Full Version: Tax loopholes for the rich
Fifty years ago Congress, in order to help farmers who couldn't find insurance companies to cover them, allowed the creation of small, tax-exempt insurance companies for their exclusive use.
Congress exempted insurance companies from taxes if they collected less than $350,000 in premiums, but didn't limit how much in assets they could own and invest FREE OF TAXES.
Guess who is taking advantage of this tax structure. Wealthy folks who have nothing to do with making a living off the soil.
A billionaire Wall Street investor, Peter R. Kellogg has used the insurance exemption to escape more than $100 million in taxes on investments in the last 4 yrs.
What these rich folks do, is set up an insurance company that collects only a small amt. in premiums for a small amt of insurance and then sets aside as reserves far more money than would ever be needed to pay claims. Of course those reserves earn money that is TAX FREE and goes back into their pockets.
The IRS is aware of what's going on but it will take an act of Congress to do anything about it. We all know that this Congress is not willing to make it tougher for the rich to avoid taxes. It's too busy figuring out how to give them more tax breaks.
How much do you think the Peter Kelloggs of the world will benefit from the proposed Bush income tax cut?
Congress exempted insurance companies from taxes if they collected less than $350,000 in premiums, but didn't limit how much in assets they could own and invest FREE OF TAXES.
Guess who is taking advantage of this tax structure. Wealthy folks who have nothing to do with making a living off the soil.
A billionaire Wall Street investor, Peter R. Kellogg has used the insurance exemption to escape more than $100 million in taxes on investments in the last 4 yrs.
What these rich folks do, is set up an insurance company that collects only a small amt. in premiums for a small amt of insurance and then sets aside as reserves far more money than would ever be needed to pay claims. Of course those reserves earn money that is TAX FREE and goes back into their pockets.
The IRS is aware of what's going on but it will take an act of Congress to do anything about it. We all know that this Congress is not willing to make it tougher for the rich to avoid taxes. It's too busy figuring out how to give them more tax breaks.
How much do you think the Peter Kelloggs of the world will benefit from the proposed Bush income tax cut?
The tax laws of the United States are insanely complicated, and it is only natural to expect anyone who is clever enough to take advantage of this chaos to do so. This is a completely separate issue from any proposed or enacted reduction in taxes; in my opinion, it is a much more important issue. I have seen examples taken from very obscure tax regulations which were deliberately written in an extremely complex style to hide the fact that they were intended to give a tax break to one company only; the obvious implication being that this one company persuaded lawmakers to insert this regulation into the tax codes. (I'm sorry; this was from a book I read a long time ago, so I cannot supply the exact source.)
Cleaning up the tax laws is a truly Stygian mess, and I see no Hercules willing to tackle it. Perhaps some of the rest of you have some suggestions.
Cleaning up the tax laws is a truly Stygian mess, and I see no Hercules willing to tackle it. Perhaps some of the rest of you have some suggestions.
Nothing will be done about it so long as we have a huge complex tax code designed to allow politicians to reward particular constituents with tax loopholes. Just as with military base closings, the only way it could be done was to have a commission recommend a list of closings and have Congress vote up or down on the entire list with no option to amend it. That's what must be done with tax loopholes also. The tax code must be radically simplified, and in fact what must happen if we're serious about is a flat tax with a large personal exemption and no other deductions. The rates would seem less progressive than what we have now, but that'd be illusionary; the rich would be paying more taxes then they do now because of the absence of loopholes.
I'm with Izdaari. Flat tax eliminates tax loopholes period.
x% done with. voila! ala-kazam!.
Poof. There goes 95% of the IRS (largest gov't program) and all of the hassel of the 1040A. Just have your employer take out x% of your check every month. Over with.
Besides, the progressive tax is unconstitional. The sooner we get rid of it, and replace it with something better, and legal...the better
--cheers
x% done with. voila! ala-kazam!.
Poof. There goes 95% of the IRS (largest gov't program) and all of the hassel of the 1040A. Just have your employer take out x% of your check every month. Over with.
Besides, the progressive tax is unconstitional. The sooner we get rid of it, and replace it with something better, and legal...the better
--cheers
How exactly will relocating the tax burden on people with less money make things better? I don't understand that logic. To someone who is barely scraping by I doubt the idea of a tax increase for them would be justified by saying that it's more "constitutional," which I still think is a dubious statement. Legal documents can be interpretted in various ways. If the constitution allows for income taxes, then it allows for income taxes. Intent is irrelevant.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Apr 10 2003, 09:22 PM)
How exactly will relocating the tax burden on people with less money make things better? I don't understand that logic. To someone who is barely scraping by I doubt the idea of a tax increase for them would be justified by saying that it's more "constitutional," which I still think is a dubious statement. Legal documents can be interpretted in various ways. If the constitution allows for income taxes, then it allows for income taxes. Intent is irrelevant.
Where did DP say anything at all about placing more tax burden on people making less money?
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Apr 10 2003, 03:38 AM)
Cleaning up the tax laws is a truly Stygian mess, and I see no Hercules willing to tackle it. Perhaps some of the rest of you have some suggestions.
Uh, make that an Augean mess. And sincere thanks to Platypus for privately pointing out my badly garbled classical reference.
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Apr 11 2003, 03:12 AM)
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Apr 10 2003, 09:22 PM)
How exactly will relocating the tax burden on people with less money make things better? I don't understand that logic. To someone who is barely scraping by I doubt the idea of a tax increase for them would be justified by saying that it's more "constitutional," which I still think is a dubious statement. Legal documents can be interpretted in various ways. If the constitution allows for income taxes, then it allows for income taxes. Intent is irrelevant.
Where did DP say anything at all about placing more tax burden on people making less money?
Unless you plan on a massive reduction of government revenue the tax burden for the moderatly or minimally wealthy is going to increase in a flat tax situation.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Apr 10 2003, 08:22 PM)
[Unless you plan on a massive reduction of government revenue the tax burden for the moderatly or minimally wealthy is going to increase in a flat tax situation.
Not necessarily, if the personal exemption is large enough. I don't remember all the details, but Dick Armey's plan featured a 17% flat rate with that kind of large exemption and was intended to be revenue-neutral (i.e., deliver roughly the same revenue as the current system). Maybe I'll have time to look it up tomorrow if somebody doesn't beat me to it. I'll betcha most "moderately or minimally wealthy" folk pay higher than a 17% rate now.
And the poor? Would they be part of this plan?
I'm not sure how this would reduce complications? Tax brackets aren't the most complex part of calculations, determining income is.
I'm not sure how this would reduce complications? Tax brackets aren't the most complex part of calculations, determining income is.
Yeah, Joe, the poor are covered in that the personal exemption was large enough that they wouldn't be paying any tax at all. But as I said, I don't remember the exact details of the Armey plan and don't have time to look it up tonight. Tomorrow maybe if somebody doesn't beat me to it.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Apr 11 2003, 01:37 AM)
And the poor? Would they be part of this plan?
I'm not sure how this would reduce complications? Tax brackets aren't the most complex part of calculations, determining income is.
I'm not sure how this would reduce complications? Tax brackets aren't the most complex part of calculations, determining income is.
Determining income is not the complicated part. Determining income that is subject to tax is. It is the myriad ways of reducing taxable income, coupled with the many credits against the tax itself, that make the system a social tax as opposed to an income tax.
The various flat-tax plans would not hurt the poor because the starting point of the tax will be sufficiently high to take them off the hook altogether.
QUOTE
QUOTE (Ultimatejoe @ Apr 11 2003, 01:37 AM)
And the poor? Would they be part of this plan?
I'm not sure how this would reduce complications? Tax brackets aren't the most complex part of calculations, determining income is.
Determining income is not the complicated part. Determining income that is subject to tax is. It is the myriad ways of reducing taxable income, coupled with the many credits against the tax itself, that make the system a social tax as opposed to an income tax.
The various flat-tax plans would not hurt the poor because the starting point of the tax will be sufficiently high to take them off the hook altogether.
And the poor? Would they be part of this plan?
I'm not sure how this would reduce complications? Tax brackets aren't the most complex part of calculations, determining income is.
Determining income is not the complicated part. Determining income that is subject to tax is. It is the myriad ways of reducing taxable income, coupled with the many credits against the tax itself, that make the system a social tax as opposed to an income tax.
The various flat-tax plans would not hurt the poor because the starting point of the tax will be sufficiently high to take them off the hook altogether.
Exactly. Make the first $30,000 tax exempt and voila, a "progressive" flat tax.
QUOTE(amlord @ Apr 11 2003, 08:31 AM)
Exactly. Make the first $30,000 tax exempt and voila, a "progressive" flat tax.
Know what's funny amlord? Even if the people at $30,000 were income tax exempt, didn't have to pay sales tax or any other kind of tax, there would still be those out there upset because the wealthy would not be paying 40+ percent taxes.
Although I like your idea of the first $30,000 exempt, then everyone pays a flat rate of %18 with no deductions at all.
Plus all the money we would save scrapping the IRS.
I don't agree with you guys much, but I have to say I've been a linear (not flat) tax advocate for a long time. I just wish we regular citizens had access to the information that would allow us to determine what the revenue effects would be for various rates and personal exemptions. Is 18% over 30K right? Beats me.
Exactly. It wouldn't take long to figure out what the actual rate would need to be. Plus, an increase in the tax rate is a more or less direct increase in the coffers of the Govt. I think it would be much more difficult to pass tax increase if someone can easily figure for themselves how much of an impact it makes on THEM.
We not only save the expenses of the IRS, but individuals and businesses spend BILLIONS preparing their taxes.
We not only save the expenses of the IRS, but individuals and businesses spend BILLIONS preparing their taxes.
I have to agree that the flat tax is the best way to go. Sure I don't agree that someone only making $20k a year needs to pay a lot of taxes, but I also don't agree that it's fair for me to start paying almost 50% of my income in taxes because I am considered "rich." A 17% flat tax with a $30k exemption sounds like a good plan, because it does not punish those who strive to earn more money. I also don't understand the animosity felt by so many towards people who earn a lot of money. A person who starts out poor, making say $15k a year would be pitied and held up as an example of the unfairness in America, but if that person works hard and in 10 years is earning $100k a year, then the same crowd that pitied them would treat them as another evil rich person who needs to pay up. I just don't get the premise behind that. Even giving everyone a straight 5% reduction in the percent of income tax they pay would of course benefit someone making $200k more than someone making $20k, since they are paying close to $100k in taxes.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Apr 10 2003, 06:22 PM)
To someone who is barely scraping by I doubt the idea of a tax increase for them would be justified by saying that it's more "constitutional," which I still think is a dubious statement. Legal documents can be interpretted in various ways. If the constitution allows for income taxes, then it allows for income taxes. Intent is irrelevant.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
It says nothing about income taxes. It does say however, that all taxes should be uniform
What is a uniform tax? A good example is a sales tax. No matter who you are, what color your skin is, how much money you make, if your rich or poor, male or female, 20k a year or 200k a year, EVERYONE pays x% of an item when they buy it.
A graduated income tax, like what we have now, is not uniform...therefore unconstitutional. And in dire need of reform...major reform
--cheers
QUOTE(Digital Patriot @ Apr 11 2003, 05:20 PM)
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Apr 10 2003, 06:22 PM)
To someone who is barely scraping by I doubt the idea of a tax increase for them would be justified by saying that it's more "constitutional," which I still think is a dubious statement. Legal documents can be interpretted in various ways. If the constitution allows for income taxes, then it allows for income taxes. Intent is irrelevant.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
It says nothing about income taxes. It does say however, that all taxes should be uniform
What is a uniform tax? A good example is a sales tax. No matter who you are, what color your skin is, how much money you make, if your rich or poor, male or female, 20k a year or 200k a year, EVERYONE pays x% of an item when they buy it.
A graduated income tax, like what we have now, is not uniform...therefore unconstitutional. And in dire need of reform...major reform
--cheers
That is your reading of the Constitution, and a pretty poor one. In fact, it had never occured me to read it like that because it defies several conventions of the english language.
The constitution says TAXES. It doesn't say uniform taxes. It says TAXES; which can be read in any number of ways. If the founders were opposed to an income tax then it would have said "the power to lay and collect taxes on exchanges of moneys" or some such thing.
And if you actually read that whole section outloud you'll notice the long break caused by the semi-colon. Now grammar has changed somewhat in the past several hundred years but the fact is that a pause caused by a semi-colon implies a break in the subject of a sentence. As such a new subject (duties, imposts and excises) is defined. Therefore the word "UNIFORM" applies only to duties, imposts, and excises. Get it?
IT doesn't matter if you do or not anyways. Your reading of uniform is irregular anyways. Uniform doesn't mean that everyone pays the same, since at that time there were no individual taxes and all of the taxes and duties imposed were purely on trade. "Throughout the United States" means that all of the duties, imposts and excises have to be the same from state to state. Nothing more. Don't believe me, ask an english professor.
QUOTE
QUOTE (Digital Patriot @ Apr 11 2003, 05:20 PM)
QUOTE (Ultimatejoe @ Apr 10 2003, 06:22 PM)
To someone who is barely scraping by I doubt the idea of a tax increase for them would be justified by saying that it's more "constitutional," which I still think is a dubious statement. Legal documents can be interpretted in various ways. If the constitution allows for income taxes, then it allows for income taxes. Intent is irrelevant.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
It says nothing about income taxes. It does say however, that all taxes should be uniform
What is a uniform tax? A good example is a sales tax. No matter who you are, what color your skin is, how much money you make, if your rich or poor, male or female, 20k a year or 200k a year, EVERYONE pays x% of an item when they buy it.
A graduated income tax, like what we have now, is not uniform...therefore unconstitutional. And in dire need of reform...major reform
--cheers
That is your reading of the Constitution, and a pretty poor one. In fact, it had never occured me to read it like that because it defies several conventions of the english language.
The constitution says TAXES. It doesn't say uniform taxes. It says TAXES; which can be read in any number of ways. If the founders were opposed to an income tax then it would have said "the power to lay and collect taxes on exchanges of moneys" or some such thing.
And if you actually read that whole section outloud you'll notice the long break caused by the semi-colon. Now grammar has changed somewhat in the past several hundred years but the fact is that a pause caused by a semi-colon implies a break in the subject of a sentence. As such a new subject (duties, imposts and excises) is defined. Therefore the word "UNIFORM" applies only to duties, imposts, and excises. Get it?
IT doesn't matter if you do or not anyways. Your reading of uniform is irregular anyways. Uniform doesn't mean that everyone pays the same, since at that time there were no individual taxes and all of the taxes and duties imposed were purely on trade. "Throughout the United States" means that all of the duties, imposts and excises have to be the same from state to state. Nothing more. Don't believe me, ask an english professor.
QUOTE (Ultimatejoe @ Apr 10 2003, 06:22 PM)
To someone who is barely scraping by I doubt the idea of a tax increase for them would be justified by saying that it's more "constitutional," which I still think is a dubious statement. Legal documents can be interpretted in various ways. If the constitution allows for income taxes, then it allows for income taxes. Intent is irrelevant.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
It says nothing about income taxes. It does say however, that all taxes should be uniform
What is a uniform tax? A good example is a sales tax. No matter who you are, what color your skin is, how much money you make, if your rich or poor, male or female, 20k a year or 200k a year, EVERYONE pays x% of an item when they buy it.
A graduated income tax, like what we have now, is not uniform...therefore unconstitutional. And in dire need of reform...major reform
--cheers
That is your reading of the Constitution, and a pretty poor one. In fact, it had never occured me to read it like that because it defies several conventions of the english language.
The constitution says TAXES. It doesn't say uniform taxes. It says TAXES; which can be read in any number of ways. If the founders were opposed to an income tax then it would have said "the power to lay and collect taxes on exchanges of moneys" or some such thing.
And if you actually read that whole section outloud you'll notice the long break caused by the semi-colon. Now grammar has changed somewhat in the past several hundred years but the fact is that a pause caused by a semi-colon implies a break in the subject of a sentence. As such a new subject (duties, imposts and excises) is defined. Therefore the word "UNIFORM" applies only to duties, imposts, and excises. Get it?
IT doesn't matter if you do or not anyways. Your reading of uniform is irregular anyways. Uniform doesn't mean that everyone pays the same, since at that time there were no individual taxes and all of the taxes and duties imposed were purely on trade. "Throughout the United States" means that all of the duties, imposts and excises have to be the same from state to state. Nothing more. Don't believe me, ask an english professor.
Sift past Joe's overly condescending attitude and he is right. I believe you are reading the law incorrectly.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Apr 11 2003, 01:35 PM)
That is your reading of the Constitution, and a pretty poor one.
QUOTE(amlord @ April 11, 2003, 2:11p.m.)
Sift past Joe's overly condescending attitude
No need to get rude with each other. We can debate this in a mature fashion without getting the snide remarks in, right???
It may not have been pretty, but Amlord and I agreed on something. A round of beers on me! 
Sorry for the snarky tone there... People who misread things (whether intentionally or otherwise) get under my skin more than they should.
Sorry for the snarky tone there... People who misread things (whether intentionally or otherwise) get under my skin more than they should.
QUOTE
People who misread things (whether intentionally or otherwise) get under my skin more than they should.
Your interpretation. I don't think I have misread it at all.
Yeah, it says the gov't can levy taxes.... BUT all of which should be uniform. Note, the entire quoted section is all one sentance.
Uniform
1. identical or consistent, as from example to example, place to place, or moment to moment: uniform spelling; a uniform building code.
2. without variations in detail: uniform output; a uniform surface.
3. constant; unvarying; undeviating: uniform kindness; uniform velocity.
Here is a list of words, found to be synonyms in MS-Word 2000
- consistant
- standardized
- identical
- unvarying
- even
- regular
- the same
- equal
- harmonized
So what, if not the percentage, were the founders refering to when they said the taxes should be uniform? What else would the word uniform apply to?
Sure, the word uniform is applied to 3 out of the four things mentioned in the first part of the sentance, but what do you think a duty, impost and excise are exactly? taxes
I never meant to say, or believe I said, that the income tax in and of itself was unconstitutional. Just that the way it is imposed is. Did YOU misread ME?
QUOTE
Sift past Joe's overly condescending attitude and he is right. I believe you are reading the law incorrectly.
Would have loved to...but that "overly condescending" attitude made me quickly loose interest in what he was saying...and I stopped reading.
--cheers
FWIW, I think Joe's interpretation was correct and his explanation clear. I can't fault him for being "snarky" because I have the same tendency.
You should read it again, it adresses your concern. Like I said, look at the semi-colon. Ask anyone who has studied 18th century english and they'll say what I'm saying. Back then the semi-colon was used far more frequently than it is today, in some places supplanting the period altogether.
Sure, but the writers used the words "duties, excises, imposts and TAXES." By doing so they establish that they are different for the rest of the document. Ask any legal student and they'll back that up. The fact that TAXES aren't mentioned in the second part of the relevant passage is clearly (and people here actually agree with me on this one) an indication that the term uniform did not apply.
But, again, as I said earlier, you're not reading the term uniform correctly. If the value that you are giving to it were true, then it would make no sense in the context of duties or other trade levies. A duty is an inherently standardized (whether by weight, volume, cost, etc.) levy. They are not assigned based on any subjective value. If we are to accept your assertion that uniform applies, then all duties et al would simply be for the exact same amount.
As I said before, and again, any constitutional academic will back this up, uniform throughout the United States means quite simply that they have to be aplied the same from one state to another. The Federal government cannot impose a duty in one state and not another, or establish them at different rates. That's all it means. It's actually one of the most important economic provisos of the constitution. It also fits in quite nicely with the definition of uniform that you have provided for us courtesy a dictionary:
QUOTE
Sure, the word uniform is applied to 3 out of the [4] things mentioned in the first part of the sentance, but what do you think a duty, impost and excise are exactly? taxes
Sure, but the writers used the words "duties, excises, imposts and TAXES." By doing so they establish that they are different for the rest of the document. Ask any legal student and they'll back that up. The fact that TAXES aren't mentioned in the second part of the relevant passage is clearly (and people here actually agree with me on this one) an indication that the term uniform did not apply.
QUOTE
So what, if not the percentage, were the founders refering to when they said the taxes should be uniform? What else would the word uniform apply to?
But, again, as I said earlier, you're not reading the term uniform correctly. If the value that you are giving to it were true, then it would make no sense in the context of duties or other trade levies. A duty is an inherently standardized (whether by weight, volume, cost, etc.) levy. They are not assigned based on any subjective value. If we are to accept your assertion that uniform applies, then all duties et al would simply be for the exact same amount.
As I said before, and again, any constitutional academic will back this up, uniform throughout the United States means quite simply that they have to be aplied the same from one state to another. The Federal government cannot impose a duty in one state and not another, or establish them at different rates. That's all it means. It's actually one of the most important economic provisos of the constitution. It also fits in quite nicely with the definition of uniform that you have provided for us courtesy a dictionary:
QUOTE
1. identical or consistent, as from example to example, place to place, or moment to moment: uniform spelling; a uniform building code.
Joe's got it right. Where do I show up for my beer?
Anywhere in Toronto; I know some really nice spots. This bar called Elsewhere actually puts a chopped sirloin steak on their nachos.
UJ
Oh the irony of it all.
QUOTE
IT doesn't matter if you do or not anyways. Your reading of uniform is irregular anyways...... Don't believe me, ask an english professor.
Oh the irony of it all.
Yes, I realize that the statements I made were a bit sloppy in terms of structure. I don't suppose you have anything to add on the subject?
QUOTE(stotty203 @ Apr 11 2003, 10:40 AM)
I also don't understand the animosity felt by so many towards people who earn a lot of money. A person who starts out poor, making say $15k a year would be pitied and held up as an example of the unfairness in America, but if that person works hard and in 10 years is earning $100k a year, then the same crowd that pitied them would treat them as another evil rich person who needs to pay up. I just don't get the premise behind that. Even giving everyone a straight 5% reduction in the percent of income tax they pay would of course benefit someone making $200k more than someone making $20k, since they are paying close to $100k in taxes.
There are many, many people who work very hard and will never see 100k a year. Because a person is in the low income bracket does not necessarily mean he is lazy. He may be working ten times harder than someone in the middle or high income bracket. Think about it. The jobs that pay the least are usually the worst jobs and the hardest jobs. On the other hand, a person earning 100k a year is not considered rich in today's society.
The "evil rich" are people like billionaire Peter R. Kellogg, who can afford to hire accounting firms that counsel them on ways to escape taxes. By using legal deception, they avoid paying their fair share of taxes. In Kellogg's case, he avoided paying $100mil in taxes on investments in the last 4 years. It's really sick! They already have billions, why do they have to cheat and why does the government allow them to cheat? Oh yes, I know what they do is legal, but it's NOT RIGHT.
The animosity is not because people earn a great amount of money, as you say,but rather because some of them take unfair advantage of the nation's tax structure. The government knows this and allows it. I have pointed out only one loophole, but the very rich have all sorts of ways to avoid taxes and to hide their money.
Some of these very same people rant & rave about welfare, whey they are the biggest welfare recipients of all. And you and I, Scotty, are paying for it.
Madtown
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Apr 11 2003, 11:37 AM)
But, again, as I said earlier, you're not reading the term uniform correctly.
Your OPINION. There's a difference.
The constitution is probably the most interpreted document in US history.
People can take "Freedom of Speech" and tack on "Expression" to mean all sorts of things. If they can get away with this, I can get away with MY OPINION and interpretation of that particular article.
I gathered from your post, that you still do not comprehend my definition of uniform. Which is apparent to me when you said:
QUOTE
If we are to accept your assertion that uniform applies, then all duties et al would simply be for the exact same amount.
That was never what I was getting at.
You don't seem to understand what I'm saying, and I don't know how else to explain it.
You may be right, you may not be. Truth is, we'll never know as the founders died long ago. You may not call my interpretation wrong, as I cannot call you wrong. Proof is gone. Interpretation is all that is left.
--cheers
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.