If such power was intended to be wielded by the federal government, wouldn't they have said " all commerce?" Or perhaps "interstate and intrastate commerce?"

The 10th amendment has been castrated by precedent (and is some of the only text in the constitution to be almost completely ignored, as if they skipped from the 9th amendment to the 11th with nary a step between.).

I understand what you're saying theogt, but what about when precedent is wrong?

That depends on a lot of things. I'm going to bed and maybe theogt can expound on that tomorrow. If not, I'm pretty certain I can.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Why are we ruining a very good suicide rant over tax law?

Because, if you read it, that's the whole crux of the suicide rant.

 

[CF74]

Because, if you read it, that's the whole crux of the suicide rant.

I read it and to me it was about disillusionments of a corrupt govt...

 

[ZeroClub]

Because, if you read it, that's the whole crux of the suicide rant.

Sort of.

Clearly, he wrote about taxes. But this isn't some treatise on the inequities of contemporary tax policy and enforcement.

His "manifesto" is a deluded, self-serving rationalization for coldly killing a building full of innocent people.

The main take away message, for me, is that this guy refused to take any personal responsibility for any of his own difficulties. He blamed everybody else (Catholics, Bush, his accountant, the IRS, corporations, the City of Austin, etc.) for his own poor judgment.

The guy attempted several methods of tax evasion: setting up a sham religious organization, ignoring the tax consequences of an IRA early withdrawal, knowingly failing to declare earned income.

He got nailed by the IRS, repeatedly, as he should have been, but thought too highly of himself to acknowledge that he was a tax cheat.

He twisted his experience of reality so that he could morally justify his own selfish preoccupation with tax evasion. ... and then took it several steps further, as the grandiose often do, and decided to cast himself as some conscientious martyr.

But really he was just another tax cheat who also happened to have colossal paranoid narcissistic issues.

He isn't a sympathetic character.

Any connection that his rant may have with reality is merely coincidental.

 

[theogt]

I will try to find a more accurate article tomorrow. But I maintain that tax code is ridiculously dense.

I don't care what any article says. You can put a copy in front of you and it's not that dense.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I don't care what any article says. You can put a copy in front of you and it's not that dense.

So Professor Seung is lying to me? That bastid!

 

[theogt]

So Professor Seung is lying to me? That bastid!

If I find my code book today, I'll post a picture of what actually constitutes the code. There's no sense relying on anyone else's word if you can actually look at it.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

If I find my code book today, I'll post a picture of what actually constitutes the code. There's no sense relying on anyone else's word if you can actually look at it.

I will make a trip to the library and find out for myself. I have read some of the codes and they are indeed confusing and dense. As to how many pages and words... I couldn't tell you that, at the moment.

 

[theogt]

I will make a trip to the library and find out for myself. I have read some of the codes and they are indeed confusing and dense. As to how many pages and words... I couldn't tell you that, at the moment.

Check out the sections of the UCC dealing with checks and banks (Articles 3 and 4). Those are some of the worst written code sections you'll ever see. It's maddening.

By the way, here's a copy of the entire IRS code and regulations (same one I used in law school, though obviously a newer edition). It's only 2027 pages. Look at the table of contents, the code is 1000 pages and the regulations are 1000 pages.

While it's only "selected sections" it's the vast majority of the code. The claims of "40,000" pages or "one million" pages are ludicrous. Unless you're using size 26 font or something.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Check out the sections of the UCC dealing with checks and banks (Articles 3 and 4). Those are some of the worst written code sections you'll ever see. It's maddening.

By the way, here's a copy of the entire IRS code and regulations (same one I used in law school, though obviously a newer edition). It's only 2027 pages. Look at the table of contents, the code is 1000 pages and the regulations are 1000 pages.

While it's only "selected sections" it's the vast majority of the code. The claims of "40,000" pages or "one million" pages are ludicrous. Unless you're using size 26 font or something.

CCH's Federal Income Tax: Code and Regulations--Selected Sections provides a selection of the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulations pertaining to income tax. This popular volume reflects the collective judgment of seven distinguished tax teachers and provides an effective mix of official materials for individual and business undergraduate and graduate tax courses offered in law and business schools. It provides in one volume, the provisions most commonly addressed in income tax courses. The book's highly readable 7-1/2 x 10 oversized page format make it easier to read for both professor and student. The book is an attractive alternative to the full text of the multi-volume Internal Revenue Code and Income Tax Regulations.


Yeah, I'm still uncertain. I'll have to go to the library to verify.