There is an important difference between then and now and it's called the US Congress. It wasn't about the amount of the tax on tea but rather the fact we didn't vote for it
If we don't like the current tax system we have a surefire way to fix it, but we never actually take advantage of it (vote for someone else)
I’m not sure why I’m obligated to be bound by laws that I had as much to do with the passage with as the tax rules in Georgian era England.
because one, it's impossible to completely rewrite the system every generation. there's always going to be someone who wasn't born when the set of laws in place were made
and two, there's nothing about a law being old that means it can't be changed. if enough people feel the same way you do, then the law can be changed, the constitution amended, etc.
in fact the framers of the constitution WANTED it to be a living document, changing as technology and society changes. they'd likely be aghast at how little we have changed it and how people are clinging to it as a religious tome that is sacrosanct and must be applied as it and the world existed in the 18th century
It seems ridiculous to me that we can change the whole administration every generation but we can’t replace the laws while we’re at it? Are dead men somehow wiser than we the living that the laws apply to?
Every law under a representative system should have a default expiration date no later than an average human lifespan.
I’m also not sure why you think it would be any more chaotic than the existing run of government. Are we less competent at making laws today than we were a hundred years ago?
In any case, it seems plainly ridiculous on its face that I am to be bound by laws I had no part in voting for. This idea that my ancestors get to decide for me is as unfair as people in a different country deciding for me. The practical considerations are irrelevant; I am taxed without representation.
Yes, absolutely. I have zero confidence that today we'd have public education, social security, or freedom from religion. I'd be terrified if we had to relitigate the Bill of Rights
>In any case, it seems plainly ridiculous on its face that I am to be bound by laws I had no part in voting for.
And then the next step is going to be "well I didn't vote for these laws, why does everyone else get to tell me what to do" and we're in sovereign citizen bullshit territory
>I am taxed without representation.
No, you are not. If you're a citizen in the US and not a felon, you have just as much opportunity to vote for your representatives as anyone else. In fact, you have more direct ability to vote for your representation than the founders of the country did since we've....changed the method of election over the course of the past 200-odd years
You simply don't like that most people are content with the system we have. I doubt you'd be happy with the system that would get put in place if we did start over every 70 years so none of this matters anyway
Neither of which should be federal programs. It has no business being at the federal level.
>>or freedom from religion.
It was not until the Civil War really the passage of the 14th amendment that the Bill of right even applied at the state level, that is why each state has their own Constitution.
In fact federal constitution implicitly did not bar States from supporting religion, the "separation" as it were was intended to only be for the federal government leaving each state to choose for themselves if they wanted to be secular or not (most did desire that anyway) however the federal government was to powerless to force a religion on any state, but also power less to prevent it.
the Civil War and 14th amendment forever upended the role of the federal government in State Affairs.
>>I'd be terrified if we had to relitigate the Bill of Rights
Hamilton as not in favor of the Bill of Rights[1], in fact has now be proven correct in his fears. he thought that the Bill of rights would become something it was never intended to be, that the people would view it as a complete list of rights the government as granted the people. A complete inversion of how the constitution is suppose to work. Often times the case law authorizing these new powers dive into the nuances of the "bill of rights" proving Hamilton correct when he said that men disposed to usurp power would use the Bill of Rights to expand government power beyond its authorized remit
For example since Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution does not grant the authority for the federal government to regulate Education then the government should have no power to create the Dept of Education yet they find all kinds of ways do things they are not actually empowered to do
>>.changed the method of election over the course of the past 200-odd years
yes for the worse, we have progress more to a centralized democracy with power consolidated into a single federal government. Moving away from the Republican form of government our founders established.
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_r... [1] >> I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? -- Alexander Hamiton
> You simply don't like that most people are content with the system we have.
I think perhaps these statements are contradictory, and I think it’s because the second statement is false.
I don’t think people in the US are generally content with the status quo whatsoever, but I do think that it is both actually hopeless and also perceived widely as hopeless that we have any chance of effecting meaningful change to it.
This is by design, so that those who do benefit from the status quo can make claims about representation similar to yours above, when no such representation exists. It’s a sort of “shut up and go away” to keep the existing socioeconomic order in place.
If we were actually represented in the way you posit, there would be candidates whose platform would primarily be the repeal of old laws that are invalid, unnecessary, or harmful. We see no such candidates, and we see no such trends.
I didn't vote for the US Congress...
You're entitled to have your voice heard, you're not entitled to get exactly what you want
(Maybe this distinction is silly, but I think it's important: ambiguity is inevitable, but asserting that the IRS knowingly maintains contradictory rules suggests some kind of sovereign-citizen-adjacent thinking.)
In this case, you have ambiguity in a definition of "partner assets and liability" in that, it could be read to include factor X and Not-X, and thus was contradictory. Resolving the definition to be more clear remove the problem inherent in rule.
> regulations provided that, in any taxable year, a partner’s share of each asset and liability of a section 987 aggregate partnership was proportional to the partner’s liquidation value percentage with respect to the aggregate partnership. A partner’s liquidation value percentage was defined as the ratio of the liquidation value of the partner’s interest in the partnership to the aggregate liquidation value of all the partners’ interests in the partnership.
> recommended that §1.987-7 be withdrawn and replaced with the approach of the 2006 proposed regulations under section 987, which provided that a partner’s share of assets and liabilities reflected on the books and records of an eligible QBU held indirectly through the partnership must be determined in a manner consistent with how the partners have agreed to share the economic benefits and burdens corresponding to those partnership assets and liabilities, taking into account the rules and principles of subchapter K. A comment indicated that the liquidation value percentage approach was inconsistent with certain principles of subchapter K, resulting in distortions in the calculation of section 987 gain or loss in certain cases.
So the prior guidance (in different documents, likely authored by different people) suggested two different mechanisms that are in conflict, resulting in different calculations. The latest guidance resolved this favor of an approach that clarifies what is actually allowed (In this case, rescinding the prior rule, but allowing either approach provided that approach was applied with internal consistency)
That was directed at the GGP, not you :-)
https://nampas.github.io/tax-map/
There are a lot of lines :D
From what I have encountered with US federal payroll taxes, it did not seem anywhere near as complicated as the above link. Other than withholding federal income tax and FICA and FUTA, not sure what else there would be.
All the complexity is when you file your actual return, and that one would literally be impossible to chart out because there are so many different nooks and crannies that exist that most people don't need to worry about but might so they are out there. I suspect that is also the case in Canada in addition to this payroll calculation nightmare