Just show him the law!

[Flatbar]

Originally posted by Sixpence
No taxes there, you pay for a stamp

The USPS uses some voodoo accounting that keeps up the appearance of solvency. They have a $15 Billion credit line where some $11 Billion is tied up as of 2003. The lack of accountability for this debt is just SOP, but it will become an issue soon.

http://www.atr.org/content/pdf/pre2004/postal051603.pdf

All of their recently added services are geared to reduce that debt since it is against the law for the USPS to be a profitable government entity.

So, if you think that the USPS doesn't dip into the tax base then I have a nice plot of land you can use for a summer home, in Death Valley.

[lasersailor184]

Wow.  I dominated Lukster so hard I got moderated.

[bsdaddict]

hope he doesn't decide to go out like this guy...

http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/drega1.html

[lasersailor184]

Yeah.  I hope he takes out more people then Drega did.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Flatbar
The USPS uses some voodoo accounting that keeps up the appearance of solvency. They have a $15 Billion credit line where some $11 Billion is tied up as of 2003. The lack of accountability for this debt is just SOP, but it will become an issue soon.

http://www.atr.org/content/pdf/pre2004/postal051603.pdf

All of their recently added services are geared to reduce that debt since it is against the law for the USPS to be a profitable government entity.

So, if you think that the USPS doesn't dip into the tax base then I have a nice plot of land you can use for a summer home, in Death Valley.

Kool aid much? Voodoo accounting?, like what? Having the gov tell it it has to fund military pensions? yeah, that's voodoo accounting, but not by the post office.

If you have proof the post office dips into the tax base, show it to me(and not another rush limbaugh like link either please). That link is so far off it isn't funny, a line of credit? Yeah so? The post office has spent billions to automate(which has eliminated about 100,000 jobs) to keep the price of a stamp down, money it had to borrow and pay back. Any profit the post office makes goes back into the government, that's right, it subsidizes your tax dollar. So yes, it can indeed make a profit, but it goes to the government.

That link you provided is a conservative pro business letter, they want to get their hands on the postal service, yes, they want to buy it. Not the whole thing mind you, just metro areas where they can make money. When that happens you can kiss good bye to sending a letter cross country or to a rural area for 39 cents.

Any money borrowed is payed back, plus any surplus, like the 900 million it was in the black this year. I am sure the treasury will spend it wisely.

[vorticon]

laser why are you so against paying someone for doing a job.

money is a medium of exchange for goods and services.


the government renders services.
we are the governments employers.


the government is a general contractor  doing renovations on a old house.
the public is a home-owner
the constitution is like  minimum code

a contractor who cuts corners constantly and does a ****ty job should be left unpaid and fired for  fraud. building something completly unlike what the home owner wants, without damn good reasons, would also lead to the contractor getting fired.

theft would be the contractor demanding payment before starting, and never bothering to show up at all.

theft would also be the home-owner refusing to pay.

[lasersailor184]

I can write analogies as well.

For example, the US people can be seen as a store front business.

The US Government can be seen as a Mafia Ring.



Every few weeks the US government shows up for "Protection" money.  Sure, they protect you, but there's nothing really out there that you need protection from.  That is until you fall behind on your "Protection" money.

If you do, the US government will be the thing you actually need protection from.  When you fall behind on payments, first they threaten you, then they try to take all your posessions, finally they put you in jail.  Somewhere along the line, they'll burn your business.

[lukster]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Wow.  I dominated Lukster so hard I got moderated.

 
Really? What do you think the 16th amendment is for pray tell. Maybe you can dominate me without resorting to juvenile antics this time?

[dhaus]

Without the taxes, there is no military.  Without the military, the terrorists win.  Why do you favor the terrorists lasersailer?  Why do you so hate freedom?

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by lukster
Really? What do you think the 16th amendment is for pray tell. Maybe you can dominate me without resorting to juvenile antics this time?

I'll sum it up really quickly, because I don't feel like relooking everything up.  You can verify if you would like.

Congress has always had the power to tax incomes.  This comes from Section 8 of the legislation section of the Constitution.  The problem was that it needed to come equally from all the states, AND be spent EQUALLY on all the states.  Basically, if a congressman wanted the US government to pay a million dollars for a road through Pennsylvania, he would have to arrange for all the other states to get a proportion based off of population counts.  So if Pennsylvania got a million, New York would get 2 million (more people) while Rhode Island would get 50 grand (random numbers, I made them up).

So there was no real reason to collect income taxes because it was very difficult to spend them.  It was a brilliant clause of the Constitution.

But along comes Mr. 16th Amendment.  The important part of the 16th amendment was not the taxes, but how they could be spent.  The 16th amendment said that all tax money could be spent how the congressmen saw fit, without regard to population censii.  For example, now if Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania wants 10 mil for roads in pennsylvania, he doesn't have to arrange for the other states to get equal amounts because the money doesn't have to be spent equally.

[lukster]

Congress had the power to levy taxes but the 16th amendment specifically gave to congress the right to tax income. It's a short but not so sweet amendment that's hard to misinterpret if you ask me. We are talking about "income tax" here.

[lazs2]

If you don't pay they will take everything you own....if you resist they will kill or imprison you .

flatbar.. other than the army and the three branches of government there is nothing we should fund in the government.   They do not provide any services that would be better provided by private enterprise.

I can pay for a stamp...  I can pay for bridge inspectors out of a gas tax as well as roads.

I trust a kosher stamp on food a lot more than a USDA one.

The government should get paid for their services it is just that they should not be in the service industry... they are lousy at it.

lazs

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by lukster
Congress had the power to levy taxes but the 16th amendment specifically gave to congress the right to tax income. It's a short but not so sweet amendment that's hard to misinterpret if you ask me. We are talking about "income tax" here.

Wrong!  Absolutely wrong!  But don't get too worried, most people get this wrong.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The problem section before the 16th amendment was here:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Basically that says that any direct tax (like an Income Tax) must be spent equally on everyone.  The bold part is the part that the sixteenth amendment changed.

The sixteenth amendment says the following:

AMENDMENT XVI

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

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.

Important part in bold.

To say that there was no income taxes  before the sixteenth amendment is just wrong.  There were several, but they were difficult to do for the reasons I highlighted in the post above.  Just before the sixteenth amendment though, they laid an income tax and just spent it willy nilly.  A man sued and got the income tax repealed.  So congress counters by writing and enacting the sixteenth amendment, which allows them to spend willy nilly.

[lukster]

Uh, you can't ignore this part simply because it doesn't fit your argument:

"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."

[lasersailor184]

Are you ****ing serious?  I showed you the direct part in the constitution that says congress has the power to lay and collect taxes.


And you still ****ing quote the sixteenth amendment?


Add ontop of that the fact that the Sixteenth amendment TELLS YOU which part it amends.