Wesley Snipes vs. IRS

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Messages
1,452
Reaction score
4
Location
San Diego, CA
Evan! said:
Well, this should be interesting to watch. Looks like Snipes is a tax denyer. How cool is that? I can't imagine any of the other denyers who have taken on the IRS have been this prominent or well-funded. Can you imagine if his big-money lawyers actually won?
I dunno...Big money attorney who has been barred by court order since 1999 from selling a program under which he said people could legally stop paying income taxes.

Still...It will be fun to watch.
 

rdwj

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2006
Messages
4,571
Reaction score
36
Location
Plainfield, IL
I don't know - if I had money to burn like Snipes, I wouldn't risk my movie star lifestyle for a chance at being slightly richer. ESPECIALLY when you'll probably go to jail if you lose.
 

SuperiorBrew

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
1,672
Reaction score
44
rdwj said:
I don't know - if I had money to burn like Snipes, I wouldn't risk my movie star lifestyle for a chance at being slightly richer. ESPECIALLY when you'll probably go to jail if you lose.
+1

If he makes that kind of money and lived here in the US he should be paying taxes like everyone else.
I predict he will lose and be the next example just like Martha was and I wont feel sorry for him in the least.

military training compound.........:confused:
 

Danny013

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
355
Reaction score
2
Location
Gainesville, FL
SuperiorBrew said:
+1

If he makes that kind of money and lived here in the US he should be paying taxes like everyone else.
I predict he will lose and be the next example just like Martha was and I wont feel sorry for him in the least.

military training compound.........:confused:
I don't think he is trying to be 'slightly richer'. He is trying to make a precident that the IRS is unconstitutional and the Government has no right to tax the people. I don't think it's greed compelling him, perhaps the desire for true 'freedom' here in the US is?

None of us should be paying taxes either, IMO.

If you've got a bit of time to kill now or later, sit back with your tap/bottles of homebrew close by and watch this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
 

the_bird

10th-Level Beer Nerd
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
20,968
Reaction score
597
Location
Adams, MA
It's been established in court OVER AND OVER AND OVER again that the U.S. government has every right to impose income taxes, to the point where he's apt to face additional fines/punishments for filing a frivilous lawsuit.
 

c.n.budz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
3,086
Reaction score
44
Location
Pistol Wavin' New Haven, for now...
Danny013 said:
None of us should be paying taxes either, IMO.
While I don't enjoy paying taxes I understand that they are a necessary evil. If you don't think we should pay taxes how do you propose that our roads and highways get maintained and how are our public schools going to be funded, just to name a couple things....
 

ScubaSteve

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
3,673
Reaction score
91
He WILL pay those taxes. I actually heard about them coming after him a few years ago.....maybe this is the last straw. It's kind of ingnorant to think the IRS wouldn't be able to come after him, don't you think?
 

SuperiorBrew

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
1,672
Reaction score
44
c.n.budz said:
While I don't enjoy paying taxes I understand that they are a necessary evil. If you don't think we should pay taxes how do you propose that our roads and highways get maintained and how are our public schools going to be funded, just to name a couple things....
+1 Exactly
 
OP
Evan!

Evan!

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
11,835
Reaction score
104
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Not sure that this is Wes's position, but I believe that a lot of the denyers are aiming at what they see (and I agree with them on this position) as a bloated, wasteful, tyrannical central government that is counter to the founding fathers' idea of federalism and states' rights. IOW, yes, you should still be paying taxes for defense, but the vast majority of the rest of the crap that the feds spend $$ on is unconstitutional and counter to federalism and a constitutional republic of states. Think about it: most of the money that states get for various programs comes from fed grant $$---and all that really ends up being is an end-around to statism---because while the states appear to be the ones spending the $$, the reality is that the feds get to attach requirements to those dollars, thus controlling what the states do (liquor laws, drug laws and speed laws are a few examples), instead of the states taxing their citizens directly in order to come up with that $$. There are several things that the federal government does better, like interstate commerce regulation and national defense...but the fact that the vast majority of your income tax goes to the fed so that they can dole it out on BS programs means that they have much more power than they should ever have. And starving them of a lot of that $$ would be one way to counter it.

So...pay taxes, but pay them to the state government...
 

EdWort

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
11,894
Reaction score
445
Location
Bee Cave, Texas
Snipes should pay his taxes, but what gets me is the bottom 40% of the income earners who pay NO taxes and some even get money FROM the IRS.

Our tax system redistributes money from the people who earn it to the people who do NOT earn it.

Everybody uses government provided items (using money confiscated from taxpayers), so everybody should pay IMHO.
 

SuperiorBrew

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
1,672
Reaction score
44
It might get worse depending on how the election goes this year
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Messages
1,452
Reaction score
4
Location
San Diego, CA
EdWort said:
Snipes should pay his taxes, but what gets me is the bottom 40% of the income earners who pay NO taxes and some even get money FROM the IRS.

Our tax system redistributes money from the people who earn it to the people who do NOT earn it.

Everybody uses government provided items (using money confiscated from taxpayers), so everybody should pay IMHO.
Edit: Found some stats

In 2002 the top 1% earners paid 33.7% of the taxes. The top 5% earners paid 53% of the taxes and the top 50% paid 94% of all taxes.
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Messages
1,452
Reaction score
4
Location
San Diego, CA
This is a great way of looking at our tax system:
I was having lunch with one of my favorite clients last week and the conversation turned to the government's recent round of tax cuts.

'"I'm opposed to those tax cuts," the retired college instructor declared, "because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and me and that's not fair.'"

"But the rich pay more in the first place," I argued, "so it stands to reason that they'd get more money back."

I could tell that my friend was unimpressed by this meager argument. So I said to him, "let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand."

"Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59."

The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80. The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.

The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, being sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so now the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.

Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."

Then, the nine men surrounded the tenth man (the richest one, paying the most) and beat him up. The next night the richest man didn't show up for dinner, so now the nine men sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!

"And that, boys, girls and college instructors, is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean."
 

TxBrew

Administrator
Staff member
Admin
Mod
HBT Supporter
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
9,379
Reaction score
2,132
I recall Snipes trying to outrun the police on his motorcycle WHILE unzipping his backpack and dumping his pot out on the road. Anyone remember that?
 

Soulive

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Messages
4,266
Reaction score
27
Location
The Middle of NJ
TxBrew said:
I recall Snipes trying to outrun the police on his motorcycle WHILE unzipping his backpack and dumping his pot out on the road. Anyone remember that?
No, but I do recall when he used to sling rocks with the CMB...

 

MriswitH

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
308
Reaction score
1
Location
Traverse City, MI
I was a real big fan of Snipes until I heard that he is quite the unpleasant person to work with.

Racially charged, egotistical and arrogant came up frequently in interviews of cast members. Really big shame because I loved the stuff he did but its quite an unbecoming character flaw.
 

SuperiorBrew

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
1,672
Reaction score
44
I have always thought that would be a better way to do it, but I have not read up on it at all, nor do I claim to know exactly how it works. I understand the paying 23-25% basically as a sales tax and not paying any other taxes what so ever.
I am sure it can be spun in either direction, thus making it sound good or bad.

I would like to see it but honestly dont think I ever will.
 

david_42

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
25,582
Reaction score
184
Location
Oak Grove
Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified

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.

By "Fair Tax" do you mean "Flat tax"? Tax deniers would deny this as well.
 

SuperiorBrew

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
1,672
Reaction score
44
david_42 said:
By "Fair Tax" do you mean "Flat tax"? Tax deniers would deny this as well.
Yea but it would be a little harder to deny if the store keeper / waiter etc. said you owe $125 for a $100 item, its pay up or do with out.

Bottom line would be every one pays the tax on all purchases, there would be no exceptions. Lie the sales tax is set up now. You cant tell Walmart you dont believe in taxation so I'm not paying it :)
 

landhoney

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
1,346
Reaction score
9
Location
West Palm, FL

Donasay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
1,563
Reaction score
11
Location
Boston
Not to be on the other side, but I live in Massachusetts, and the state gives us the option of paying extra taxes, every year when we file, they have a standard rate that you have to pay and then an optional higher rate that is about half a percent more than the normal rate. I payed the extra half a percent every year I was an undergraduate and every year I was in grad school. But when I was in school I got a refund from them every year anyway and I looked at it as letting them keep money of mine they already had to help the poor or fix the roads.

I think this is going to be the first year where I am going to owe money to the government, as I am working full time, so we shall see if I pay the extra optional tax.
 

MikeFlynn74

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
22
Location
ANCHORAGE!!
Fair/flat tax is by far a poor option. You mean to say that the guy who makes $30,000 a year gets to pay $7500. While a Guy who makes $1,000,000 gets to pay $250,000 or 33 times as much as the low income earner.

Sounds fair. Not. Penalize they guy for doing well?

If you look at other nations- US has one of the most fair tax structures in the world.

If I were president- 99% of all foreign aid would be cut! Welfare would be limited to 8 weeks and No bonuses for kids. People who do not have kids would not have to contribute to public schools. Thier taxes would go to things like roads.

And pot would be legal
 

SuperiorBrew

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
1,672
Reaction score
44
MikeFlynn74 said:
Fair/flat tax is by far a poor option. You mean to say that the guy who makes $30,000 a year gets to pay $7500. While a Guy who makes $1,000,000 gets to pay $250,000 or 33 times as much as the low income earner.

Sounds fair. Not. Penalize they guy for doing well?

If you look at other nations- US has one of the most fair tax structures in the world.

If I were president- 99% of all foreign aid would be cut! Welfare would be limited to 8 weeks and No bonuses for kids. People who do not have kids would not have to contribute to public schools. Thier taxes would go to things like roads.

And pot would be legal
Right now the guy that makes $1,000,000 is in the 35% tax bracket paying $350,000 in taxes and if they are self employed about another 15%. Basically they get half of what they make.

And the guy that makes $70,000 is in the 28% bracket and paying $17,500

Does the guy that pays $350,000+ in taxes drive on the roads more, need more defense or have more kids in public schools than the guy that makes $70,000?

I just think the flat tax would at least even the tables a little & cut how much is spent by the IRS just processing all the returns each year.
 
OP
Evan!

Evan!

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
11,835
Reaction score
104
Location
Charlottesville, VA
SuperiorBrew said:
Right now the guy that makes $1,000,000 is in the 35% tax bracket paying $350,000 in taxes and if they are self employed about another 15%. Basically they get half of what they make.

And the guy that makes $70,000 is in the 28% bracket and paying $17,500

Does the guy that pays $350,000+ in taxes drive on the roads more, need more defense or have more kids in public schools than the guy that makes $70,000?

I just think the flat tax would at least even the tables a little & cut how much is spent by the IRS just processing all the returns each year.
Yeah, I hear ya, but it would also put a sh*tload of accountants, tax preparers and tax lawyers out of business. Not that I'd mind that one bit, but just like anything else, once a certain industry gets built up around a particular government law or requirement (see: drug prohibition), it's very difficult to break it down again. You think H&R Block is rallying for a flat tax?
 

ohiobrewtus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
7,762
Reaction score
73
Location
Ohio
How can anything that puts some lawyers out of business be seen as a bad thing? :D
 

kornkob

Resident Crazy Uncle
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
30
Location
Madison WI
The hardest thing to accomodate here is the idea that a percentage of income kind of tax hurts people who aren't making much a lot harder than people who already earn quite a bit.

If I lose $20 in the washing machine it's no big deal at all. Heck-- I withdraw $200 as 'walking around money' every payday.

But there was a time when my family lived on government cheese and welfare. It was hard and losing $5 meant that I was going to not be eating lunch that week.

What I'm saying is this: when you are making $15,000 a year, a 1% increase in taxes is a HUGE problem. When you are making $150,000 a year it really isn't.

So one's 'fair share' isn't always about paying the same amount.

For instance, I've always thought that Speeding tickets, parking fines and other civil forfietures should scale based on how wealthy the person is. After all, a $250 ticket for (who cares what the fine is for-- it isn't relevant toteh example) is devastating to a family of 4 pulling down $40,000 a year but represents little more than my costs for going to Whiskey fest in Chicago this year. If I get a ticket I have to choose which hobby or vacation suffers. That hypotehtical family has to choose what staple gets cut or what bill doesn't get paid. Seems to me that the punishment in those 2 instances is all out of wack.
 

beergears

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2007
Messages
999
Reaction score
8
Location
somewhere west of Boston Harba'
Evan! said:
Yeah, I hear ya, but it would also put a sh*tload of accountants, tax preparers and tax lawyers out of business.

Hey (tax) loopholes are like mushrooms, they grow fast, in dark places.

They would crop back fast, I would think.
 
OP
Evan!

Evan!

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
11,835
Reaction score
104
Location
Charlottesville, VA
kornkob said:
The hardest thing to accomodate here is the idea that a percentage of income kind of tax hurts people who aren't making much a lot harder than people who already earn quite a bit.

If I lose $20 in the washing machine it's no big deal at all. Heck-- I withdraw $200 as 'walking around money' every payday.

But there was a time when my family lived on government cheese and welfare. It was hard and losing $5 meant that I was going to not be eating lunch that week.

What I'm saying is this: when you are making $15,000 a year, a 1% increase in taxes is a HUGE problem. When you are making $150,000 a year it really isn't.

So one's 'fair share' isn't always about paying the same amount.

For instance, I've always thought that Speeding tickets, parking fines and other civil forfietures should scale based on how wealthy the person is. After all, a $250 ticket for (who cares what the fine is for-- it isn't relevant toteh example) is devastating to a family of 4 pulling down $40,000 a year but represents little more than my costs for going to Whiskey fest in Chicago this year. If I get a speeding ticket I have to choose which hobby or vacation suffers. That hypotehtical family has to choose what staple gets cut or what bill doesn't get paid. Seems to me that the punishment in those 2 instances is all out of wack.
What your referring to is commonly called "redistribution of wealth", and a strong argument can be made that redistributing wealth at the point of a gun is immoral. I presume you don't think it's okay to run up to a guy who's richer than you, stic, a gun in his face, and take some of his money; wealth redistribution at the hands of the government is not really any different in the abstract. You're penalizing people for being rich, just because they can more easily afford it. While I'm all for voluntary redistribution of wealth (for instance, Bill Gates funding malaria programs), I can't support the forceful, involuntary confiscation (read: theft) of property merely because one party is worse-off than the other.

The wealth gap that you're talking about, wherein one person lives from paycheck to paycheck while another lights his cubans with $100 bills, is a problem, to be sure. But the solution is not theft at the point of a gun. I can't see how holding up uncle moneybags on the street is any different than stealing from him via government sanction.

This is to say nothing of the effect that it has on our economy when you establish disincentives to create wealth...
 

landhoney

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
1,346
Reaction score
9
Location
West Palm, FL
MikeFlynn74 said:
Fair/flat tax is by far a poor option. You mean to say that the guy who makes $30,000 a year gets to pay $7500. While a Guy who makes $1,000,000 gets to pay $250,000 or 33 times as much as the low income earner.
Fair and Flat tax are not the same thing at all:

A flat tax (short for flat rate tax) is a tax maneuver with a constant rate. Usually this would refer to household income, and possibly corporate profits as well, being taxed at one marginal rate.

The Fair Tax Act (HR 25/S 1025) is a bill in the United States Congress for changing tax laws to replace the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and all federal income taxes (including Alternative Minimum Tax), payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, gift taxes, and estate taxes with a national retail sales tax , to be levied once at the point of purchase on all new goods and services. The proposal also calls for a monthly payment to households of citizens and legal resident aliens (based on family size) as an advance rebate of tax on purchases up to the poverty level.[1][2] The sales tax rate, as defined in the legislation, is 23% of the total register price including tax (23¢ of every $1—calculated like income taxes), which is comparable to a 30% traditional sales tax (30¢ on top of every $1).[3] Because the U.S. tax system has a hidden effect on prices,[4] it is expected that moving to the FairTax would decrease associated production costs due to the removal of business taxes and compliance costs, which is predicted to offset a portion of the FairTax effect on prices.[5]

The Fair Tax only taxes you on what you SPEND, and gives EVERYONE a prebate(pre-rebate) to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level. It encourages people to SAVE money because they won't have to pay taxes on any intest earned. 23% sounds high, until you factor into the buying price all the imbedded taxes that go into that item, that in turn make the product cost more before taxes now. To me, its the perfect system, that allows me to decide how much I want to spend on taxes.
 

kornkob

Resident Crazy Uncle
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
1,856
Reaction score
30
Location
Madison WI
Evan! said:
What your referring to is commonly called "redistribution of wealth", and a strong argument can be made that redistributing wealth at the point of a gun is immoral.

I don't pretend to know all the answers but don't use my post to prop up your straw man when my straw man has nothing to do with yours.

Your 'immorality' arguement only holds up if you take an Ann Randian approach and assume that 'common good' is never appropriate.

In which case, i'll decline to participate further as I regard that kind of discussion as nonsenical.
 
OP
Evan!

Evan!

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2006
Messages
11,835
Reaction score
104
Location
Charlottesville, VA
kornkob said:
I don't pretend to know all the answers but don't use my post to prop up your straw man when my straw man has nothing to do with yours.

Your 'immorality' arguement only holds up if you take an Ann Randian approach and assume that 'common good' is never appropriate.

In which case, i'll decline to participate further as I regard that kind of discussion as nonsenical.
Common good is fine in certain instances, and I'm not taking an Ayn Randian approach---nor is my argument a strawman simply because I used a parallel example. But punishing people simply because they can withstand said punishment more than others is bound to lead to problems much worse than division of wealth.
 
Top