Saturday, April 21, 2007

President Bush Signs Executive Order Creating Debtors Prison

April 15, 2015, Bush City, D.C. Today, President George W. Bush, who declared himself President for Life on December 1, 2008 voiding the previous months Presidential elections, has created a new Debtor’s Prison.

In a very short speech the President made announcing his Executive Order, which he calls the “Fair Debt and Banker’s Profitability Act,” he stated:

For full story click here.

Friday, January 26, 2007

I'll Pay Off Your Credit Cards...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

I'll Pay Off Your Credit Cards...

Florence, Kentucky, January 26, 2007 – Are you up to a challenge? Will your credit card companies help you get your credit cards paid off by the creators of Credit Card Zapper 1243?

According to a recent Boston Globe article, over 20,000,000 Americans are three or more months behind on their credit card payments.

Most of these people feel a moral obligation to at least attempt to repay this debt on the misconception that credit card banks actually lend them money.

Most alternative debt relief programs attempt to convince people that banks don't lend them money. A losing battle.

Trying to over come someones “belief” system with facts and figures, regardless of how true or accurate, is a difficult proposition.

The creators of Credit Card Zapper 1243 have chosen a different angle.

Instead of trying to convince visitors that the banks don't lend them money, they challenge visitors to prove the banks do lend them money. If they can, they agree to pay off the people's credit cards.

HowToGetRidOf.com is the creator of Credit Card Zapper 1243. During the past five years they have successfully helped people eliminate in excess of $15 Million in debt. For further information please contact Jim Bullock at jb@howtogetridof.com.

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Hey, Mr. Congressman ... Where's My Tax Cut?

"You don't pay taxes - they take taxes."

- Chris Rock

Hey, Mr. Congressman ... Where's My Tax Cut?

By Alex Molina

Every once in a while, I find myself pondering the complicated subject of taxation and the economy. Social Security, the deficit, Iraq, oil ... somehow, it's all supposed to make sense. Instead, I get so overwhelmed by all the numbers that I usually just throw my hands up in frustration and forget about it.

Then I came across this little story by David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., Professor of Economics at the University of Georgia - and it became crystal clear. It's like one of those fables you may have heard when you were a child. The ones that make even the most complex ideas seem very simple.

This story may not leave you with the warm, fuzzy feeling the three little pigs did - but go ahead and read it. See what you think ...

Suppose that, every day, 10 men go out for dinner and the total bill comes to $100. Suppose, too, that they decide to pay the bill the way we pay our taxes. This is what happens:

The first four men (the poorest) pay nothing.

The fifth pays $1.

The sixth pays $3.

The seventh pays $7.

The eighth pays $12.

The ninth pays $18.

The tenth man (the richest) pays $59.

The 10 men are happy with the arrangement. But then, one day, the owner of the restaurant throws them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he says, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Dinner for the 10 now costs just $80.

The group still wants to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men are unaffected. They still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How do they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone gets his "fair share"?

They realize that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtract that amount from everybody's share, the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat their meals.

So the restaurant owner suggests that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount - and he proceeds to work out how much each one should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now pays nothing (a 100% savings).

The sixth now pays $2 instead of $3 (a 33% savings).

The seventh now pays $5 instead of $7 (a 28% savings).

The eighth now pays $9 instead of $12 (a 25% savings).

The ninth now pays $14 instead of $18 (a 22% savings).

The tenth now pays $49 instead of $59 (a 16% savings).

All six of these men are now better off than they were before. And the other four continue to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declares the sixth man. He points to the tenth man, "But he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaims the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got 10 times more than me. "

"That's true!" shouts the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I get only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute!" the first four men yell in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. This system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surround the tenth and beat him up.

The next night, the tenth man doesn't show up for dinner, so the nine sit down and eat without him. But when it comes time to pay the bill, they make a disturbing discovery. They don't have enough money between all of them to cover even half of the bill.

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may stop showing up. In fact, they might start eating overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

(Ed. Note: Alex Molina is president of A&M Financial Service Group Inc., a client-oriented brokerage specializing in strategies for income, real estate, taxes, and retirement. He can be reached by e-mail at ajmolina@bellsouth.net.)

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Beware bogus 'debt experts.”

I ran across the following question and answer the other day while doing a little research. I just had to respond. But, beware, I'm biased. I'm one of those “murky” debt-elimination people.



Beware bogus 'debt elimination' companies

Question:

Dear Debt Adviser,
I keep getting e-mails about legal debt elimination. Could you advise if these kinds of e-mails are a scam or not? -- Harry

Answer:

Dear Harry,
Thanks for your question. Many people who find themselves overwhelmed by debt seek any means available to ease their anxiety and to help eliminate their debt. Many organizations out there are willing to take advantage of their plight. Unfortunately, my advice about the claims made by the debt-elimination companies fall under the category of "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

Debt-elimination companies claim that they can eliminate your debt and that you do not have to make any more payments with no repercussions. Sounds good, huh? Too good! The bottom line alleged by these companies is that the debt that you have incurred using credit cards is not legal debt. The murky debt-elimination process is said to be based on information from Title 15 United State Code -- section 1692, the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act -- section 1601, the Fair Credit Billing Act and the Uniform Commercial Code -- section 203.

Debt-elimination companies, sometimes for a steep fee ($2,995 for one company), will send you materials explaining what they assert is your legal right not to pay your debt. Many of them promise to support your debt-elimination process with "experts" that understand the laws that pertain to credit card companies issuing you credit.

What is missing from the Web sites and advertising of these companies is that if laws are in place that make it illegal for a credit card company to extend you credit, why are there billions of credit cards in circulation? If these debt-elimination companies have found out that it is illegal for credit card companies to extend credit to consumers, don't you think that it would have come to the attention of lawmakers who would then enforce this law?

The saying, "there is no free lunch," comes to my mind. For those people who have accumulated credit card debt and are enjoying the sofas, clothing, artwork and other possessions that they purchased using credit, the time comes when you must pay for what you bought. Just because you may have overextended yourself and are now having trouble making payments to your creditors, does not mean you do not owe the money.

My advice to those who are receiving spam e-mail from debt elimination companies is to delete the messages and continue to make good on your promise to your creditor that you will repay your balances as agreed. You'll not only sleep better, but as my dad used to say, "You'll be building character!"

For those having trouble making debt payments, legitimate help is available to repay your debt, but not to totally eliminate it.

The Debt Adviser, Steve Bucci, is the president of Money Management International Financial Education Foundation and the author of Credit Repair Kit for Dummies. Visit MMI for additional debt advice or to ask a question of the Debt Adviser go to the "Ask the Experts", page to ask a debt question.

Posted Dec. 12, 2003



You're probably wondering why I take exception with this article. Several reasons.

The article is NOT based on fact; but, innuendo.

The argument:



Unfortunately, my advice about the claims made by the debt-elimination companies fall under the category of "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."




Based on what evidence? Where are the facts to support this advice? There are none. Mr. Bucci can't furnish them. His advice is a cliché disguised as expert opinion.

When Mr. Bucci does decide to offer evidence, it turns out to be bogus:



The murky debt-elimination process is said to be based on information from Title 15 United State Code -- section 1692, the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act -- section 1601, the Fair Credit Billing Act and the Uniform Commercial Code -- section 203.




The “murky” evidence offered is not relevant. Not even an incompetent scam artist would suggest his program is based on the section of the laws Mr. Bucci references. But, decide for yourself.

Mr. Bucci's first bit of proof:



§ 1692. Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

(a) Abusive practices
There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.
(b) Inadequacy of laws
Existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to protect consumers.
(c) Available non-abusive collection methods
Means other than misrepresentation or other abusive debt collection practices are available for the effective collection of debts.
(d) Interstate commerce
Abusive debt collection practices are carried on to a substantial extent in interstate commerce and through means and instrumentalities of such commerce. Even where abusive debt collection practices are purely intrastate in character, they nevertheless directly affect interstate commerce.
(e) Purposes
It is the purpose of this subchapter to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.



You will notice this part of the law has nothing to do with credit, debt, payments, or whatever. It is nothing more than an explanation as to why Congress created the law. Why did Mr. Bucci reference it? What was his purpose?

And his second bit of proof:



§ 1601. Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

(a) Informed use of credit
The Congress finds that economic stabilization would be enhanced and the competition among the various financial institutions and other firms engaged in the extension of consumer credit would be strengthened by the informed use of credit. The informed use of credit results from an awareness of the cost thereof by consumers. It is the purpose of this subchapter to assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him and avoid the uninformed use of credit, and to protect the consumer against inaccurate and unfair credit billing and credit card practices.
(b) Terms of personal property leases
The Congress also finds that there has been a recent trend toward leasing automobiles and other durable goods for consumer use as an alternative to installment credit sales and that these leases have been offered without adequate cost disclosures. It is the purpose of this subchapter to assure a meaningful disclosure of the terms of leases of personal property for personal, family, or household purposes so as to enable the lessee to compare more readily the various lease terms available to him, limit balloon payments in consumer leasing, enable comparison of lease terms with credit terms where appropriate, and to assure meaningful and accurate disclosures of lease terms in advertisements.




You will notice this part of the law also has nothing to do with credit, debt, payments, or whatever. It is also nothing more than an explanation as to why Congress created the law. Why did Mr. Bucci reference it? What was his purpose?

Mr. Bucci's third bit of proof: Uniform Commercial Code – section 203.

Problem here is, the UCC consists of 9 Articles. Each of which has a “section 203.” Which one is he referring too? Which one does he disagree with? Why is Mr. Bucci so vague?

I don't really know what Mr. Bucci's intent is. I can only speculate. Experience tells me Mr. Bucci is attempting to sound like an expert, but isn't, and is using generalities and innuendo in hopes that no one will take the time to investigate his references or question his argulments.

There's an old saying: “When you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” You'll have to decide which is appropriate here.

Next Mr. Bucci uses the good ole “Texas Sidestep” made popular in the movie “Best Little Whorehouse in Texas”:



What is missing from the Web sites and advertising of these companies is that if laws are in place that make it illegal for a credit card company to extend you credit, why are there billions of credit cards in circulation? If these debt-elimination companies have found out that it is illegal for credit card companies to extend credit to consumers, don't you think that it would have come to the attention of lawmakers who would then enforce this law?




Sounds convincing doesn't it? Only problem, this isn't the argument most debt elimination companies use. In fact, quite the opposite. All debt elimination companies I'm aware of argue that the banks/credit card companies say they will extend you credit, lend you money, but in fact, don't.

Mr. Bucci makes a good argument - just the wrong one, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, and for the wrong reasons.

Then, in true propaganda style, Mr. Bucci reverts back to clichés (“there is no free lunch,” - “You'll be building character!”) and that one argument that all true card-carrying propagandists use as their “coup de gráce:” GUILT.

Of course, Mr. Bucci then offers you a solution: “For those having trouble making debt payments, legitimate help is available to repay your debt, but not to totally eliminate it.”

What is Mr. Bucci's solution? Read his bio at the end of the article. He is the president of Money Management International. A non-profit organization that helps people repay their debts. And best of all, their services are free to the consumer.

Sounds good doesn't it?

Here's what's missing. These non-profit credit counseling companies earn their money by getting you to pay your debt. They earn a commission from the banks. If you pay they make money – if you don't pay – they don't make money.

Basically, credit counseling services are nothing more than third party debt collectors hiding behind “credit counseling” laws so they won't have to comply with credit collection laws.

Bottom line, if all debtors eliminated their debt, which is perfectly legal, rather than paying their debt, these companies would be out of business.

Author: Jim Bullock
email: jsbullock@bullockpublishing.com
website: http://bullockpublishing.com/

Sunday, April 02, 2006

Letter to the Commissioner

March 31, 2006


Mark W. Everson
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20224

Dear Mr. Everson,

I would like to ask you just one simple question. I would appreciate an honest, simple, straight forward answer. I would appreciate the answer coming from you and not a flunky of your legal department.

First, some background.

According to the laws that you and your IRS employees are suppose to have sworn an oath to administer and uphold, the Secretary is required to assess all taxes. Without that assessment, no tax liability exists:



§ 6201. Assessment authority

(a) Authority of Secretary
The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes (including interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed by this title, or accruing under any former internal revenue law, which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law. Such authority shall extend to and include the following:
(1) Taxes shown on return
The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title.

§ 6203. Method of assessment

The assessment shall be made by recording the liability of the taxpayer in the office of the Secretary in accordance with rules or regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Upon request of the taxpayer, the Secretary shall furnish the taxpayer a copy of the record of the assessment.

§ 301.6203-1 Method of assessment.

The district director and the director of the regional service center shall appoint one or more assessment officers. The district director shall also appoint assessment officers in a Service Center servicing his district. The assessment shall be made by an assessment officer signing the summary record of assessment. The summary record, through supporting records, shall provide identification of the taxpayer, the character of the liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amount of the assessment. The amount of the assessment shall, in the case of tax shown on a return by the taxpayer, be the amount so shown, and in all other cases the amount of the assessment shall be the amount shown on the supporting list or record. The date of the assessment is the date the summary record is signed by an assessment officer. If the taxpayer requests a copy of the record of assessment, he shall be furnished a copy of the pertinent parts of the assessment which set forth the name of the taxpayer, the date of assessment, the character of the liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amounts assessed.

Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability.

For the condition precedent of liability to be met, there must be a lawful assessment, either a voluntary one by the taxpayer or one procedurally proper by the IRS. Bothke v. Fluor Engineers and Constructors Inc., 713 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 01/24/1983)

The Internal Revenue Code provides for a specific procedure for assessment (26 U.S.C. § 6203). An assessment is an administrative determination of tax liability. Kurio v. United States, 281 F. Supp. 252 (S.D.Tex.1968); United States v. Miller, 318 F.2d 637 (7th Cir. 1963). And until the assessment has been made, the tax has not been found to be owing.

It has never been assessed, it has never "been found to be owing." IN RE WESTERN TRADING CO., 340 F. Supp. 1130 (D.Nev. 04/17/1972)


Which brings me to my question.

If you and your IRS employees actually have the legal authority to collect taxes on wages and income from the people of the several states as you claim, why, when asked, don't you do what is honest and legally required, furnish a lawful assessment instead of ignoring the request and continuing to send harassing notices?

And please don't waste my time or insult my intelligence by referring to Form 23C or Form 4340, neither of which qualify under the laws and regulations as lawful assessments.

Sincerely,



James Bullock
7 Deer Haven Ct.
Florence, Kentucky 41042

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Tax Systems

"In America there are two tax systems; one for the informed and one for the uniformed. Both systems are legal."
-
  • Justice Learned Hand


  • IRS: Liars, Thieves, Thugs, Cowards, and Hypocrites

    Thursday, March 16, 2006

    Pandemic

    There is an Aboulia pandemic sweeping America. Has it infected you?

    Cure.