"Something of Historic Proportion is Happening" by Pam Geller

[inkasnana]

Going by the 2009 Federal Poverty Guidelines and using an example of a family with 2 parents, each making minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, @40 hours a week for 52 weeks, that family has a before tax income of $30,160. That family would have to have 5 children to be considered "below poverty level" according to the guidelines. The threshold level for a family of 7 is $33,270. One less child and the level drops to $29,530.

In today's economy, even with just one child, it would be a difficult struggle for a family to get ahead on that income. Are they considered "middle class" because they are above the set poverty level? Would they fall into a category of "working poor"? Much of the legislation considered by Congress is in the name of the so-called “middle class.” But there is no consensus definition of middle class. Neither is there an official government definition.

So would a family of 4 with an income of $30,160 be considered "upper lower class" or "lower middle class" and where does that leave them with regards to "middle class" legislation?

 

[MentalGiant]

I have watched a DVD, can't remember what it was called, about the Federal Reserve being owned by private bankers. And also, it goes on talks about how the US citizens are not required by law to pay income taxes.

I'll have to find it and give everybody the name of it. It was quite interesting. Maybe someone here knows what I'm talking about.

 

[letzrockexpress]

So would a family of 4 with an income of $30,160 be considered "upper lower class" or "lower middle class" and where does that leave them with regards to "middle class" legislation?

I call that broke A**

 

[letzrockexpress]

I have watched a DVD, can't remember what it was called, about the Federal Reserve being owned by private bankers. And also, it goes on talks about how the US citizens are not required by law to pay income taxes.

I'll have to find it and give everybody the name of it. It was quite interesting. Maybe someone here knows what I'm talking about.

You are not required by law to pay federal income taxes; You are however required to file. If you don't pay, they take your stuff. If you like your stuff, pay your taxes.

 

[layoutshooter]

It would depend on where you live and how you live. Assuming you are NOT a city person, have an idea how to hunt, fish and grow you own food, you might be able to do quite well on $30,000 a year. Knowing how to be self-sufficent and living where you can live that way can really stretch a dollar, and yes, it is totally your choice as to where and how you live. No one is tied to where they are by a ball and chain. You do have options in this country. It is up to you to decide for your self. layoutshooter

 

[Steady Eddie]

Boy is it easy to stir-up a pot of Lib Stew on here.


A biographer of Emerson described the group as "the occasional meetings of a changing body of liberal thinkers, agreeing in nothing but their liberality".
In this group was A. Bronson Alcott, what a comment......

 

[chefdennis]

MentalGiant wrote:

I have watched a DVD, can't remember what it was called, about the Federal Reserve being owned by private bankers. And also, it goes on talks about how the US citizens are not required by law to pay income taxes.

I'll have to find it and give everybody the name of it. It was quite interesting. Maybe someone here knows what I'm talking about.

Freedom to Fascism by the Late Arron Russo, it is still available FREE online as a download or you can buy the DVD...it is very well made and very factual..

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

Letzrock is right, it is NOT against the law not to pay Federal Income tax. No one is charged with non payment. You have to file, and thats where people screw up, they "Evade" what the u government says they need to do, or they don't report ALL of their income.

As to them taking your stuff when you file and don't pay, thats one reason I "personaly do not own anything of value.......they can't take it if you don't own it......

 

[MentalGiant]

Freedom to Fascism by the Late Arron Russo, it is still available FREE online as a download or you can buy the DVD...it is very well made and very factual..

America: Freedom to Fascism

Thank you chefdennis, I couldn't remember that. Its been a while since I have watched.

 

[greg334]

Oh yea, right.... you don't have to pay but you have to file.... let's see someone prove that.

The law is clear, the federal government can levy a tax on income, since 1942 we are required to pay at the source and there have been countless court cases where people used the same argument and lost.

The sad thing is in order to change the law, the people have to change their thinking. Taxes are a way of life and a way to control behavior, but the majority of people don't know what it is like to be paid for their work without taxing it.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

ToMAYto TaMAHto....it is rich vs. Poor..the reason why each has attained their position isn't really the issue. Money talks. If you have it, you have some control. How much control you have is directly proportionate to how much money you have. If you have no money, you have no power. Left or right, Conservative or Democrat, Prolatariat or Bourgeoise, Capitalist or Socialist. The song remains the same.

It has nothing to do with position, and everything to do with whether you contribute to the system, or take from it. If you have money, you have control over the financial aspects of your life. It doesn't necessarily mean you have or want power. Those who do want power usually need more than money to get to their ultimate goal. The different groups you mention have a lot in common. The left, socialists, Democrats, etc. need the takers to revolt against the makers.

Call it rich vs poor if you want; the haves vs the have nots; the taxpayer vs the welfare recipient; the producers vs the consumers (in a government aspect). What it all boils down to is that producers contribute to the system, while consumers take what they have not earned.

I am not rich, but I consider myself a maker, as I contribute to the system thru my taxes. When government tells me I have to contribute more, I have to make more in order to make up the difference. When a taker is sitting, not producing, and causing me to work harder so they can take more of my money, I tend to get pizzed!

Ppl in my family don't understand how I can be conservative. I don't understand how they can totally ignore the tax lines in their paycheck going up; and demand that the government take care of more of their ills. Fact is, if they had been financially responsible from day 1, they would probably be conservative as well... as would most of America. Democrats DEPEND on us being ignorant, plain and simple. Because it showed that most who paid attention during the election voted for McCain.

 

[MentalGiant]

Oh yea, right.... you don't have to pay but you have to file.... let's see someone prove that.

The law is clear, the federal government can levy a tax on income, since 1942 we are required to pay at the source and there have been countless court cases where people used the same argument and lost.

The sad thing is in order to change the law, the people have to change their thinking. Taxes are a way of life and a way to control behavior, but the majority of people don't know what it is like to be paid for their work without taxing it.

Exactly!! People have been fooled into thinking they had to pay taxes. It all falls back into the dark times of the England. They came around collecting taxes, you don't pay, they take belongings and property and throw in a dungeon.

And I would like to see where there is an actually law showing where it is required to pay taxes on your income? If you can show that to me, I will be a believer. There is a law for businesses to pay taxes, when you work for someone you give your service and labor in exchange for money, so everything you make is not profit or gain. You put something into it.

And the court cases where does come to fact if it is a law, the government will not give the time of day to find it, if it exist, to prove it. The judges will say, its a law and abuse their power to make it so in the court. Here is court case that was judged by a jury and won.

Local attorney acquitted on federal income tax charges | ShreveportTimes | The Times

Some other interesting articles

IRS special agent challenges system

Tax activist wins<br>in federal court

 

[inkasnana]

It would depend on where you live and how you live. Assuming you are NOT a city person, have an idea how to hunt, fish and grow you own food, you might be able to do quite well on $30,000 a year. Knowing how to be self-sufficent and living where you can live that way can really stretch a dollar, and yes, it is totally your choice as to where and how you live. No one is tied to where they are by a ball and chain. You do have options in this country. It is up to you to decide for your self. layoutshooter

So I guess it would be a matter of one's personal opinion as to their economic class, depending on how well they either are or aren't able to afford to live the type of lifestyle that they are comfortable with. In your example, a "country person" who makes $30,000 a year and can comfortable provide for their family might consider their self to be middle class, while a "city person" who makes that same $30,000 and has to struggle from week to week just to make ends meet might consider their self to be closer to the poverty level.

I would guess then that each one is going to view the "middle class reform legislation" in a different way and see different pro's and con's. One man's trash is another man's treasure so to speak. Isn't that the way with most all things debated and argued about?

 

[letzrockexpress]

It has nothing to do with position, and everything to do with whether you contribute to the system, or take from it. If you have money, you have control over the financial aspects of your life. It doesn't necessarily mean you have or want power. Those who do want power usually need more than money to get to their ultimate goal. The different groups you mention have a lot in common. The left, socialists, Democrats, etc. need the takers to revolt against the makers.

Using your definition, there are far more takers than makers.
There always has been. If a revolt was going to happen I think it would have by now. if you have money you have power, plain and simple. What you choose to use it for is another story.

Call it rich vs poor if you want; the haves vs the have nots; the taxpayer vs the welfare recipient; the producers vs the consumers (in a government aspect). What it all boils down to is that producers contribute to the system, while consumers take what they have not earned.

My, what a keen grasp of the obvious you have.

I am not rich, but I consider myself a maker, as I contribute to the system thru my taxes. When government tells me I have to contribute more, I have to make more in order to make up the difference. When a taker is sitting, not producing, and causing me to work harder so they can take more of my money, I tend to get pizzed!

Do you mean that simply being a "liberal" makes one a taker?

Ppl in my family don't understand how I can be conservative. I don't understand how they can totally ignore the tax lines in their paycheck going up; and demand that the government take care of more of their ills. Fact is, if they had been financially responsible from day 1, they would probably be conservative as well... as would most of America. Democrats DEPEND on us being ignorant, plain and simple. Because it showed that most who paid attention during the election voted for McCain.

A lot more people would have voted for McCain if he wouldn't have chosen Palin for a running mate.

 

[chefdennis]

AHHH wait Greg, yes the law sayes we have to pay taxes, but again, no one is convicted of not paying, for the most aprt it is evasion. Now yes the gov will lein your property and they will come take your property, if you own any, but we don't have debters prisons anymore, you file and you CAN owe them....oweing and paying are 2 different things.

Now there are several things you need to do ,like being self employed, personally own no property (ie everything is owned by a trust or another party, or business that you have a seperation from) But it can be and is done.

You can also legally lower your tax exposure if you can get your employer to pay you in Gold coinage based on the face value. You make $800 a week as far as you and your boss are concerned, he payes you in a 1 oz $10 gold piece , your tax is figured on the $10, not the market "spot" vaule of the $800........the IRS has lost on this issue in court more times then they will admit......all legal....

 

[layoutshooter]

You are right Inkasana, you said what I was trying to say only better. layoutshooter

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Using your definition, there are far more takers than makers.
There always has been. If a revolt was going to happen I think it would have by now. if you have money you have power, plain and simple. What you choose to use it for is another story.
There is a gradual shift from the makers to the takers. From what I've heard, there is a push by liberals to drive those in the upper-middle class to the lower-middle class. IMO, the middle class, just like small business, has no advocate in the government. The Republicans do, to a point, relieve certain burdens on the middle class, to allow them to reach the upper class, according to the ambitions of the individual. The Democrats tend to put overbearing pressure on the middle class, which tends to send them to the lower class. But as far as appreciating the middle class for being middle class... there's no one fighting for them... just wanting their vote.

IMO, complacency and ignorance prevents the revolt from happening.

True... if you have money, you at least have power over yourself, financially.

My, what a keen grasp of the obvious you have.

Thank you. You'd be surprised how many ppl don't understand that concept.

Do you mean that simply being a "liberal" makes one a taker?

Not necessarily a taker, but the ideology is one that enables others to take.

A lot more people would have voted for McCain if he wouldn't have chosen Palin for a running mate.

Show me one who didn't vote for McCain because Palin was his running mate, and I'll show you three who voted for him only because Palin was his running mate. I think far many more were duped into voting for a charismatic but hollow know-nothing, in Obama, because they refused to do their homework; and instead, listened to soundbites on their favorite brainwashing news channel.

 

[letzrockexpress]

Show me one who didn't vote for McCain because Palin was his running mate, and I'll show you three who voted for him only because Palin was his running mate. I think far many more were duped into voting for a charismatic but hollow know-nothing, in Obama, because they refused to do their homework; and instead, listened to soundbites on their favorite brainwashing news channel.

Man, and I though Layoutshooter was right wing wacko....

 

[tallcal101]

Rock on rocket! There's ultra right then there's ultra right field.Plenty of both here.

 

[MentalGiant]

I think we should of voted for mickey mouse. We all would of had mickey mouse hats to wear.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Man, and I though Layoutshooter was right wing wacko....

First, give me an opinion of what a right wing wacko is, and then tell me why you think I am. I'm interested to know if you actually have your own opinion; or subscribe to the same cradle to the grave philosophy TC does.

Cal... for someone who claims to be an anarchist, you sure seem to love government being in your life.