huskerXman Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Here is the Resume of the guy who has that site.. http://supremelaw.or...hell/resume.htm 1996 to Present Founder, Internet Webmaster, and Distance Learning Specialist: Supreme Law Library (SLL), School (SLS), and Publishers (SLP) . . . Counselor at Law, Federal Witness, Private Attorney General : performed extensive judicial activism and expert testimony on behalf of victims of criminal rackets perpetrated by IRS and U.S. Department of Justice; Vice President for Legal Affairs in defense of Arizona trust, in major confrontation over federal tax policies; qualified Federal Witness under federal criminal Code at 18 U.S.C. 4, 1512, 1513; conceived and litigated People v. United States in Billings, Montana; litigated 70+ State and Federal cases, all published in the Supreme Law Library on the Internet Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 22, 2012 Author Share Posted September 22, 2012 It appears that he isn't even licensed to practice law. He is no different than hundreds of other conspiracy theorists. Don't fall for this stuff. Be better than that. Link to comment
huskerXman Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 He isn't even licensed to practice law. He is no different than hundreds of other conspiracy theorists. Don't fall for this stuff. Be better than that. I knew about this years ago.. before the internet. http://16thamendment.tumblr.com/ This isn't just about the guy I used in this post. Don't be a sheep and follow what every you are told by those who seek to control you. Be smarter than that. No disrespect intended by this comment! Link to comment
knapplc Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 I like that huskerXman is asked to elaborate on things, and does. That's good conversation, right there. Did I not give info to back my claim? I can't help it if you and others don't believe it.. I said from the brginning you wouldn't. You've mistaken my tone. I was serious. I may not agree with some of the things you say, but I appreciate that, when asked to explain your position, you do. Please continue to do so - it makes the board much more fun to read. No, I haven't mistaken your tone. You are trolling under the guise of being a mod. I see. Link to comment
Ziggy Posted September 23, 2012 Share Posted September 23, 2012 Sadly, until most of our elected officials come from the middle class instead of the elitist 1%, tax codes probably won't change much. Congressmen don't like to tax themselves. I don't think you could find 1 politician that is in the 1%. At least non in the last 20 years. The people who are in the 1% make at least a hundred million a year on a consistent basis. Link to comment
AR Husker Fan Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 I'm not sure where you found a definition for the 1% that requires an income of at least $100,000,000.00 per year. Based on the Internal Revenue Service’s 2010 database below (the most recently released by the IRS) , the top 1% has an income split point of $380,354. Adjusted gross income (AGI) is total gross income minus specific reductions. Taxable income is adjusted gross income minus allowances for personal exemptions and itemized deductions. The split point is based on taxable income. Here's the IRS breakdown: Top 1%: $380,354 Top 5%: $159,619 Top 10%: $113,799 Top 25%: $67,280 Top 50%: >$33,048 SUMMARY OF FEDERAL INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX DATA, 2010 Even if you use AGI as the definition for income for purposes of defining percentages of population, the amount is still almost a whopping 1.6% of the amount you cite as the minimum income limit. By the way, in 2009, the average income needed to be in the top 1% - again, according to the IRS - was $350,000. 2008 data put it around $380,000. In other words, the 1% income point has been remarkably consistent - somewhere between $350,000 and 400,000. Based on income, then, most politicians (Congressional, at least) easily fall into the 1% range, regardless whether you use the income split point or AGI. Link to comment
tschu Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 Sadly, until most of our elected officials come from the middle class instead of the elitist 1%, tax codes probably won't change much. Congressmen don't like to tax themselves. I don't think you could find 1 politician that is in the 1%. At least non in the last 20 years. The people who are in the 1% make at least a hundred million a year on a consistent basis. lolol my next post was going to be me showing you how wrong you are, but AR Husker did it for me. Link to comment
huskerXman Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 I'm not sure where you found a definition for the 1% that requires an income of at least $100,000,000.00 per year. Based on the Internal Revenue Service’s 2010 database below (the most recently released by the IRS) , the top 1% has an income split point of $380,354. Adjusted gross income (AGI) is total gross income minus specific reductions. Taxable income is adjusted gross income minus allowances for personal exemptions and itemized deductions. The split point is based on taxable income. Here's the IRS breakdown: Top 1%: $380,354 Top 5%: $159,619 Top 10%: $113,799 Top 25%: $67,280 Top 50%: >$33,048 SUMMARY OF FEDERAL INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX DATA, 2010 Even if you use AGI as the definition for income for purposes of defining percentages of population, the amount is still almost a whopping 1.6% of the amount you cite as the minimum income limit. By the way, in 2009, the average income needed to be in the top 1% - again, according to the IRS - was $350,000. 2008 data put it around $380,000. In other words, the 1% income point has been remarkably consistent - somewhere between $350,000 and 400,000. Based on income, then, most politicians (Congressional, at least) easily fall into the 1% range, regardless whether you use the income split point or AGI. I know this post proves most are in that 1%, my post isn't debating that part... Regardless of how much they make/have, they are wealthy and are easily bought by the extremely wealthy and power hunger. Link to comment
Ziggy Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 I'll admit I made a mistake not looking up the actual figures, but I was in a hurry to watch Sunday night football. I started out with 1 million base income, then meant to change it to a few hundred thousand. I still would wager to say few real 1 percenters go into politics. You will also note that the stat is based on AGI, which means the actual income is higher than the $380,000. Also if you look at the 1% being the top 1% of actual tax payers, the income probably goes up significantly. Link to comment
AR Husker Fan Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 I'll admit I made a mistake not looking up the actual figures, but I was in a hurry to watch Sunday night football. I started out with 1 million base income, then meant to change it to a few hundred thousand. I still would wager to say few real 1 percenters go into politics. You will also note that the stat is based on AGI, which means the actual income is higher than the $380,000. Also if you look at the 1% being the top 1% of actual tax payers, the income probably goes up significantly. 1. Congressional incomes are publicly reported. You can look them up - most members of Congress are millionaires, and have incomes that meet the income minimum for the 1%, whether you use gross income or adjusted gross income. 2. Yes, I realize the tables was based on AGI, as indicated by my taking the time to define the term for those unfamiliar with it. 3. Of course the income is higher - AGI is adjusted income. 4. If you don't adjust the income, then you can't find the percentage breakout for actual tax payers. Someone could, conceivably, earn $100,000,000.00, and pay no taxes. Not sure I see your point there. The reason to use AGI or the income split point is so we can look at actual tax payers. In other words, we are looking at actual tax payers in that table, by definition, which means that income doesn't go up at all - those are the incomes, adjusted as I mentioned in the definition I provided. Link to comment
strigori Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 AR's posts clearly show why our tax code has been sliding the way it has. Greedy politicians setting up rules that benefit them financially. Corruption at its finest. Link to comment
carlfense Posted September 25, 2012 Author Share Posted September 25, 2012 I still would wager to say few real 1 percenters go into politics. I suppose if you change reality and define "1 percenter" as someone who makes "100 million a year" that's true. Link to comment
Recommended Posts