Post: #51

I have a real basic question in regards to flat tax. Would a small business still have to pay an income tax? If not, how would they account for legit business expenses that are currently deductible? A flat tax sounds great for Joe Employee but terrible for Joe Business Owner. I know next to nothing about how a flat tax would work, is there a simple explanation of how it would affect a business?

Post: #52

(07-25-2015 09:42 PM)Chauncey Wrote:  I have a real basic question in regards to flat tax. Would a small business still have to pay an income tax? If not, how would they account for legit business expenses that are currently deductible? A flat tax sounds great for Joe Employee but terrible for Joe Business Owner. I know next to nothing about how a flat tax would work, is there a simple explanation of how it would affect a business?

Much less paperwork and much less uncertainty for business planning purposes - much lower CPA and Tax Attorney expenses that is for starters not to mention the Federal and State Biz Taxes of avg 40% will drop to combined less than 20% a MASSIVE savings available for business expansion and new jobs creation.

Post: #53

(07-25-2015 09:42 PM)Chauncey Wrote:  I have a real basic question in regards to flat tax. Would a small business still have to pay an income tax? If not, how would they account for legit business expenses that are currently deductible? A flat tax sounds great for Joe Employee but terrible for Joe Business Owner. I know next to nothing about how a flat tax would work, is there a simple explanation of how it would affect a business?

If you look at what percentage of the cost of a good is accounted for by tax, in the case of some businesses it can be quite high. Chipotle pays a tax rate of about 40%, which is directly passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices. If Chipotle payed 0% tax, their burrito would probably cost $5. If you eliminate the taxes paid by their suppliers, you would decrease the cost of the chicken, rice, spices, avocados, etc and would see an even greater decrease in price. Remember prices are almost exclusively what determine our level of prosperity. If a single bedroom apartment cost $100 per month, there would be no homelessness because you can panhandle $100 per month no problem. If it cost $1000 you will have some homelessness because not everyone can get together that much on a monthly basis. If a single bedroom cost $10000 per month, just about everyone except the extremely wealthy would be homeless. Low prices = prosperity. The government should allow the market to decrease prices over time as is seen with cell phones, computers, lasik and boob jobs.

Post: #54

Rand Paul Video:

https://randpaul.com/f/tax-code-video

Stand with Rand in his fight to defeat the Washington Machine and drive a stake through the heart of the IRS

Post: #55

Its unfortunate for sure, but if you are depositing large amounts of cash on regular basis you should be aware of the regulations and adjust accordingly. I certainly don't handle large amounts cash, but I was aware of the 10k reporting and the "structuring" violations where people break up deposits in order to avoid scrutiny on the +10k deposits. The only reason to avoid the reporting on 10k is if you have something to hide. What does raise red flags is constant cash deposits that near 10k but never hit. There is no reason to avoid depositing over 10k. Unfortunately it sounds like the bank employee just didn't want to have to fill out out reports and told him to keep it under 10k, and he was ignorant of the regulations and went along with it.

His mistake was taking legal/financial advice from a bank teller. With that kind of cash he was an idiot not to have a lawyer or accountant advising him on these issues.

They are shitty laws, no doubt, but its a mans responsibility to understand and adapt to the environment he's in.

Post: #56

(05-13-2015 01:41 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  What a racket. State sponsored theft.

Lovely.

Well, someone has to pay for the Military Industrial Complex and the perpetual wars.

Post: #57

I'm glad this type of stuff is getting the forum's attention. Not that we carry a lot of weight yet or anything, but blatant trampling of the freedoms of American citizens are far too often brushed off as "conspiracy theories."

These abuses are very real and it has been happening for a long time.

The people defending the IRS in this case are way too indoctrinated in US society (or are working for the gov). Financial institutions shouldn't be legally required to rat on their customers in the first place - stuff like this is why banks worldwide are hestitant to work with US customers and often outright refuse.

Yet we take it as just the order of modern life.

Yes, I advise every man here to understand the reality of the world he lives in and adapt accordingly. However, adapting and being educated doesn't mean you stop questioning whether or not it should be the state of affairs in the first place or feeling sympathy for men who get unnecessarily trampled by the system out of ignorance.

(05-13-2015 09:07 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  Excellent. I remember hearing some where that a goal was to get the laws to the point that every citizen is breaking a law almost every day, many times without them knowing it, all for ultimate control of the citizenry.

We have probably reached this point.

We reached that point a long time ago. Whether or not it's for the goal of control is up for debate, I suppose, but I would bet money you break a law every day without knowing it.

(07-25-2015 10:55 AM)Natural Born Gyalist Wrote:  I am concerned. Every single deposit I make into my checking account is under $10K.

I'm sure you're being sarcastic, but just in case, structuring is more about suspicious activity. An extreme black and white example might be if you made a series of deposits a hair under $10k.

Unfortunately, "suspicious" leaves a lot of room for interpretation and abuse of power, so you could get flagged for a series of $2500 deposits or $3000 deposits or whatever.

Suspicion can fall for all kinds of reasons. Big brother government in action.

(05-13-2015 12:59 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  I believe this will be the catalyst for the tipping point. The government has created such a financial vortex with the welfare state, they are literally stealing money from the working class. The silent majority has gotten past the stages of disbelief/discouragement and are going to start pushing back.

Overtaxing was a reason for a revolution in the 1700's, but outright stealing money from armed citizens will evoke a similar and more swift reaction. I suspect they'll try doing civilly by refusing to pay taxes enmass, and when the gov attempts to seize what's left, shots will be fired. It will be a lot messier now due to the massive population and high percentage on the dole. Expect anarchy.

"Terrorist statements"!

(05-13-2015 01:22 AM)Americas Wrote:  In fact, he wasn't even the one making the deposits:

Quote:McLellan himself doesn’t handle the deposits—that’s his niece’s responsibility—and a bank teller had previously advised her to make deposits of less than that amount.

Not only is he ignorant of the laws, he gets a god damn family member to do his financial work for him. Sending off your niece to deposit your money and ask the bank teller (who doesn't give a shit nor probably know the proper laws) about how it works is asinine.

Quote:If cash deposits totaled more than $10,000, the bank had to file additional paperwork, the teller said.

Have you ever worked for a small business? My guess is no. Most small businesses owners don't manage their money all on their own, and I'd say below a certain size of business the majority turn to the family member or friend with the best eye for numbers and pay them a reasonable rate to help out.

As for listening to the teller, if you're a regular old joe businessman who doesn't know how ironfisted the government has gotten (most people don't), who else to turn to than the bank for advice about depositing money in the bank?

You may be right at the core that this is a poor choice of person to ask for business/financial advice. I would agree. But you and I are much more intelligent and educated on this matter than the everyday citizen. Why you think a guy like this would realize what he is up against is completely beyond me.

The fact still stands that he is up against it whether he realizes it or not. Fair enough.

But the question we need to be asking is - why is he up against it? It may be the system we're under but it is a very flawed system and needs to be changed.

Quote:

Quote:He owns a convenience store which mainly deals with cash. His insurance only allows up to 10k on premises. That means he typically needs to deposit his cash many times a week so he is below that threshold in case he gets robbed or something else happens.

Irrelevant. He doesn't have to keep it on the premises but he can put it anywhere else he chooses.

First, why is it irrelevant? Because the government "says so"? Once again you're supporting putting the small average joe business owner at a major inconvenience and danger just because "that's the law." Fuck that. No. The law should be changed.

We do not exist to serve the government and jump through its hoops - it should be the other way around.

(Actually, do you work for the government or perhaps as a police officer? I'm not trying to be snooty here - it's a serious question. I've encountered your mindset before and usually it is with police officers or people who work with or for the "almightÿ" government in some capacity.)

Second, your logic is very flawed. So he should be taking cash somewhere secure to accumulate it just so he can avoid looking suspicious? In other words, he should behave suspiciously so that he doesn't look suspicious?

I've got an idea. Why not just let the man put his money in his fucking bank account?

That's what banks are for, and the government shouldn't be making laws in the first place that make people jump through hoops just to walk through their arbitrary little lines. The fact that you feel the burden should be on the little man citizen to walk this straight and narrow is what makes me think you must work or have worked in some kind of official capacity.

Also, as another poster noted, the government can also seize your cash if you have more than $10,000 on you at once. So again, damned if you do and damned if you don't.

THAT IS NOT A COINCIDENCE, BY THE WAY. They've set it up this way for a very specific purpose, which is so that every single person falls within their control. This is an overextension of government power, and yet this is the type of government policy you support?

Furthermore, say the guy fucked up and is a moron, as you have said already. Say he is irresponsible for not being more educated about financial matters. So the government shows up and sees he is indeed a moron. Why the bullshit hassle? Why can't common sense men say "Well, you're a moron - don't do that again"?

You can talk tough all day about how it's not their responsiblity and it's his but what you should be doing is questioning why the government is making laws and setting up a system that essentially makes a small guy like this run in circles and nearly impossible to get his money back. And questioning why banks should be forced to file reports on money deposited for such a small amount as $10K in the first place (note that the figure fails to adjust with inflation).

Just what exactly do you feel the government's purpose should be? Because it should not be this.

This is a ton of cash for a guy in his position. Right now he's thinking about how to keep his doors open and his bills paid - all because the government couldn't make a simple judgement call and hand back his money with a stern warning.

We're talking about taking money away because there is reason for suspicion. Okay, so fair enough there was reason for suspicion (if you operate under this set of rules in the first place). So look into the matter and determine what's going on. And acknowledge that the teller made a mistake or was misunderstood. Then give the guy his damn money.

They don't do that because they feel they don't have to. Becasue they are superior and all-powerful in their own eyes and have no one to answer to - because we don't question the behavior or thinking behind it.

It should not be up to him to prove himself innocent because the government has decided he did something that seems suspicious. Is that really the kind of world you want to live in? In our society we have agreed again and again that innocent until proven guilty is the more moral and justified stance. Therefore, if they are suspicious, it should be up to them to prove whether or not their suspicions are in fact warranted, but as the most powerful arm of government they shrug their shoulders and do what they want.

And usually with a very smug, self-satisfied attitude, I might add.

Short of some all-out revolution I doubt this type of thing will change very much. However, even if it doesn't change, what absolutely should change are the procedures in place for unwraveling the mix-up and getting your money back when you get caught in the teeth of the system but are innocent. Any government system that doesn't take the need for such procedures into consideration, and the need for streamlining them as much as possible, simply doesn't give a fuck about its citizens...

And personally I cannot back a government that doesn't care about its citizens. Their whole reason for existence is to serve and protect the citizens, so if they can't do that, what in fact is the point?

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Rudyard Kipling

Post: #58

(05-13-2015 09:07 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  Yes.

Once again, the "conspiracy theory" that gold and silver is more valuable than a piece of paper or digits in a computer is proven correct. What a coincidence!

Gold, at least, is no more valuable than a piece of paper or digits in a computer if you're intending on using it as a means of exchange -- mainly because the government is not stupid. If and when the shit hits the fan, the first thing the government will slam capital controls on is gold. Executive Order 6102, instituted by F. D. "Fireside Chat" Roosevelt himself, made this happen to everyone who had gold just around the time the Depression hit.

And for those of you in Australia who think that our government would never do this and lacks the power to do so, look up the Federal Banking Act 1959 which controls APRA and other basic banking laws. The Act has an entire section explicitly devoted to gold. If the Governor-General -- i.e., the Prime Minister, whose advice the Governor-General is obliged to follow -- says that this part of the act is in operation, no one can buy or sell gold in Australia without the Reserve Bank of Australia authorising the transaction, and you can't move gold offshore without the RBA's approval. The latter offence is expressly an indictable offence -- i.e. you can be jailed for 7-10 years if you do so. Section 42 in fact demands that you hand over all your gold to the RBA within 1 month of it being demanded, and the RBA pays not market value, but whatever value "as deemed at that time" ... i.e. usually at a heavy loss to you.

This is basically the Australian equivalent of Executive Order 6102, sitting in abeyance, awaiting the shit to hit the fan.

More on topic -- those who have nothing to hide have the most to fear, mainly because those with nothing to hide are generally comporting themselves honestly and assume that governments and bureaucrats will do likewise. Those who have things to hide are invariably those who are best advised and therefore best prepared to meet bullshit laws like the one that allowed the IRS to seize this man's property.