Basic income as a human right

Post Reply New Topic

more so than youtube videos that conveniently fit your rambling anti-gov narrative.

e: since you mentioned mr sprinkle, I dug out the lawsuit he filed(Charles R. Sprinkle v. Ronald Reagan, et. al.) and he never won it, it was dismissed for being frivolous.

Last edited by Fugu on 06 Jul 2015, 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ban-Dodger, even though you're free to choose what you want to believe in, I highly recommend you to stay away from Alex Jones as well as David Icke and Russell Brand, as they are not trustworthy.

The Lost Horizons guy in the link you gave is the one who doesn't know the definition of income.

I think this fits.
They give a list of incorrect claims that tax protesters often make.




Gish gallop.

In my opinion, Youtube videos are pretty much the worst way to present an argument, even a legit argument. Any argument they present is just a video of somebody saying an argument that could easily have been written in a couple paragraphs. They include not just the argument but all the little verbal fillers that people inevitably put in such as "um" and "uh" and "like I was saying" which waste time. Even when somebody has something credible to say, watching them say it rather than reading what they wrote is the least efficient way to convey the information.

They are also nearly immune to point by point debunking because doing so requires the would-be debunker to not only watch the video but also accurately transcribe it (which takes several watchings unless one is a fast typist) in order to debunk it without accidentally misquoting. But you knew that didn't you? And were counting on it.

Wow. Separatism based on the free-speech rights of others? That is your right, but with whom do you agree?

I am also aware that everything needs to be taken with a grain-of-salt.

It's not like I don't know about « Co-Intel Pro » and the involvement of Alex Jones as part of that Operation.

Also, the source pulled up by the guy claiming that Sprinkle never won, obviously, that guy doesn't know how to READ, because the lawsuits that were « dismissed » were the tickets issued by the police, NOT the lawsuit/judgement that Sprinkle filed in complaint against such frivolous-charges (the traffic-tickets/citations being what were frivolous).

I also think he doesn't even know what a « motion to dismiss » even means in a Legal-Context. Thanks though for pulling up that document that proves that Sprinkle did indeed win his law-suit (this is obvious for those who know how to speak/interpret Legalese and will just fly over the heads of those who know nothing about Legal-definitions).

are we reading the same document? because the document you relinked claiming to be about a parking ticket(lol) isn't.
page 5 has the Defendant's motion to dismiss along with the judge agreeing that it should be dismissed. use all the whacky lingo you like, you're still wrong.


Copied verbatim(preserving capitalization)

Since we're aspies, why not use proper language and call it basic extortion?

Why are you only reading the middle of the document instead of the end of the document ?

Here is what it states towards the END of the document...

Furthermore, because of the fact that you weren't paying attention, they approached Mr. Sprinkle Out-of-Court, for an out-of-court settlement, meaning that he DID in fact win, and what-ever was left in the "PUBLIC" records (because if you KNOW anything about Legal-Procedure, you KNOW that you MUST state "Let the Record(s) Show" before making each statement if you want it to be RECORDED as a matter of PUBLIC record [most of you also don't know this but NONE of your Traffic-Ticket Cases are EVER made PUBLIC records for the purpose of HIDING their EXTORTION-Racket]). Once more, I have actually BEEN in the courts before, PERSONALLY, and have FIELD-TESTING for myself the terms & definitions & Legalese, such to the point that it was CLEAR that a particular Prosecutor was EXTREMELY WORRIED that I could sue him & take him to court over all manners of complicity to criminal-activities & exposing all of the court-corruptions and he literally kept his head down in a manner like he was actually ASHAMED of his job !

They (the governors) asked Mr. Sprinkle NOT to PURSUE the law-suit againt them any further, and Sprinkle agreed, just so long as they would leave him the f**k alone on the road, AND it was ALSO stated that he COULD have REVIVED the law-suit any time he wanted (were Sprinkle still alive he could do such a thing if he wanted if the officials gave him any more trouble), CLEARLY indicating to me that there are people on these forums who do NOT seem to do their FULL homework (the fight was WON even if not made a matter of PUBLIC/OFFICIAL record). Yes, they word certain things the way they do in LEGALESE language, because they have an extremely deceptive system in place (designed by the very Ultimate Deceiver of All itself: The Devil), done for the purpose of hiding true intent & purpose (this is what we call: Euphemisms or Legalese).


KNOW your rights & KNOW something about the LAW (the REAL Law, not that bull-shit that the cops & politicians try to pass off as Law, but the ACTUAL Law) !

Finally! After 40 years of studying and practicing law only to read how the keyboard cranks at WrongPlanet.net treat state and federal laws as political ideas with no substance or meaning simply because they disagree (or misunderstand) has been corrected! Thank you a thousand times!

Now, get ready for the denials, disagreements and political undermining of your steadfast explanation of an obvious fact.

Similar to England, there is the law which is enacted by legislation...and there's the Common Law, too.

Both should be respected--but both should always evolve with the times.

Or they could cut all the tax money that goes for useless things that benefit the wealthy, like I heard of tax money being used to build a purely marble room in some National Bank...so taxes should not go to luxary like that ever. But I think it would be important to uphold national/state parks its important to leave some semblance of nature and wildlife but I won't go into all the reasons why. Of course simply cutting military spending won't really help...it would have to be addressed which specific military spending maybe should be cut, there are important things that come from the military like technology...I currently have a phone made of some military grade materials which probably wouldn't have it it wasn't for military technology so thank you military for my very durable/waterproof smartphone.

Arts are important though I don't know how much government spending should go into that, and it would depend on where. I mean like in school where kids are supposed to gain a well rounded basic education funding definitely needs to exist for including classes of the arts...but a lot of times tax money schools recieve mostly just goes into sports and sports equipment and having a nice field to play sports on...sports/sports/sports, while they cut the arts, have outdated books, don't teach up to date computer skills(actually probably need new computers)...I mean with the new marijuana laws in colorado the tax revenue goes to 'schools' well on paper that looks nice, but then how are the schools spending it? let me guess sports & jocks with little focus on much else. With the problems of homelessness/poverty in the state you'd think maybe some of that money should go to helping the infrastructure and providing better resources, Or maybe they could put it into the public transit to lower the cost for all though not sure how they would go about it since its more privately owned...not true public transit.

As for taxes being forced...I guess I see it as more of one of those duty things, you live in a country with a society so if one is unwilling to contribute to the infrastructure not sure why they should benefit from anything public in nature. I can sympathize with people talking about taxes being too high...but even for income tax they don't come to your door and make you empty out your pockets and life savings for the 'tax' at will its a regulated amount that is automatically deducted...then sales tax is even less invasive, its added on to the price of merch...if you don't want to pay those taxes, don't buy the merchandise. That said I personally would not be opposed to eliminating the income tax if sales tax cold be designed in such a way it wouldn't be necessary.

And chairity is nice...I've given to chairity, but its not an adequate way of supporting the infrastructure, providing public services or a social safety net, that would be my biggest argument against charity effectively replacing taxes. Not to mention chairity is not infallible, there are shady charity organizations out there or scams, some don't really use the money for what they say..or they use a much smaller portion of the donation than the donator is led to believe goes to the cause, pretty sure corporations can form 'charities' to get tax breaks many of those are pretty half/a**ed and its just for the tax break which is part of that...if the goal isn't really to help people and its just at tax right off you can't expect much from such a Charity organization.

Then there is Goodwill thrift stores where they sell used clothes/furniture and other things for outrages prices they seem more aimed at middle to upper middle class shoppers rather than the poor who might actually need to find second hand goods for a lot cheaper...i mean you think oh goodwill that should be cheap, and then see they have plenty of 80 to over 100$ jackets, I saw an old beat up chest for 300$ dollars there and then they hire intellectually disabled people to exploit by paying a wage next to nothing, not even minimum wage to work in their stores and much of the time they don't seem treated to well either. I mean they claim to be a charity, but there is a lot I don't like about their form of charity.

"This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."

If you wish to take the red pill, PM me.

I don't doubt that you're just barely getting by. Remember I said the middle-class would have their taxes increased by a bit more than they receive from this. With all due respect, I wouldn't quite call you middle-class. Working-class people would also have their taxes increased, by less than what they receive from the universal income. In other words you'd be a bit better off, though you wouldn't receive the full benefit. An unemployed family might get $400 per week for each adult member. In your case it might be say, get $400 each and have your taxes increased by $200. You'd still be $200 better off than you are now. For a middle class family they might get $400 each but have their taxes increased by $600 per week. For them two thirds of the cost would be absorbed but they'd still be $200 per week worse off. The money would have to come from somewhere.

The increased cost wouldn't be too much more. Instead of thinking of it as being put everyone on $400 per week plus the existing expenditures in revenue, it would be more like put everyone on $400 per week plus the existing expenditures in revenue save for the existing welfare system. The existing welfare system would be scrapped because the universal income system would totally replace it. Since the existing welfare system already costs a lot, part of the cost for the new system would be absorbed. Further reductions in cost could be made by massive reductions in bureaucracy, as I said in my previous post.Very true. It's possible to have a full social-life without work but many people in work wouldn't want to give up their existing associates to find new ones. For myself I can say I've become quite fond of my colleges at work. If I quit my job I could see an equal number of other people at some other venue but it wouldn't be them. Imagine if you lost all your friends and someone tried to console you by saying you could gain an equal number of new friends. You'd still be losing the your original social circle. You can't replace friends with different friends. They're not the same people.

I've only been there six months and I wouldn't call them friends but I've become more accustomed to them over time. I enjoy chatting with them and I wouldn't want to give them up. I could see other people but they would be different people. How many others feel the same? Someone tell me I'm not the only one who doesn't hate everyone else at their job?I respectfully disagree. We can all debate about this on this thread for ages and perhaps we will. There's nothing wrong with that but neither side can actually prove it's position. The one proof for or against this scheme is by practical experimentation. Remember the Greek philosophers tried to work out physics by talking about it. Galileo and Newton made observations and performed experiments.

Most of the charity that comes from those bigger charity shops is the fact that they give jobs to disabled people who wouldn't get a job otherwise. Salvation Army is the same way. They sell their stuff for more than other junk stores but they also use the income for charity programs. When my kids were littler there were a couple years where I had to go to the Salvation Army and sign up for their Christmas present program to get my kids Christmas. We were that broke. Also, they have paid utility bills for me in the past. The stuff they sell at the stores isn't really the charity part of it. There are tons of other junk stores and also yard sales where you can buy cheaper stuff. Our big junk store here in town is run by a church and I've gotten tons of cheap stuff there. Most of the vintage clothes I buy come from there. I can get something for a dollar there, literally. I also once bought an honest to God full length sable coat at a junk store in Bham for $15. A couple of years ago I got a real mink car coat from a junk store here for ten bucks. So don't go to Goodwill or Salvation Army or King's Ranch stores looking for a charity priced bargain because you won't find one at all. Most of that stuff is sold for much more than it's worth there and they are going for middle class people. They want middle class people to buy crap and pay more for it so they can feel good that they are contributing to otherwise unemployable people working for a living.

If they are your friends, you can still see them even if you don't work together. Work may be where you met them but you can also socialize with them outside of work. Back when I was 19 and 20 I worked at this gas station (where I met my husband actually) and I was friends with three or four people there at work. We hung out together. We had a weekly poker game too that I went to. We did things outside of work and I was still friends with them and kept in touch with them for years after we stopped working together. You have to remember that what people did in their early 20's and late teens wasn't the job they would have all their lives, except for Darlene who worked at gas stations and convenience stores always, and Bill who was the manager of the place and who managed convenience stores until he retired. So, just because you don't work with those people doesn't mean you can't socialize. If they don't want to see you outside of work then they are just acquaintances, not friends. There is nothing wrong with acquaintances, I've worked with and liked many people who I wouldn't want to see outside of work. However, I wouldn't miss them if I didn't see them anymore, except for the fact that they did a good job at work and I would probably miss them if they quit and were replaced by somebody who didn't do a good job.

Oh, I know we aren't middle class by any means. We are actually under the poverty line. From what I understand, the line is $24,000 a year for a family of four. My husband makes $24,000 a year and right now five people live here. When my youngest son breaks up with his gf (it'll happen soon I hope, she's turned into a pain in the ass drug addict/b***h/ho and he's about done with her) and moves back in then we will be a family of six. Of course he may move back out again soon, but he will have to come back because they live in a house they rent from her mother.

However, to look at us you would assume we are middle class. We live in the nice section of town in an upper middle class neighborhood. Our house is an upper middle class house and it's decorated very nicely and we have very nice things, but my MIL bought us the house and it's paid for and while a $165K house wouldn't be something that's very nice in other parts of the country, or even in other parts of the state, where I live that buys you a righteously nice house. Two doctors live on my street. The mayor couldn't afford to live on this street lol. I have good jewelry, yes it was either something passed down by my mother or MIL or I bought it at a yard sale or junk store where the people didn't know it was real so it went really cheap, and I also have four furs that I also got at junk stores because the people didn't know they were real (thats why those places don't make money - they hire people who don't know what they are doing) and I've bought furniture from those places that was in like new shape and was good furniture that was very expensive when it was new, also some antiques that were worth a lot more than they were sold for. I'm actually very glad they hire idiots for those places. Most of the time the pricing is done by either backwoods folks who think the epitome of style is pseudo Early American crushed velvet crap or even worse, pressed wood covered in veneer fake Queen Anne style garbage. So you'll find that stuff priced way too much and the actual good stuff almost given away. The big stores that are run by the charity organizations that hire a lot of disabled people overprice everything anyway so they can pay the salaries, and they usually have people there who know what is good and they price it close to what it would be if you bought it from a good store, so I stay away from those places.

So, I don't take any offense at all to the fact that you said we aren't middle class. I know we aren't. However, my mother made a s**t ton of money when she was working and we had really nice stuff, but my mother couldn't handle money for s**t and went bankrupt twice but I was raised to appreciate nicer things. My husbands parents are rich as hell and he was raised in an upper middle class household and so he's used to that standard of living and he's really glad that I'm able to handle money like I can and I'm such a bargain hunter so that he's able to actually live like he's used to living. His needs are simple, tv, a good chair to kick back in, booze, and good meals. Also a skinny, limber wife who looks good when she tries lol.

However, he doesn't handle the money and he has no clue what our bills are every month. He was floored when he found out that the power bill is $300 a month. That is on budget billing too, so it's consistent all year long and not twice as much in the summer when we run the air and much lower in the winter when we run the gas for the heat. If he handled the money we wouldn't have s**t, trust me. He has no clue or self discipline. None.

We get food stamps and the kids all had Medicaid when they were under 19. My youngest daughter will lose hers next month when she turns 19, but I'll add her to our Obamacare Blue Cross. If we didn't have food stamps we would be in a world of hurt. He brings home $500 a week. He keeps $100 for himself for food at work, gas for whoever takes him to and from work, booze and cigs. Yes, he wastes a lot of it but I can't begrudge him his $100 a week. He gives me $400 ($1600 a month) and out of that I pay the bills; a $300 power bill, a water bill that usually runs about $120, right now the gas is running about $60 and that's only for hot water, in the winter it's about $150 - $200, $77 on a loan that we got last year and keep having to re-up on and borrow again to make ends meet, $101 for our Obamacare, $60 for the dryer. When we do get a car finally, I'll have about $100 for car insurance too. I don't know what I'll do then. I buy a carton of cigs a week for me and thats $35 a week so $140 a month. Yes, I should quit and I will when I get to the dr and get my Welbutrin. That will only be $10 a month for the meds cause of the co-pay at the drug store. We get about $460 a month in food stamps but thats only about half of what we need. I still end up buying food out of the cash a couple weeks a month, and on top of that every week I have to buy the things that food stamps don't cover - laundry soap, bounce, cat food, cat litter, dog food, dish soap, SOS pads for cleaning, windex, dusting stuff, paper towels, toilet paper, tampons and pads, shampoo and conditioner, soap, deoderant, toothpaste, makeup, shaving cream, razors, tylenol, advil, benadryl, lint brush. Of course some of those things aren't needed every week, but the first six, the 10th and 11th, 14th, 15th and 22nd are. Then I have to get things that wear out like jeans, shoes, underwear. People need clothes and I have to buy them. If I have twenty bucks left over I'll go to the junk store and look around and get some stuff. I do buy me clothes a good bit, but I rarely spend over a buck on something and I wear them. I'll get something for the house when I see it there and it's something nice and we can use it. So, I manage to take care of us on $1600 a month. It's pretty hard to juggle all that. Plus, if my husband misses a day we have less money. I'm never ahead of the game and I always have to make arrangements on my bills and if he misses a whole week at work we are really screwed up. When his mother dies we will get a good bit of money and I'm planning on just saving that. It's going to be hard to keep him out of it and keep him working once we get it because he has absolutely no work ethic. His parents always bailed us out every time we needed it. While I appreciate that very much, it was a bad idea because he's never actually had to work to survive. It'll be all I can do to keep him working when there is money in the bank to live on. He won't get any retirement except social security and my mother who made a s**t ton of money when she was working only got $800 a month from social security. We will probably get less. I don't know what I'll do when he retires. Thats why I want to save that money we get from his mother. Otherwise we will be totally f****d. I can't save as it is right now because there is nothing to save. So, I know we aren't middle class by any means.

the defendant's motion to dismiss was granted on oct 18th of the same year, the fact that the plaintiff conceded 3 days later means little.