are we talking the act or the reality of the fraud! I have set a goal! The return of our founding documents to total functionality for all; to ensure that all of we the people, Oregonians, including, US citizens, State Nationals, free inhabitants, foreign agents, aliens and excluding no one on the land within the Several States of America. The 4 Organic laws to be the 1st law of the land, plus the Oregon Constitution Original and to not enforce code upon those not within the codes sphere of jurisdiction.
As an officer of the court you are required to notify me of any deficiencies in my documents.

I posted this once before, but since Trump has released his excellent tax reform plan, I thought it would be good to post it again.

The individual income tax is the largest source of revenue to the largest operation on Earth: the U.S. federal government. In fiscal 2015, the individual income tax alone brought in $1,540,802 million, or just over $1.54T, to the feds. To confirm that, see "Table 2.1 -- Receipts by Sourceâ" on page 37 of Historical Trends at the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank.

The federal individual income tax (also called the "personal" income tax) has always been highly progressive; those who earn more income have higher tax rates. It's been the case for years now that the top 5 percent of income taxpayers provide more than 50 percent of individual income tax revenue, while the bottom 40 percent, due to refundable tax credits like the EITC, provide less than nothing.

It was recently reported that the Middle Quintile of federal income taxpayers had an average effective tax rate of 2.6 percent in 2013. Even so, we hear calls for middle class tax cuts. So let's look at what the middle 20 percent of us have been paying for the last nearly forty years. In "Historical Average Federal Tax Rates for All Households," the Tax Policy Center lists CBO data on average tax rates from 1979 to 2011 for various categories of federal taxes. The second block is income taxes, the left side of which I used to make the accompanying screen-grab. You can quickly see that the trend has been for the Middle Quintile to pay less and less income tax. The highest effective rate for the Middle Quintile was 8.2 percent in 1981. All through the Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton years the middle classes were paying more, often paying more than twice what they've been paying lately.

Whenever it's pointed out how very little that middle and lower income earners pay the feds in income taxes, progressives begin caterwauling about all the other taxes these folks pay. And it's true; most Americans pay more in payroll, sales, property, and other taxes than they do in federal individual income taxes. But just because they're paying a ton of money in other taxes, doesn't mean that they should get cuts in a tax that many of them aren't paying. If the middle and lower classes are "overtaxed," then cut the taxes that they actually pay, not the taxes they barely pay. For instance, rather than again cutting the middle class's individual income taxes, end ObamaCare's individual mandate instead. Indeed, Congress ought to sell the repeal of ObamaCare to the folks as a tax cut.

On Feb. 1 in "H&R Block Is Enlisting IBM's Watson To Help With Your Taxes," Fortune's technology writer Jonathan Vanian reports that H&R Block, the world's largest tax pr********n business, will begin using A.I., i.e. Artificial Intelligence, at their brick-and-mortar outlets:

The deal puts IBM's Watson data analytics service in front of the millions of people who visit one of H&R Block's 10,000 U.S. offices during tax season. The Watson data sifting technology is one of IBM's key businesses including cloud computing and cybersecurity that it hopes will revive the company after several years of declining sales.

With our taxes getting so complicated that we need Artificial Intelligence to prepare them, one wonders what the relation is between the tax pr********n industry and the government. Could the IRS be in cahoots with H&R Block?

The addition of Watson to H&R Block's tax pr********n team was touted during Super Bowl 51 (video of the TV ad).

"Get Your Taxes Won" is the ad's slogan. (Are we to assume that taxes are a contest that can be lost?) The production values of the video are rather good, but the product it is selling isn't something anyone should have to buy. Real Americans should be repelled by the message, because taxes shouldn't be complex, they shouldn't be a chore, folks shouldn't need to use a super computer to lower their tax bills to something that is acceptable.

In 2015, candidate Trump said that he wanted to "put H&R Block right out of business" by simplifying our taxes. In an interesting short video, Block's CEO responded to Trump's threat, and to charges that the company benefits from the tax code's complexity, reminding us that "there are five different definitions of a child in the tax code." A columnist at Block's hometown newspaper wrote that putting Block out of business "would wipe out 80,000 jobs." Right, and the only reason those people have their jobs is because Congress has made our income taxes too damn complicated. If Congress really wants to give Americans another tax cut, then they should simplify income taxes so we don't need to pay someone to prepare our tax returns.

We know that Democrats have no compunction about making our lives more complicated in order to affect their social agenda, but what about the GOP? ObamaCare complicated our taxes with its tax credit subsidies, and now we learn that the replacement for ObamaCare might just have that same feature.

What sheep we Americans have become if we think that our personal income tax system is necessary, natural, and normal. It's disturbing that a supposedly free people would meekly accept such a tax system. It needs to be radically simplified, which would serve as a "tax cut" for the middle class and all Americans.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_real_tax_unfairness_.html

When Al Gore was born, there were only 7,000 polar bears. Today, only 30,000 remain. Looks like g****l w*****g agrees with them.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/american-society/economy/trump-personal-tax-proposals/

Trump’s Prudent Tax Proposals

Only the brain dead could see Trump's tax plan as a negative for the economy.

JOHN STEELE GORDONApr. 28, 2017

And, to be sure, there are some. Lowering the top rate to 35 percent from 39.6 obviously benefits the more well-off as that rate kicks in only on incomes (for single tax filers) over $418,000. So does eliminating the 3.8 percent tax on the investment incomes of high earners, which is supposed to help fund Obamacare.

Eliminating the estate tax would also benefit the rich. Estates of less than $11 million (for a couple) are exempt from the tax, and the estates of only about 5,300 very rich people incur the tax in a given year. The Times says this would cost the federal government about $178 billion in tax revenue over the next decade.

But eliminating the estate tax, in fact, would be more a delay on taxation than an elimination of it. The estate tax is a capital gains tax that is triggered by death rather than by sale. Often, it forces the sale of assets regardless of whether the heirs want to sell or if the time is propitious to sell. Once the estate tax is paid, the cost basis of the remaining assets rises to the price on the date of death.

When the estate tax was eliminated for the year 2010, while the heirs of large estates that year paid no estate tax, the cost basis of the inherited assets remained what they had been before the death of the testator. So when those assets are eventually sold, as a large capital gains tax is often owed, making up for the lost estate tax revenue. For instance, Amazon stock is currently selling at about $950 a share. I don’t know what Jeff Bezos’s cost basis is on his vast holdings of Amazon, but my guess is that it is no more than a few cents a share.

Trump would also eliminate the alternative minimum tax that affects only the rich and upper middle class. Originally designed in the late 1960’s to tax wealthy Americans who had put their assets in such investments as tax-exempt bonds, it soon metastasized into a monster. The high inflation of the 1970’s forced many middle-class people to, in effect, calculate their taxes twice and pay the higher amount. Eliminating it is simply good tax policy. If it lowers the taxes on some of rich, so be it.

Lowering the capital gains tax to 15 percent would, of course, benefit the rich (as well as many middle-class citizens), but it would also increase federal revenues. A capital gains tax is incurred only when an asset is sold. With higher capital gains taxes people become increasingly unwilling to sell assets, so it impedes capital flows to better investments. Whenever the tax has been lowered, increased sales of investments have generated higher federal revenue despite the lower rates.

Only a liberal could be against lowering a tax rate when the effect of doing so would be to increase tax revenue.

And the Trump tax proposal also socks it to the rich. Only the top one-third of taxpayers ordinarily itemize deductions. And the proposal would eliminate all deductions except those for mortgage payments and charitable contributions. Many of the very rich live in high-tax states such as New York and California where, under current law, they can deduct from their federal taxes what they pay in state and local taxes. (This would also, of course, put great pressure on these states to lower their taxes and increase the exodus of the rich to low-tax states such as Texas and Florida.)

It might be pointed out that in high-tax states, the federal government, in effect, reduces the rate of state and local taxation on the rich by 39.6 percent and on their less affluent neighbors by only 25 percent. One would think the left would want to eliminate that perverse tax policy. But don’t hold your breath. High-tax states are blue states.

The Trump tax proposals for personal taxes would simplify the tax code, remove perverse incentives now built into it, free up capital markets, increase capital gains revenues, and stimulate the economy. But, of course, it would reduce the amount of taxes some rich people would have to pay and, therefore, to the brain-dead, it’s a terrible idea no matter how much economic good it does for the whole country.

I’ll cover the proposed changes in the corporate tax rates in a later post, but suffice it to say that they would supercharge the American economy, offsetting much of the revenue lost through lower rates.