Who is Michael Graetz?

Who is Michael Graetz?

Michael Graetz a tax policy adviser under President George Bush and now a professor at Yale, added that he thought it was a big mistake that the I.R.S. had not moved immediately against these employers. ''They have to act,'' he said, ''or this will get out of hand very, very quickly.''

That story starts Here.

But then we have a turnaround here. Graetz argues that his plan is simple and progressive and that while it helps to restore fiscal discipline.

Who is Jack Cohen?

What’s this all about?

Are we browning the other side of the pancake?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chex

Who is Michael Graetz?

Michael Graetz a tax policy adviser under President George Bush and now a professor at Yale, added that he thought it was a big mistake that the I.R.S. had not moved immediately against these employers. ''They have to act,'' he said, ''or this will get out of hand very, very quickly.''

That story starts Here.

But then we have a turnaround here. Graetz argues that his plan is simple and progressive and that while it helps to restore fiscal discipline.

Who is Jack Cohen?

What’s this all about?

Are we browning the other side of the pancake?

IMHO, the income tax issue is a brown patty with many opaque and gooey layers which stinks to high heaven.
Yet we all end up sticking our forks and knives into it more or less deeply at one time or other in our lives.

I believe that A THOMPSON may have inadvertently defeated his own argument in the last paragraph at the bottom of his freedom school article:
"Also, keep in mind that the word "Internal" is used for a purpose. The word having the opposite meaning is "external." We know the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE and the Internal Revenue Laws were not created for those who are external, or outside government. Therefore, We can conclude that it was created for "internal" purposes, to collect from those who receive a benefit from within the government structure. It is a tax to be collected from those who are employed by it, who are now re-"venued". Their venue has changed from state to federal. Working within government is a benefit and or privilege that can be or is taxable. Something like a kickback."

If this is correct, then every US citizen, with BC, SSN, DL, and residential address, is indeed that poor government employee who got re-venued to reside, receive a "benefit" and be "employed" within the Washington DC jurisdiction, without his or her informed consent. THE STATE OF XX appears to be a federal district.

The talk about the 16th amendment in the NY Times article looks like deliberate mis-information, as the US CONSTITUTION seems to have nothing to do with the IRS, the Treasury Department (of what?), and the US citizen.

“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution! In - deed