Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They are not advertising to hire 87,000 agents with guns wielded by people willing to kill.
Show me the ads.
.
They have a crap load of money to collect. They dont have time to be managing 87,000 new employees with guns when they arent a police dept.
Where did I say all 87,000 would be armed?
The point remains that none of them would need to be armed if taxation wasn't enforced at gunpoint.
And they don't need 87,000 more agents just to go after billionaires or even just people who make over $400k as they claim.
Seems like it would be a lot easier to just simplify the tax code
of all the departments, and agencies at the cabinet level..the one who receives the MOST violence and cruel intentions, by far, is the IRS. And! funner fact! From the CITIZENS.
People go off the wall when the revenuer comes by. heck a few years back, a disgruntled tax payer FLEW AN AIRPLANE into an IRS building. You typically only see that level of dedication in islamic extremists.
(sidebar: it has NEVER been illegal to make booze in the US. As long as you give unca sam his cut...lotsa people died in the hills of KY and TN for no reason....)
That being said, and I posted this elsewhere so I will repeat it...
Invariable there will be someone who maintains the fallacy that income taxes are unconstitutional.
They will publish 1000 page manifestos on the undue reach of the govt and the problems minorities cause
They will declare their fenced in, camera'd and guarded compound separate from the US and try to establish a jurisdiction
And they will meet on the 3rd tuesday of each week with like minded people and after they pledge allegiance to the 'ghost of adolf hitler and the 3rd reich in general', they get down to discussing how to bomb this, shoot that, and the topic of narrative for the next "Radio free <insert state name here>" sw broadcast.
They think they are being clever. But they aint
They think they are in the right. But they aint.
They think they will use deadly force. And they do.
So aside from them, and the CI division finally getting the goods on a cartel launderer (" You've got to carry weapons 'cause you always carry cash" <-- smugglers blues, frey) you have the reasons some of these agents have to be armed.
Tax collectors suffer the same on a lower level, hence the notices to deliver or collect are often aided by or given by the local armed sheriff or constable.
The problem as it were, is not the agents, but the members of the populace who scofflaw and are willing to kill to protect it. Solve that, you solve a lot.
A: Didn't the USSC just say that statement of Miranda rights were not required?
B: YEARS ago, we were discussing Miranda rights in that one had to be informed when in a situation that a reasonable person would take as being in custody. Well, in post 9/11, what constitutes being in custody? Ie, if you look up and see F-16s off your wing tips, are you in custody?
The police do not have to inform of your Miranda rights when you're taken into custody. However, if you say something to the police that implicates you in a crime, it will be inadmissible in court if you weren't given your Miranda warnings. For example, if the police witness you shooting and killing someone, it doesn't matter what you have to say, so they could decide not to Mirandize you. However, Mirandizing everyone is a good practice - it's just not legally required.
Taxation is the only stealing going on, I didn't borrow money from the government.
Again...... taxation is enforced at gunpoint.
LOL but sad. At minimum, you are saying you do not support the US military. You just want to live for free in America and not pay your dues. What a guy, what a neighbor, what a citizen!
My guess is with all on the left that want one federal police force they think they're planting the seeds for this by having as many federal agencies as possible with armed law enforcement training. I doubt one federal police force would ever come true but their plan would be to put federal agents in management positions, that's how it would start. Throw in the current intimidation factor that's their plan or idea for them.
My guess is with all on the left that want one federal police force they think they're planting the seeds for this by having as many federal agencies as possible with armed law enforcement training. I doubt one federal police force would ever come true but their plan would be to put federal agents in management positions, that's how it would start. Throw in the current intimidation factor that's their plan or idea for them.
Well, then, look at the bright side of things. If all agencies have their own enforcement staff, there is a decent chance for them to miss vital information because of service rivalry, because they are not all working for the same boss.
"You don't have the need to know" can protect one against outside enemy forces but harm the inner workings of things.
They needed to recover the aircraft, that missile, off the ocean floor before the Soviets did. Those in the know said it was an ideal mission for NR-1....but to that command trying to set up the search and recovery, it was "What's NR-1?". A vital asset but so few knew about it.
Or what about the SR-71. Expensive to upkeep, one group paying for it, but so many people who could use those services don't know about that capability, so they don't use it....so it is underused....and when the budget times comes around, it gets cut.
Or when you need people to speak up for your agency but can't because they never used your services because you refused to play by the rules they have to play by. As a Provost Marshal, I didn't have a dog team and was trying to set up an agreement to use the county's dog team. My military rules of evidence required that before my CO signed a search warrant, he had to have seen the dog team in action and the County absolutely refused. "Why should I have to do that when my word is taken without doubt in court?". Despite my explanation, they wouldn't do it......so we didn't use them and went with an Air Force team instead. Different team, different location, different knowledge base used.
Or let's take a situation of a serial killer offing prostitutes and the agency investigating wants to know if it is happening in a next door city and the answer comes back "No"........because the leadership of that city does not want to admit that it has prostitutes in the first place which could harm its tax base.
Having everyone with their own forces.........might be a good thing for the people.
BS, you are assuming the rightful amount owed is always subjective. Not paying your taxes that were accurately calculated would be stealing from the gov't.
It's not the government's money to steal.
I cannot steal from you that which is not yours to begin with.
If you refuse to pay your taxes, eventually men with guns will come to arrest you and seize your property.
If you resist, they will shoot you.
Taxation is enforced at gunpoint....if it wasn't, the IRS, whether they be agents or enforcement officers, wouldn't need guns.
More likely they will put a lien on your house or a levy on your bank account.
When's the last time IRS shot someone?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
