pai mei

http://www.livefreenow.org/streaming...o_Programs.xml

Income from labor is not profit, it is fair exchange - time and work for money, it cannot be taxed. Here is a movie which explains the problem better , you will be able to see an IRS agent that says "supreme court decisions don't matter" :
America: Freedom to Fascism

Redlemon

I didn't want to watch the video, so here's an article from a newspaper (as opposed to an opinion site)
I'm pretty surprised. I thought this sort of thing had been tested extensively in the past. Also surprised that Google News only gives 3 hits, whereas there are many opinion blogs that are all over it.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

MiSo

so uh... why am i still paying taxes?
so can anyone decide to stop paying taxes? i don't get it.
(didn't watch the video... too long)

dksuddeth

would imagine that you're still paying taxes because the company you work for is taking them out before they pay you.

want to avoid paying taxes? don't do W2 work.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Cynthetiq

Not to mention be willing to go to the mat in order to protect your beliefs.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

The nice thing is, the more precedent from cases like the above, the easier it will be to go to the mat. I haven't decided whether I'm going to stop or not. I had already considered reducing the amount I was paying so as to protest the war. Double protest? This is tempting.

The_Dunedan

Check out IRS vs Kuglin for more fun; Vernice Kuglin got to keep nearly $1,000,000 in "owed" back taxes after a multi-year court battle because the IRS was simply unable to produce the law authorizing them to collect taxes from her. This was about three years ago, I think. Vaious people have had various levels of success fighting the IRS; it all comes down to

A: The judge. If the judge is half honest and allows the arguement to proceed at all, that's half the battle. Most judges, however, won't even allow a Constitutional or legal arguement in any criminal case, only an arguement on the facts of the case itself.

B: The paperwork. People who choose to use document filings to lawfully not pay Income Taxes walk a veeeeery thin line. One word out of place, and you're in jail, just ask Larkin Rose or Irwin Schiff. This is why a lot of folks prefer to simply not pay and then take the "Well, show me the law!" tack in court if/when they get caught.

Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. Ed and Elaine Brown, up in New Hampshire, are a good example of what happens when it doesn't work. They're probably going to get WACOed over this and have already lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets..."going to the mat" indeed.*

*The good news is that the odds of actually getting nailed are quite slim, given the HUGE numbers of people (60,000,000+ according to the IRS's own figures) who don't file or don't pay every year and the small number of IRS-CID agents available.

MSD

It would cost me more than I make in a year to go to court over a few hundred dollars in taxes. This is interesting, but I wouldn't be willing to make myself a test case.

indago

It's not a matter of not paying taxes, it's a matter of making government follow the Constitutional guidelines.

robot_parade

Oh, come on people. This one is...old.

Have a look at the wikipedia article for the sixteenth amendment.

Sun Tzu

Goes to show you the corruption of the supreme court. The 16th Amendment
has nothing to do with capitation taxes. Even if "We the people" consented to have our salaries taxed why is the IRS/Fed involved? Shouldnt it be a congressional matter?

It is old, one of the oldest and biggest scams in American history.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

raging moderate

It always surprises me that there is such a lack of interest in this topic. Come on, people! Taxation of income is unconstitutional! Think about that! If you work for somebody else, or for your own company as an employee, roughly 25-30% or more of YOUR income, no matter who you are or where you live in the US, goes to the government illegally. I would think more people would be interested in that.

__________________

These are the good old days...



formerly Murp0434

remy1492

The fear of gov agencies in black ninja outfits with submachineguns (IRS was a large purchaser two years ago, odd eh?) taking down your family and you, may put some people off.

The whole FREE COUNTRY and liberty thing is a sham, people are bullied and made to fear the tax man.

Want to build a machine gun? its legal, but you must pay the TAX stamp. Why do people get busted on them, accused of making an illegal gun? no, they are busted on "failure to pay a TAX" to the gov.

About the only way you can avoid taxes is to face the mat, or become part of Obama's administration. Then you get a job promotion.

Xerxys

I actually have taken an interest in this thread and I am illiterate so one more time explain this to me .. Paying taxes is unconstitutional? How? I mean, The Man (tm) screws me royally every year but I have always theorized it to paying for invisible amenities I take for granted such as roads, the food for the bum on the sidewalk, sewage management .. etc etc.

If this is the case then the IRS have done a great many people a disservice by wage garnishment, dipping in your bank and taking out the taxes themselves, and forcing you to fill out your W2.

Not paying taxes is a cumbersome matter I imagine would cause you great distress. You'd have to always deal with cash because the government KNOWS your bank account. Your credit would be crap and I believe any business you own would promptly be shut down.

Vigilante

Yeah, if you have nothing to lose then why not try the gamble in court. Otherwise you pretty much have to accept that you bend over for the man every time you get paid (or buy something).

__________________
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
-Winston Churchill

robot_parade

I didn't know the definition of the word 'capitation', so I looked it up:

For fun, here's the text of the 16th Amendment:

Here we go.

'The Congress' - ie, the legislative branch, not the executive (president) or the judiciary (Supreme court and lower courts).

'shall have the power to lay and collect taxes' - OK! They can pass laws, subject to whatever restrictions are about to follow and any other constitutional restrictions, to lay and collect taxes. Good so far.

'on incomes' - aha! So an income tax, not a poll tax (or 'capitation' tax, if you prefer), or any other kind of tax. On income. Money I make.

'from whatever source derived' - Such as working and getting a salary. Or investing and getting dividends. Or inheriting money. Or by mowing someone's yard and getting paid for it. Or someone handing me money. Or finding money on the street. Or digging up buried treasure. Or selling something.

'without apportionment among the several States' - ok. So the tax go to the Feds, not the States.

'without regard to any census or enumeration.' - Again, making it clear that this isn't a poll tax, or based upon someone being counted by the government, or it some sort of government list or database. If I didn't have a birth certificate, or wasn't counted by the census, or wasn't notified by the government that I was supposed to pay taxes, I'm still responsible for paying them (if congress lays a tax on some income I make).

So, there in plain english is the law that allows congress to collect a federal income tax. One might try to quibble that 'the IRS' isn't the congress, but remember that the constitution also grants congress the right to raise an army...but noone expects to see congressmen going into battle (unfortunately). The IRS doesn't decide what the taxes will be, congress does. The IRS just oversees collection.

So, feel free to refute my interpretation, or admit your error. Unfortunately I've been on the Internet long enough to have high hopes for neither.


No one likes to pay taxes. However, we should recognize where they go. In the US, that means:

o The military.
o Medicare and Medicaid.
o Public education.
o Regulation (EPA, FDA, TLA, etc.)
o Law enforcement (FBI), intellegence (CIA), and homeland security.
o Various infrastructure projects in the states (roads, the interstate highway system, etc.

Let's pretend your fantasy is reality, and noone has to pay federal taxes. All of the above goes away. Effectively, we have no federal government, no 'U' in USA. 50 separate countries. How is that better than what we have now? Essentially we become like Europe, southeast Asia, South America, or Africa. Is that better than what we have now? Not really. Some of those countries are approximately equal to ours as far as standard of living goes. Most are worse. Some much worse. Citizens in all of them still have to pay taxes. Most of the countries with an approximately equal standard of living pay more taxes than we do. So what do you hope to achieve? Selfishly not pay taxes while the rest of us do? Achieve utopia, where you don't pay taxes, but recieve all the benefits?

LazyBoy

All this talk of not paying taxes.....So what happens if it ACTUALLY happens and nobody pays taxes?

This country would go to shit

-Will

__________________
Life is nothing, everything.....and something in between...

Sun Tzu

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit.
Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation,
therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.
No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by
conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by
the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) 28th US President


What is fantastical to me how this doesnt bother you to the point you will defend it.



This doesnt have to turn into a cynical sarcastic conversation, I do understand the frustration. This has been discussed many times here it doesn’t matter how many points with links someone puts up- no views are going to change. In your agitation with someone like me you perceive as possibly selfish, I am equally with a system that drains the lifeblood of the populous.



I believe utopia is impossible under any circumstances. I am not for complete anarchy and have no problem paying for services the community in which I live needs.

You say recognize where they go . . . .

Lets put income taxes aside-


Payroll Taxes
Capital Gains Taxes
Sales Taxes
Gift Taxes
Retirement Taxes
Tariffs
Tolls
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
*Coming soon value added taxes

Why is a private institution whose chair openly admit they are above all branches of the government printing our money and collecting "income taxes" on money its printing and selling it to us on interest. We pay it back with worthless money we labored for that had debt attached to it from creation (clicks on a keyboard). It can never be paid back with debt attached.


Why does the FRB continue to refuse being audited? We dont have a right?

Its printing the money (worthless notes) we use and charging interest on top of which means it can never be repaid.

http://whatistaxed.com/26cfr1.861-8T.pdf

If you have the time, look here for more "definitions". ---or not

A. Go to US Government Printing Office GPO Home Page
B. Click on Simple Search
C. Enter Title 26, and Search for...
excluded income - Sec. 861
eliminated income - Sec. 861
eliminated items - Sec. 861
specific sources - Sec. 861
specific guidance - Sec. 861
the sources of income for purposes of the income tax - Sec. 861
exempt, eliminated, or excluded income - Sec. 861
exempt income - Sec. 861 - Use <i>exempt income</i> for italics
“exempt income” - Sec. 861 - Use &ldquo;exempt income&rdquo; for quotes
“deductions” - Sec. 861 - Use &ldquo;deductions&rdquo;
deductions to excluded income - Sec. 861
how to determine taxable income - Sec. 861
income that is exempt or excluded - Sec. 861 (Excluded Income)
income that is not considered tax exempt - Sec. 861 (Taxable Income)

All of these topics are located in Section 861 ...according to the GPO.

Section


Don't believe your income is exempt? In order to confirm Section 861 does apply to every "citizen" of the "United States," search statutes (USC) & regulations (CFR).
"Federal tax law begins with the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), enacted by Congress in Title 26 of the United States Code (26 U.S.C.)."
Tax Code, Regulations and Official Guidance

"Treasury Regulations (26 C.F.R.)--commonly referred to as Federal tax regulations-- pick up where the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) leaves off"
Tax Code, Regulations and Official Guidance


Even the IRS agrees ... USC + CFR = Income tax law
The law "begins" with 26USC, and isn't complete without 26CFR
Note: "The Service is bound by the regulations." - Internal Revenue Manual 4.10.7.2.3.4



Its a long letter below. I didnt write it, but I am going to send this out certified mail tomorrow I will post the response I recieve here in the forum.

IRS Disclosure Office 11
30 East 7th Street
MS 7000 STP, Ste 810
St. Paul, MN 55101

Date
Request for Law and IR Code Clarification
To Whom it may concern:
I am, under the Freedom of Information Act, (FOIA), or any other applicable laws governing information requests, requesting some answers to questions I cannot find answers to in either the IR Code, or from tax experts or accountants. I am liable to know what the laws say and to comply with them, and am requesting this clarification from you, the experts, to be sure of things:
"Whatever the form in which the government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority, even though the agent himself may be unaware of limitations upon his authority." The United States Supreme Court, Federal Crop Ins. Corp, v. Merrill, 332 US 380 388 (1947).
“Persons dealing with the government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation." Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Lavin v Marsh,
644 f.2D 1378, (1981).
"All persons in the United States are chargeable with knowledge of the Statutes at Large... It is well established that anyone who deals with the government assumes the risk that the agent acting in the government's behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority." Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093, 9th Cir., (1981).
Since I cannot locate any such answers, I am contacting the IRS for these answers, and until I am satisfied that there are legal and constitutional laws saying otherwise, I am stating that I believe I am not a legal “taxpayer” as the IRS so often categorizes citizens without any evidence... I am also rescinding any signature on any 1040 or other tax form in the past which
might suggest that I agree that I was or am a “taxpayer” required to file 1040 forms or pay “income” taxes. I believe I was misled by the IRS and others on this issue in the past. (Emphasis mine throughout).
I wish to fully comply with the laws of the land, and am looking forward to your response, per your own IR Mission Statement:
1.2.1.2.1 (Approved 12-18-1993)
P-1-1
1. Mission of the Service: Provide America's taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all.
1.2.1.2.1 (Approved 12-18-1993)
P-1-1
2. Tax matters will be handled in a manner that will promote public confidence. All tax matters between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service are to be resolved within established administrative and judicial channels. Service employees, in handling such matters in their official relations with taxpayers (I believe that is NOT me) or the public,
(I believe that would be me) will conduct themselves in a manner that will promote public confidence in themselves and the Service. Employees will be impartial and will not use methods which are threatening or harassing in their dealings with the public.
I am requesting the following:
1. Please tell me what type of tax, “income” tax is; Direct or Indirect, and by what rule “income” taxes are being imposed...
"Thus, in the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: the rule of apportionment as to direct taxes and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts and excises." Pollock v. Farmers' Loan &amp; Trust Co. 158, U.S.
601, at 637 (1895).
If the “income” tax is neither a direct or indirect tax, please state what type of tax it is and how it complies with the constitutional requirement under direct or indirect taxation.
2. I have been told that the 16th Amendment is the authority the IRS has to tax citizens as they do, however, I find conflicting case law stating otherwise:
"We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulations of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it..."
"But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions under it (the 16th Amendment), if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result
of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states. This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply
confusion."
"...the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source... on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 11 (1916).
3. Please provide documentation showing where in the IR Code I am made a
“taxpayer” as compared to a “non-taxpayer,” and what laws are binding on me as a private human being, making me a legal taxpayer required to file a 1040 form.
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers and not to non-taxpayers. The latter are without their scope.
No procedure is prescribed for non-taxpayers and no attempt is made to annul
any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws. Persons who are not taxpayers are not within the system and can obtain no benefit by following the procedures prescribed for taxpayers..." United States Court of Claims, Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States, 470 Fwd 585, at 589 (1972).
Absent any laws that make me a “taxpayer,” I can only conclude that I am NOT a “taxpayer” until I am made so in law or through a taxable activity, or volunteer to be so.
4. Please provide documentation showing where in the IR Code it makes me personally “liable” for income taxes. I can see where the IR Code is plain about alcohol, tobacco and firearm taxes, and who is liable... those who make or sell these items.
26 U.S.C. 4002 and 4003 specify not only who is primarily liable, but who is secondarily liable for the Luxury Passenger Automobile Excise Tax. See also: 26 U.S.C. 4051 and 4052 (Heavy Trucks and Trailers Excise Tax); 26 U.S.C. 4071 (Tire Manufacture Excise Tax); 26 U.S.C. 4219 (Manufacturers Excise Tax); 26 U.S.C. 4401 (Tax on Wagers); 26 U.S.C. 4411 (Wagering Occupational Tax); 26 U.S.C. 4483 (Vehicle Use Tax); 26
U.S.C. 4611 (Tax on Petroleum); 26 U.S.C. 4662 (Tax on Chemicals); 26 U.S.C. 4972 (Tax on Contributions to Qualified Employer Pension Plans); 26 U.S.C. 4980B (Excise Tax on Failure to Satisfy Continuation Coverage Requirements of Group Health Plans);26 U.S.C. 4980D (Excise Tax on Failure to Meet Certain Group Health Plan
Requirements); 26 U.S.C. 4980F (Excise Tax on Failure of Applicable Plans Reducing Benefit Accruals to Satisfy Notice Requirements); 26 U.S.C. 5005 (Gallonage Tax on Distilled Spirits); 26 U.S.C. 5043 (Gallonage Tax on Wines); 26 U.S.C. 5232 (Storage Tax on Imported Distilled Spirits); 26 U.S.C. 5364 (Tax on Wine Imported in Bulk); 26 U.S.C. 5418 (Tax on Beer Imported in Bulk); 26 U.S.C. 5703 (Excise Tax on
Manufacture of Tobacco Products); and 26 U.S.C. 5751 (Tax on Purchase, Receipt, Possession or Sale of Tobacco Products), to name a few.
However, I cannot find anything making me personally liable, as a private citizen, for income taxes; "Keeping in mind the well settled rule, that the citizen is exempt from taxation, unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom
the tax is sought to be laid." Spreckles Sugar Refining Co. vs. McLain: 192 US 397.
The IR Code DOES NOT, in a “clear and unequivocal” manner, make liable. Can you please tell me where this liability is imposed?
5. Please provide documentation as to where in the IR Code the word “income” is legally defined. This is not a request for the general “definition” as stated in CFR - 1.61-
1...
Gross income. General definition. Gross income means all income from whatever source derived unless excluded by law.
Or...
Section 22 GROSS INCOME:
(a): Gross income includes* gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service..."
The word “income” is not defined in either place. If no IR Code definition source is
available, please provide your definition as used in law, and certify, or please provide direction as to where I can find these definitions and laws.
I can only locate such case laws and testimony regarding what “income” is through the following few examples (of which there are dozens more) of case laws:
"The statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them." Edwards v. Keith, 231 F. 110 (2nd Cir.
1916).
"The general term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code." US v Ballard, 535 F2d 400, 404, (1976).
"...income; as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in. The true function of the words 'gains' and "profits' is to limit the meaning of the word 'income." S. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 F. 330. (1918).
"It becomes essential to distinguish between what is, and what is not "income"... Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate,
and within whose limitations alone, that power can be lawfully exercised....[Income is] Derived--from--capital--the--gain--derived--from-capital, etc. Here we have the essential matter--not gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit something of exchangeable value...severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is received
or drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit and disposal-- that is the income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.... "The words 'gain' and
'income' mean the same thing. They are equivalent terms..." - Congressional Globe, 37th Congress 2nd Session, pg. 1531.
"The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulations, make income of that which is not income within the meaning of revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment." Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F2d 575. (1943)
"Under the Internal Revenue Act of 1954 if there is no gain, there is no income." - 26
U.S.C.A. '54, Sec. 61(a).
"There must be gain before there is 'income' within the 16th Amendment." U.S.C.A. Const. Am 16.
"The true function of the words 'gains' and profits' is to limit the meaning of the word 'income' and to show its use only in the sense of receipts which constituted an accretion to capital. So the function of the word 'income 'should be to limit the meaning of the words 'gains' and profits." Southern Pacific v. Lowe. Federal Reporter Vol. 238 pg. 850.
See also, Walsh v. Brewster. Conn. 1921, 41 S.Ct. 392, 255 U.S. 536, 65 L.Ed. 762..
"I assume that every lawyer will agree with me that we can not legislatively interpret meaning of the word "income." That is a purely judicial matter... The word "income" has a well defined meaning before the amendment of the Constitution was adopted. It has been defined in all of the courts of this ountry... If we could call anything that we pleased income, we could obliterate all the distinction between income and principal.
The Congress can not affect the meaning of the word "income" by any legislation whatsoever... Obviously the people of this country did not intend to give to Congress the power to levy a direct tax upon all the property of this country without apportionment."
1913 Congressional Record, pg. 3843, 3844 Senator Albert B. Cummins.
"...Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit..." Laureldale
Cemetery Assc. v. Matthews. 47 Atlantic 2d. 277 (1946).
"Simply put, pay from a job is a 'wage,' and wages are not taxable. Congress has taxed INCOME, not compensation (wages and salaries)." - Conner v. U.S. 303 F Supp. 1187
(1969).
"The poor man or the man in moderate circumstances does not regard his wages or salary as an income that would have to pay its proportionate tax under this new system." Gov. A.E. Wilson on the Income Tax (16th) Amendment, N.Y. Times, Part 5,
Page 13, February 26, 1911.
"Income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment and Revenue Act, means 'gains '...and in such connection 'gain' means profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit and disposal..." Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor. Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED
PA, 1937].
"There is a clear distinction between 'profit' and 'wages' or 'compensation for labor.' Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law...The word profit is a different thing altogether from mere compensation for labor...The claim that salaries, wages and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who performed the services which produced the gain is without support either in the language of the Act or in the
decisions of the courts construing it and is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to Regulations of the Treasury Department..." U.S. v. Balard, 575 F. 2D 400 (1976), c v.
Halstead, 196 VA 992; 86 S.E. Rep. 2D 858:
"Income, as defined by the supreme Court means, 'gains and profits as a result of
corporate activity and profit gained through the sale or conversion of capital assets.'"
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 240 U.S. 103, Stratton's Independence v. Howbert 231 U.S.
399. Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co. 247 U.S. 179, Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, Evans
v. Gore 253 U.S. 245, Merchants Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka 225 U.S. 509. (1921).
"Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now the situation is as different as day and night. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply," Testimony of Dwight E. Avis,
Head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, before the House Ways and Means committee on Restructuring the IRS (83rd Congress, 1953).
As a private citizen, I cannot disregard precedent case law or evidence that clearly overrides the lack of legal definitions for “income” as being what the IRS claims it is... “wages, salaries and compensation.”
Without any legal definition from the IRS for the word “income” that is evidence in fact, I cannot ascertain whether I have any actual, legal “income” except to accept the above case law, and cannot file any 1040 form, under oath that I have actual income to report,
until such proof is forth coming that counters the IRS position on what “income” is.
6. Please provide documentation as to how the IRS can violate the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) OMB number requirements on the 1040 form,
especially where the law states... PRA Section 3507(g) and 5 CFR Section 1320.8(b)(1). Those sections mandate that OMB control numbers must expire after three years, even if the IRS made no changes to its 1040 form during that time. Form 1040 has had the same OMB control number for 24 years, making it a bootleg form;
"The Senate Report analysis of Sec. 3512 states that 21 [i]nformation collection requests which do not display a current control number or, if not, indicate why not are to be considered 'bootleg' requests and may be ignored by the public.... These are the only circumstances under which a person may justify the failure to maintain information for or provide information to any agency otherwise required, by reliance on this Act. S. Rep. No. 930, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 52, reprinted in 1980 U.S. Code Cong.
& Admin. News 6241, 6292.
44 U.S.C. 3512. (4) prohibits agencies from penalizing those who fail to respond to Federal collections of information that do not display valid OMB control numbers. The Act also prohibits agencies from penalizing those who have not been informed that a response is not required unless the collection of information displays a valid control number. Both of these public protections "may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative
process or judicial action applicable thereto."

I look forward to your help in understanding the laws so I may comply with them.
Sincerely,
************

document on this _______ day of ___________________________, 2009;
__________________________ SEAL
(NOTARY PUBLIC)

The irony is I have found many ways to make the system work for me and be profitable. Its not about trying to get out of contributing to improving the Amercian society. Its about questioning how and why the 16th ammendment process and the federal reserve act gave a small group of people the power and authority to profit and rule simply because of who they are- and having the audacity to know YOU cant do anything about it. That is except the man this thread is about of course.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

dippin

The news that this thread is based on is not the courts finding taxes unconstitutional. It is a jury finding a man not guilty a crime. Contrary to popular belief, it does not set any precedents or anything like that. It'd be like claiming that OJ simpson being found not guilty was the same as overturning laws on murder.

Sun Tzu

Its a start. Federal income taxes unfortunately are directly link to the fed's collection agency - the IRS. So there really is to issues going on here the validity of income tax in general and the format under which its conducted. In MY view any story remotely close to this terrority is strong.

Even so I never stated it was setting precendents. This is a subject that has many layers and directions.

I expressed I liked hearing a story such as this. Is that acceptable? or . . .

I'm probably getting edgy.

You are most likely ONLY justifiably making your point and I'm wondering if this place is just a mecca for people to gather and jolt out sarcastic lines to one another. If its really about feeling satisfied from setting someone straight in the cyberworld then I should practice not to fall inito the shortcoming of taking things personally. Nothing wrong with openly stating if one thinks another view is . . . bullshit, right.

This is one piece of information I havent look into and probably wont so if you know please share how many other cases are similiar?

I disagree with your analogy, however that is just my opinion. I should know better than to enter a thread about this subject, it usually ends with a negative overtone so I will part for a while. My next post will be the reply I receive from the letter.

Dippin I appologize if a strayed too far from acceptable topic parameters or pulled too great a stretch.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Xerxys

So, so far I have learned only two things from this thread.

1) That Taxes in the US are unconstitutional, and ..
2) That Taxes in the US are excessive. <- Only point I agree with BTW.

Point one I feel people merely "think" it's unfair to pay taxes. My interest is therefore diminished ... lol

dippin

I really have no idea why you went into this whole thing about satisfaction about setting someone straight and so on.

My point about this being a jury decision on a criminal matter wasn't to simply nitpick or to question your right to start this thread.

In fact, you were not even the first one to mention the word "precedent" in this thread.

But in a discussion over the legality of taxes stemming from an acquittal in a jury decision, it is important to keep in mind simply that jury decisions like that do not set precedent. The legality of the laws he supposedly violated were not being questioned, and the jury had no power to alter them or their current interpretation. All the jury did was find him not guilty of breaking those laws.

Sure, my post was a more immediate reaction to a sentence you have since edited out of your post, but it was far from being the sole motivation.

---------- Post added at 01:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 AM ----------


Regarding taxes being excessive: I think "excess" taxes are a matter of what one intends to use those taxes for. And that is where I have a major problem with existing right wing populism*: taxes are quite low in comparison to spending, and in fact insufficient to maintain the current levels of spending. And unlike what right wing populists tell us, cutting foreign aid, welfare, bail outs and earmarks is not at all sufficient to make up the difference. Tax revenues were insufficient long before Obama took office. The fact is that to avoid tax increases there would have to be deep cuts in military spending, medicare, social security and infrastructure. And those cuts in medicare and social security would have to come without cutting a single dime in their contributions.

Just to be clear: for 2009 when you add defense, medicare, social security, transportation and interest on the debt, you have more than total revenues. If the budget was limited to current tax revenues, the military alone would be responsible for almost 40% of the budget.


* Not everyone who wants less taxes is a right wing populist. But if you want and you think you can have lower taxes without cutting spending on the military, social security, and medicare, you are wrong and likely a right wing populist.

indago

Congressman George W. Fithian of Illinois declared: "An income tax places burdens upon accumulated wealth, where they can be most easily borne. It is right, because it exacts tribute of accumulation and not of endeavor. ...The artisan who goes forth to labor for his daily bread must pay upon the tools he works with; the brickmason upon his trowel, the carpenter upon his chisel and plane, the wood-chopper upon his ax, the miner upon his pick, and so on through all the list of wage-earners, yet none escape taxes upon what they eat and wear."

Congressman T. J. Hudson of Kansas declared: "an income tax will not touch a hair upon the head of a laboring man in the United States."

Mr. James C. Carter, an attorney, and a most respected member of the bar of New York, arguing before the Supreme Court of the United States for his client, Continental Trust Co., and for the governments' new income tax, 28 Stat. 509, 553, summed up the efforts of the lawmakers: "The view taken by the Congress which passed the tax law in question is plain on its face. The object was to redress in some degree the flagrant inequality by which the great mass of the people were made to furnish nearly all the revenue, and leave the very wealthy classes to furnish very little of it in comparison with their means. Of course, nothing, therefore, was to be taken from the wages of labor, or from very small incomes proceeding from other sources than labor."

The "income tax" was enacted to lighten the burden of taxation upon the working man. But there are those who not only pay a tax upon their tools, clothing, and etc., they also pay a tax that "was enacted to lighten the burden of taxation upon the working man", and further, they argue vehemently in favor of doing so, and want everyone else to pay it too.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
British Officer: "You don't think we're just going to walk out of India?"

Gandhi: "Yes. In the end, you will walk out, because 100,000 Englishmen simply cannot control 350,000,000 Indians if those Indians refuse to cooperate. And that is what we intend to achieve: peaceful, nonviolent, non-cooperation — till you, yourselves, see the wisdom of leaving"
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------- Post added at 06:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 AM ----------

The Solicitor General for the government, in an amicus curiae brief, had made the argument: "The Sixteenth Amendment removed the restriction of apportionment as to such income taxes as before were subject thereto." The Court, in their opinion, in which there was no dissent, and noting this "confusion", declared this to be an "erroneous assumption" on the part of the government, and "wholly without foundation". The Court declared that "it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation"; and that the amendment simply prohibited the income tax from being taken from the category of indirect taxation, and being placed into the category of a direct tax.

It was also explained that the Congress of the United States had no intention of destroying the two great classes of taxation by the wording of the Sixteenth Amendment, but placed an income tax into the category of taxation in which it inherently belonged; the indirect class, or excise, and because the tax is not apportioned, nor subject to the census or enumeration, it is an excise tax, a tax upon the exercise of privileges, such taxes not being subject to the condition of apportionment to the States.

indago

There is a distinct difference between the individual and a business. Business has no rights in comparison to the individual, who has the Bill of Rights to fall back upon, such as Article Four of the Bill of Rights, which declares that it is "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects". An individual has no obligation whatsoever to deliver up his papers and effects to anyone, especially government. On the other hand, business is a creation of governments, and is obligated to keep books and records, and to deliver them up for inspection at the call of governments.


------------------------------------------------------------
"Who would believe the ironic truth that the cooperative taxpayer fares much worse than the individual who relies upon his constitutional rights." — Federal Circuit Court Judge Cummins - United States v. Dickerson, 413 F.2d 1111.

Teknikid

The "apportionment" clause of that does not mean what you seem to think it means. An apportioned tax meant the bill given the state by the feds was proportional to its population. It has nothing to do with the whether the states get any of the money.

Half of the items you listed aren't even constitutional for the feds. And in regards to 'selfishly not pay taxes' as you put it, here we go again with that "pay your fair share" mentality. What for? What are these wonderful benefits you speak of? I'm taxed and get nothing tangible in return. I refer to income taxes only. We must have some tax structure, but they can be something other than stealing the sweat off one's back. Those constitutional taxes are already specified in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution. This "fiar share" crap should stop. A good chunk of it goes only to pay interest on the national debt. You call that a benefit? It is - for those reaping the profits on the interest payments! Wow, my tax bucks at work.

---------- Post added at 08:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:37 PM ----------

I have read the books "The Law That Never Was." I am amazed that we are still allowing this fraud to continue. They say ignorance of the law is no excuse, and they are right. This is one of many laws that shoud be examined by everyone for its lack of validity. What about the tax resistance folks who asked the IRS to show them the law that makes them liable for the tax? If there is such a law, why doesn't the IRS tell them? All they have to is say "Look, here is it in section X, paragraph Y, subsection Z. Now shut up and go home." They won't do it. They won't because they can't. If you get a speeding ticket, you will find on the citation (and often times quoted from the citing officer) the statute that makes one liable for the fine on the citation. If state troopers can do it, so can the IRS. Tommy Cryer is on to something. We should all get on that bandwagon.

robot_parade

From: wikipedia:

Do you have a citation for you interpretation of the 16th amendment? The states already get plenty of federal money. I don't see the disagreement here.

Common defense.

General welfare

General welfare

General welfare

General welfare & common defense

General welfare.

Well, the military is the largest single part of the budget. You get them in exchange for the sweat off your back, don't you? After that, medicare and medicaid - I'm getting the impression that you never intend to avail yourself of these services, but lots of people who never intended to, do. Maybe you never intend to have children, or drive on the interstate, or breathe clean air, or go to a national park. The Federal government (of, by, and for the people) does all that with our tax money. What will you get rid of?

I've already addressed why the taxes being levies are constitutional. The national debt and deficit are a huge problem. The budget must be balanced. That's a different issue, however.

Did you read the wikipedia article?

The Law that Never Was - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FuglyStick

It's a cut-and-paste orgy ITT.

Don't pay your taxes. Let me know how that goes for you.

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!

Xerxys

---------- Post added at 09:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:52 AM ----------

I've been thinking about this, and I would prefer that I not have to pay for medicare and social security. I honestly believe I will be screwed later on when it comes to collecting when the time comes. That and I pay for helath insurance by myself.

I'm all for military spending. Living in a country that has a "big stick" so to speak is comforting in a perverted kinda way.

Baraka_Guru

This thread reminds me of a quotation Charlatan had in his signature for awhile:

"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization." —Oliver Wendell Holmes

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Bill O'Rights

Couldn't have said it better myself.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

dksuddeth

good ol' benevolent uncle sam.



what happens when you don't pay taxes?



you WILL pay taxes, or else.

gotta love my benevolent government, there for my protection.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

Yeah, we are all so oppressed.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

if you could only ask the 80+ people at waco.......what would they say?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

I don't tend to query religious extremists.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

is there no longer a freedom of religion? or only those religions you approve of?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

Thinking in binaries is seldom very fruitful.

Do you think it's merely a question of religion? Some would say that what Al Qaeda does is merely a question of religion. Should sympathies be spared for them as well?

You need not worry. The lion's share of the wrongdoings precipitated by your federal government is targeted at non-Americans. And there is now a long list of such activities. Why not focus on those? They're the ones that cost the most.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

unless the issue works to their advantage. something i've seen alot of lately.

depends on whether those religious activities are targeted at attacking innocent people or preparing to defend themselves against other entities.

apparently you haven't figured out that my wariness of the federal government doesn't matter whether it's activities are aimed at non americans or not. they can easily switch targets and have done so several times in history.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

Such as?

Since when is stockpiling illegal weapons a religious activity? Is sex abuse a religious activity as well?

You make it sound like the M.O. of the federal government is just to go around and destroy indiscriminately. What do you mean by "easily switch targets"? Is it some kind of blind hungry monster?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

are you intentionally being obtuse? you know as well as I, that many people on here think in binary terms, yourself included.

one doesn't have to do with the other. You alluded to not asking religious extremists about not paying taxes. what does that have to do with stockpiling weapons? nothing. so lets not try to wrap it all up in to one neat little package.

what sex abuse? the allegations that were made AFTER the initial siege? those allegations that were obviously the government ploy to swing popular opinion against the 'tax evaders'?

the M. O. of any government is to limit and restrict freedom. History shows us this anywhere. As far as switching targets, government will go after anything and anyone it perceives as a threat to its own power.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

FuglyStick

Er, no. Just, no. Just way, way, wtf no.

I'd go into depth, but I don't have the years it would take to deprogram you.

__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!