Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mmm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!mmm!mrgofor
From: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR)
Newsgroups: net.taxes
Subject: Re: Direct & Indirect Taxes / Federal taxing authority
Message-ID: <595@mmm.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Mar-86 14:35:02 EST
Article-I.D.: mmm.595
Posted: Mon Mar 10 14:35:02 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Mar-86 03:44:47 EST
References: <1444@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Reply-To: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR)
Organization: none
Lines: 73
Summary: 

Hey! Bob's back! I assumed that he had disappeared because he didn't
respond to my requests for explanations regarding taxes and the
5th amendment. Maybe there's an apology in here...

In article <1444@decwrl.DEC.COM> alpert@chovax.DEC writes:
>
>===================================================================
>Excerpted from the book "The Great Income Tax Hoax" by Irwin Schiff.
>(C) 1985 by Irwin Schiff
>===================================================================
>
>ONLY PEOPLE PAY TAXES

	As opposed to what? Should we tax family pets? Automobiles?

>
>However, while such
>taxes *appear* to tax wealth, it is the citizen who is being taxed,
>not his wealth. He is being taxed *according to his wealth*.  It is
>important to keep this distinction in mind.  As you will see, the
>government seeks to fool the public on this simple issue. For
>example, property taxes are not really taxes on property, but taxes
>on individuals based on the property that they own.  
>
>It is important
>to remember, however, that in all capitation taxes it is not wealth,
>but the *individual* that is being taxed -- and he is being taxed
>according to some arbitrary yardstick the government believes 
>measures his ability to pay.  An "income" tax is not a tax on "income",
>it is a tax on the individual measured by his "income."
>

	I don't understand the fine-line distinctions being made here -
what's your point? How is "a tax on income" different than "a tax on the
individual measured by his income"? Please explain, they seem the same to
my simplistic brain.

>TAXING PEOPLE DIRECTLY
>
>? Under the Constitution,
>citizens cannot be compelled to provide information that can be used
>against them and they are further presumed to have a right to privacy.

	Really? Hey, Bob, which amendment to the constitution does this
fall under?
>
>
>			Bob Alpert
>			...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-chovax!alpert
>

	Again I see a posting practically devoid of sense. Once again I ask:
Hey, Bob, what do you propose? What better ways do you have to obtain the
money needed to run the government? Come on, it's easy to point out all the
faults with the present system, but LET'S HEAR SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR 
IMPROVEMENT. The government has to get its money somehow, and I have yet to
hear any proposals from anybody (Bob Alpert included) regarding the right
ways to do it. 

	Long article, Bob. And no apology for your previous distasteful
behavior. C'mon, 'fess up - you're a member of the Posse Comitatus, huh?
Maybe in your next posting you'll have something to say. If not, could
you at least try to keep it down to <100 lines?

	Question: how come Ken Arndt, Don Black and Bob Alpert all post
from DEC sites?  :-)


-- 
					--MKR

If Man were meant to use the metric system, Jesus would have had
10 disciples.