| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Hurt" |
| Date: |
09 Jun 2007 08:23:48 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Marshals Fired Rounds At Ed Brown's Dog Walker Before Planned Siege |
Paris Hilton used as a social diversion. Isn't this the guy who WON
the court case.
If you consider being convicted winning, yes.
Well he won some kind of case against the IRS.
See: http://www.freedomtofascism.com/ (watch the clips)
The contention is that there is no law requiring the payment of an
income tax. Since no one has been able to dispute this you can only
come to the conclusion that this is true. The movie stresses this.
Unfortunately it only briefly mentions that there is no need for an
income tax since most of the vital government services are in fact
provided by some other levy. For example, road construction comes
from a gasoline tax; military is paid for by corporate taxes. The
income tax's function seems to be a wealth redistribution mechanism.
I contend that it is largely a transfer from the competent to the
incompetent. I've read BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1
(1916) and personally have come to the conclusion that AT A MINIMUM,
INDISPUTABLY, that there is ABSOLUTELY NO provision for a
"progressive" tax, meaning, taxing some people more because they are
capable of earning more. The powers that be are frighteningly aware
of this. That is probably why there is a push to get into the
people's consciousness, through popular proxies like Neil Boortz, the
idea of a flat tax.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/240/1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushaber_v._Union_Pacific_Railroad
Nothing in the Sixteenth Amendment or in Brushaber (and the other
cases interpreting the tax provisions of the U.S. Constitution)
changes the general rule that direct taxes are still required to be
apportioned among the states by population. For example, if the U.S.
Congress were to enact a national property tax (i.e., a tax on
property by reason of its ownership) or a national capitation (i.e., a
poll tax or head tax), such taxes would be required to be apportioned.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Marshals Fired Rounds At Ed Brown's Dog Walker Before Planned Siege |
09 Jun 2007 08:38:36 AM |
|
|
Expect serious Rosaparksing on income taxes soon. Expect it because
the now-stalled amnesty deal for illegal aliens writes off back taxes
for illegal aliens - but not Americans, an admission of the fact that
Washington has acquiesced for years to MILLIONS of illegal aliens
working "off-the-books" while screwing Americans on taxes. Expect
lots of Americans to just start looking for any kind of "off-the-
books" work so an ever-larger share of their income will be untaxed.
No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vandar" |
|
| Title: Re: Marshals Fired Rounds At Ed Brown's Dog Walker Before PlannedSiege |
09 Jun 2007 09:14:16 AM |
|
|
Hurt wrote:
Paris Hilton used as a social diversion. Isn't this the guy who WON
the court case.
If you consider being convicted winning, yes.
Well he won some kind of case against the IRS.
See: http://www.freedomtofascism.com/ (watch the clips)
The contention is that there is no law requiring the payment of an
income tax.
That contention is wrong. Ed Brown isn't the first fool to make that claim.
Since no one has been able to dispute this you can only
come to the conclusion that this is true. The movie stresses this.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html
Unfortunately it only briefly mentions that there is no need for an
income tax since most of the vital government services are in fact
provided by some other levy. For example, road construction comes
from a gasoline tax; military is paid for by corporate taxes. The
income tax's function seems to be a wealth redistribution mechanism.
I contend that it is largely a transfer from the competent to the
incompetent. I've read BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1
(1916) and personally have come to the conclusion that AT A MINIMUM,
INDISPUTABLY, that there is ABSOLUTELY NO provision for a
"progressive" tax, meaning, taxing some people more because they are
capable of earning more.
People aren't taxed based on what they are capable of earning. They are
taxed based on what they did earn.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hurt" |
|
| Title: Re: Marshals Fired Rounds At Ed Brown's Dog Walker Before Planned Siege |
09 Jun 2007 10:35:30 AM |
|
|
See: http://www.freedomtofascism.com/ (watch the clips)
The contention is that there is no law requiring the payment of an
income tax.
That contention is wrong. Ed Brown isn't the first fool to make that claim.
If it is wrong there is a very high motivation for the government to
explicitly show that it is so. They have not. I do not know the
specifics of Ed Brown's case, I'm sure the documents are publicly
available, but a juror at his trial who is interviewed in the video
tells of how he was found not guilty due to there being no law broken.
People aren't taxed based on what they are capable of earning. They are
taxed based on what they did earn.
That is correct. Same difference as far I'm concerned. Are you
implying that some people earn or have earned what they are incapable
of? I would agree with that as well. However, governmental wealth
redistribution only makes that situation worse. You would think that
with all the history available, the founding of this country being the
most exemplary, people would have learned that by now.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/topics?hl=en
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vandar" |
|
| Title: Re: Marshals Fired Rounds At Ed Brown's Dog Walker Before PlannedSiege |
09 Jun 2007 11:07:25 AM |
|
|
Hurt wrote:
See: http://www.freedomtofascism.com/ (watch the clips)
The contention is that there is no law requiring the payment of an
income tax.
That contention is wrong. Ed Brown isn't the first fool to make that claim.
If it is wrong there is a very high motivation for the government to
explicitly show that it is so. They have not.
The Brown's were charged and found guilty of violating specific laws. If
they had bothered to look up those laws, they would know that there is
indeed a law requiring payment of an income tax, as those are the laws
they broke.
I do not know the
specifics of Ed Brown's case, I'm sure the documents are publicly
available, but a juror at his trial who is interviewed in the video
tells of how he was found not guilty due to there being no law broken.
He was found guilty of 3 charges. His wife was found guilty of 17
charges. Every single count they were found guilty of is a violation of
the US Code.
They should read it sometime.
People aren't taxed based on what they are capable of earning. They are
taxed based on what they did earn.
That is correct. Same difference as far I'm concerned. Are you
implying that some people earn or have earned what they are incapable
of?
No. I'm saying that some people don't earn all that they are capable of
earning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hurt" |
|
| Title: Re: Marshals Fired Rounds At Ed Brown's Dog Walker Before Planned Siege |
09 Jun 2007 11:31:43 AM |
|
|
The Brown's were charged and found guilty of violating specific laws. If
they had bothered to look up those laws, they would know that there is
indeed a law requiring payment of an income tax, as those are the laws
they broke.
And where do all those laws stem from. Should laws based on lies and
subterfuge be honored.
http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm
HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY
RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT
Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a
convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and
that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but
committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What
follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the
states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not
have been counted.
The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors
for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by
Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36,
of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be
ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft
administration, from 1909 to 1913.
Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th
amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before
leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson.
Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and
N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it.
We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found
regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.
In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even
having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was
to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The
version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and
acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they
weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out
(with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the
amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!
In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so
that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by
Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox
counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal
counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in
any way.
Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and
Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox,
and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own
state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's
approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the
"presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an
executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox
could be wrong.
If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the
count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for
ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid
approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.
The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature
from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by
Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The
intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to
become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people
can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a
cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just
because it happens to be the moment's trend. You've probably already
guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for
the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right - they
didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were
authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution
by failing to read the resolution on three different days as
prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional
violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their
approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving
states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.
Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions
prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government
with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.
Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their
constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days
before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for
a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to
be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and
understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members
may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe
it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio,
Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is
reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.
When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states,
official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state
results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents,
including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly
certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is
no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal
document, so that it's authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not
acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to
authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did
not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies,
and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and
warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California,
Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at
all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four
of these states were already disqualified above, California is now
subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.
These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have
particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge
against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they
shouldn't have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he
not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did.
Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with
the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable
place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose
constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures,
which could not give to the federal govern authority they did not
have.
The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he
made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment
was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and
Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the
proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and
Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but,
strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his
ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded
votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of
January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember
that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above).
**************************************
**************************************
Furthermore, if I were arguing with the devil, dotting my i's and
crossing my t's, the Supreme Court has clearly stated, or restated
what The Constitution states, that there is no unapportioned tax.
Period. Meaning everybody pays the same. Why do you think they
fought a, The, Revolutionary War.
No. I'm saying that some people don't earn all that they are capable of
earning.
Is this a crime?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vandar" |
|
| Title: Re: Marshals Fired Rounds At Ed Brown's Dog Walker Before PlannedSiege |
09 Jun 2007 12:28:23 PM |
|
|
Hurt wrote:
The Brown's were charged and found guilty of violating specific laws. If
they had bothered to look up those laws, they would know that there is
indeed a law requiring payment of an income tax, as those are the laws
they broke.
And where do all those laws stem from. Should laws based on lies and
subterfuge be honored.
http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm
HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY
RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT
That old argument? It's been universally rejected by every single court
it has ever come before.
Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a
convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and
that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but
committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What
follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the
states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not
have been counted.
"The Law That Never Was" was specifically addressed by the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Thomas.
Three cases: Brown v. Commissioner, Lysiak v. Commissioner, and Miller
v. United States, deemed the non-ratification argument frivolous.
Benson himself tried to present the non-ratification argument in his own
legal proceedings. Like everyone before or since, he failed. He was
convicted of tax evasion and served 4 years in prison.
Research "United States v. Benson".
No. I'm saying that some people don't earn all that they are capable of
earning.
Is this a crime?
No. Neither is paying taxes
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hurt" |
|
| Title: Re: Marshals Fired Rounds At Ed Brown's Dog Walker Before Planned Siege |
09 Jun 2007 02:27:18 PM |
|
|
http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm
HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY
RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT
That old argument? It's been universally rejected by every single court
it has ever come before.
Oh gee what a surprise. I suppose if you repeat a lie long enough it
eventually has to be the "truth". The real truth is that the
Amendment was never properly ratified making it null and void. It
would be interesting to read the history on how the States actually
acquiesced to the collection of the tax. Oh wait, I know, the
megalomaniacs started World War I the year after. Killing nine
million people. "The War To End All Wars", except for the war that
eventually followed, after they caused the great depression during
which they had the audacity to confiscate the gold. Like sheep to the
slaughter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Gold_confiscation
Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a
convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and
that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but
committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913.
Look, he's got a web site: http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com
No. I'm saying that some people don't earn all that they are capable of
earning.
Is this a crime?
No. Neither is paying taxes
Sure, you want to send in a check, go ahead, I won't try to stop you.
And thank you for your support.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vandar" |
|
| Title: Re: Marshals Fired Rounds At Ed Brown's Dog Walker Before PlannedSiege |
09 Jun 2007 03:51:08 PM |
|
|
Hurt wrote:
http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm
HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY
RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT
That old argument? It's been universally rejected by every single court
it has ever come before.
Oh gee what a surprise. I suppose if you repeat a lie long enough it
eventually has to be the "truth".
Ask Benson.
The real truth is that the
Amendment was never properly ratified making it null and void.
The real truth is that the Amendment was properly ratified, as every
single court that has been asked to rule on it has determined.
Benson found out the hard way. Brown will as well.
It would be interesting to read the history on how the States actually
acquiesced to the collection of the tax. Oh wait, I know, the
megalomaniacs started World War I the year after. Killing nine
million people. "The War To End All Wars", except for the war that
eventually followed, after they caused the great depression during
which they had the audacity to confiscate the gold. Like sheep to the
slaughter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Gold_confiscation
Well, since you accept Wikipedia as a source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments
Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a
convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and
that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but
committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913.
Look, he's got a web site: http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com
And a criminal record.
No. I'm saying that some people don't earn all that they are capable of
earning.
Is this a crime?
No. Neither is paying taxes
Sure, you want to send in a check, go ahead, I won't try to stop you.
Good. You can't. I have this odd preference for power grids, sewage,
water, paved roads, law enforcement, and national defense.
And thank you for your support.
Welfare recipient?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hurt" |
|
| Title: Re: Marshals Fired Rounds At Ed Brown's Dog Walker Before Planned Siege |
09 Jun 2007 04:36:24 PM |
|
|
The real truth is that the
Amendment was never properly ratified making it null and void.
The real truth is that the Amendment was properly ratified, as every
single court that has been asked to rule on it has determined.
No, it really wasn't. It took them four years during the Taft
administration to try to get it through. They eventually just said it
was so basically. Skirting The Constitution, State Constitutions, and
the leaderships of the individual States. Then they started WWI so
the people couldn't complain. Taft didn't get reelected and is judged
as one of the worst Presidents ever. He did however get appointed to
The Court. Go figure.
Good. You can't. I have this odd preference for power grids, sewage,
water, paved roads, law enforcement, and national defense.
You know I was a bit disappointed with Russo's film on this point.
He focuses too much on there being no law requiring the payment of
income tax. The much more interesting thing he only briefly mentions
is that there is no need for the income tax. Everyone of those things
you mention is already paid for through local property taxes, gasoline
taxes, corporate taxes, user fees, etc. The income tax is primarily
an income transfer tax. Like transferring from Ed Brown to the Feds
trying to take his money.
http://www.freedomtofascism.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vandar" |
|
| Title: Re: Marshals Fired Rounds At Ed Brown's Dog Walker Before PlannedSiege |
09 Jun 2007 05:28:53 PM |
|
|
Hurt wrote:
The real truth is that the
Amendment was never properly ratified making it null and void.
The real truth is that the Amendment was properly ratified, as every
single court that has been asked to rule on it has determined.
No, it really wasn't.
Why don't you contact the governors of each state and ask them.
When they finish laughing at you, contact the Supreme Court and ask them.
It took them four years during the Taft
administration to try to get it through. They eventually just said it
was so basically. Skirting The Constitution, State Constitutions, and
the leaderships of the individual States. Then they started WWI so
the people couldn't complain. Taft didn't get reelected and is judged
as one of the worst Presidents ever. He did however get appointed to
The Court. Go figure.
None of which changes the fact that income tax is Constitutionally sound.
Good. You can't. I have this odd preference for power grids, sewage,
water, paved roads, law enforcement, and national defense.
You know I was a bit disappointed with Russo's film on this point.
He focuses too much on there being no law requiring the payment of
income tax. The much more interesting thing he only briefly mentions
is that there is no need for the income tax. Everyone of those things
you mention is already paid for through local property taxes, gasoline
taxes, corporate taxes, user fees, etc.
The "etc" being income tax.
The income tax is primarily
an income transfer tax. Like transferring from Ed Brown to the Feds
trying to take his money.
You can back him up until the cows come home, it doesn't make you (or
him) right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anatomy Of A Troll" |
|
| Title: Re: Marshals Fired Rounds At Ed Brown's Dog Walker Before Planned Siege |
10 Jun 2007 02:55:31 AM |
|
|
Why don't you show us all where it says our income tax goes to any of the
resources you mention?
"Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FQFai.10051$ya1.9234@news02.roc.ny...
Good. You can't. I have this odd preference for power grids, sewage,
water, paved roads, law enforcement, and national defense.
You know I was a bit disappointed with Russo's film on this point.
He focuses too much on there being no law requiring the payment of
income tax. The much more interesting thing he only briefly mentions
is that there is no need for the income tax. Everyone of those things
you mention is already paid for through local property taxes, gasoline
taxes, corporate taxes, user fees, etc.
The "etc" being income tax.
The income tax is primarily
an income transfer tax. Like transferring from Ed Brown to the Feds
trying to take his money.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vandar" |
|
| Title: Re: Marshals Fired Rounds At Ed Brown's Dog Walker Before PlannedSiege |
10 Jun 2007 08:34:57 AM |
|
|
Anatomy Of A Troll wrote:
Why don't you show us all where it says our income tax goes to any of the
resources you mention?
Why don't you show us all where it says my property taxes goes to any of
those resources I mentioned?
"Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FQFai.10051$ya1.9234@news02.roc.ny...
Good. You can't. I have this odd preference for power grids, sewage,
water, paved roads, law enforcement, and national defense.
You know I was a bit disappointed with Russo's film on this point.
He focuses too much on there being no law requiring the payment of
income tax. The much more interesting thing he only briefly mentions
is that there is no need for the income tax. Everyone of those things
you mention is already paid for through local property taxes, gasoline
taxes, corporate taxes, user fees, etc.
The "etc" being income tax.
The income tax is primarily
an income transfer tax. Like transferring from Ed Brown to the Feds
trying to take his money.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anatomy Of A Troll" |
|
| Title: Re: Marshals Fired Rounds At Ed Brown's Dog Walker Before Planned Siege |
10 Jun 2007 01:07:37 PM |
|
|
If you tell me what city you live in I am glad to show you Vandar. Ok now
that I showed YOU. WHERE DOES IT SAY WHAT OUR FEDERAL INCOME TAX GOES TO PAY
FOR??
Porperty Taxes: It seems most places it is for (1) Park/recreation,
cemetery, fire, sanitary, hospitals, insect control, conservation,public
utilities/transit, airport, separation of grade, flood control, community
service, irrigation, and water districts
Here are some examples:
Here it is for Kansas
http://opkansas.org/_Res/Finances/Taxes_and_Revenues/Property_Tax/pays_for.cfm
Here it is for Grain Valley MO
http://www.cityofgrainvalley.org/finance_prop_tax_pay.htm
Here it is for Grsham OR
https://mycusthelp.com/greshamor/supportkbitem.asp?sSessionID=&Inc=807&sFilA=Category&sFilB=&sFilC=&KEY=budget
"Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:56Tai.10035$B25.9001@news01.roc.ny...
Anatomy Of A Troll wrote:
Why don't you show us all where it says our income tax goes to any of the
resources you mention?
Why don't you show us all where it says my property taxes goes to any of
those resources I mentioned?
"Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FQFai.10051$ya1.9234@news02.roc.ny...
Good. You can't. I have this odd preference for power grids, sewage,
water, paved roads, law enforcement, and national defense.
You know I was a bit disappointed with Russo's film on this point.
He focuses too much on there being no law requiring the payment of
income tax. The much more interesting thing he only briefly mentions
is that there is no need for the income tax. Everyone of those things
you mention is already paid for through local property taxes, gasoline
taxes, corporate taxes, user fees, etc.
The "etc" being income tax.
The income tax is primarily
an income transfer tax. Like transferring from Ed Brown to the Feds
trying to take his money.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vandar" |
|
| Title: Re: Marshals Fired Rounds At Ed Brown's Dog Walker Before PlannedSiege |
10 Jun 2007 01:46:01 PM |
|
|
Anatomy Of A Troll wrote:
If you tell me what city you live in I am glad to show you Vandar.
I don't live in a city.
Ok now that I showed YOU. WHERE DOES IT SAY WHAT OUR FEDERAL INCOME TAX GOES TO PAY
FOR??
http://www.gpoaccess.gov
Porperty Taxes: It seems most places it is for (1) Park/recreation,
cemetery, fire, sanitary, hospitals, insect control, conservation,public
utilities/transit, airport, separation of grade, flood control, community
service, irrigation, and water districts
The money funds schools, pays for police and fire protection, maintains
roads, and funds other municipal services enjoyed by residents.
http://www.orps.state.ny.us/pamphlet/taxworks.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
