Page 3 of 3

Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:26 am
by DPDISXR4Ti
Stealth_xr wrote:its a damn shame if they crush and destroy all that stuff....stupid government.
With the exception of the motor getting purposely destroyed, the cars pretty much get processed by a salvage yard like any other junked car. The only other exception is that they're supposed to be crushed within 6 months, but I have doubts about whether that's really being enforced.

I still think the whole program is stupid, but now that the US gov't is in the car business, I guess we should get used to these kind of things.

Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:44 am
by Mike McCreight
This'll all seem like small potatos when they decide to meddle with whatever large, top heavy, unionized, inefficient, doomed by design industry starts circling the drain. :?
Stay tuned.

Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:25 am
by Freejack
John Brennan wrote:This page will explain the seeming contradiction:

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit ... May-10.htm
Here's the background on the case your link quotes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushaber_ ... c_Railroad

No where does is the claim that wages are not taxable. The crux of the argument is whether they are indirect or direct excises. The according the above ruling they are indirect, meaning that any tax monies collected against wages must be reallocated in proportion to the population of the state (direct taxes must not), based on case law, not specific language in the constitution.

The wikipedia article notes that no court has ever ruled that the our current tax code violates this rule.

Jake

Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:17 pm
by John Brennan
Well, that isn't true either, and the very site I got that info from cites a case-- Bannister Vs. (I believe) the IRS.

Once again, if you dig, and read, and pay attention to the chronology of events as the monster was created, you'll see the truth of it soon enough. The info's out there for everyone to see. Read it, judge for yourself what place the Fed, the IRS, and all the rest of the apparatus involved have in this country, and make up your own mind.

Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:51 pm
by Freejack
Hrm, the one case by that name I could find was Bannister vs US and it covered taxes related to royalties paid on patent, rule that it was income and not capital gains.

Of course there are references to Joe Banister but his was a criminal case.

Jake