Income Tax?

[dcrooksjr]

if you found it then post it.
claim your 50,000
then I can use the law to keep the Browns from taking a bullet.

I am however highly skeptical that you found the law, when people in government claim it doesn't exist.

[boomhauer]

he must have found that law that says you have to pay it only if the federal government makes you. something that there is in the state govt. i forget the exact wording but something like that. it does not mean you have to pay its just worded to make it seem like you have to pay.

[jonny_lech]

Criminals don't pay taxes on money earned through illicit means (stealing, selling drugs, prostitution, etc). Some of it gets 'laundered", etc. But by using cash on consumable goods, they can simply not report a good chunk of it. IE the IRS usually looks at your assets when auditing you. So if I sell drugs and I use that drug money I don't launder to buy groceries, steak dinners, etc. I'm relatively safe, because there's no easy way for the IRS to deduce that I went down to Morton's on May 2nd instead of eating Mac & Cheese at home.

But if we moved to a national sales tax, this wouldn't be the case. I had to pay the sales tax when I bought the steak.

National Sales Tax: End the tax favored status of criminals!

PS it would also end all debate as to if illegal immigrants pay taxes or not!

[dcrooksjr]

I like this segment from America from Freedom to Facism. Aaron walks up to a guy on the street.

Aaron: Have you even seen the law that requires you to pay an income tax?
Guy on street: No.
Aaron: So you have never seen the law?
Guy on street: The law, the law is those guys with badges and guns that come and put you in jail. Thats the law.

Another woman tells Aaron: If I wasn't afraid of them then I wouldn't pay.

They tax our income through fear not legality. I don't fear paying any of my other taxes but I hate filling out a w-2 because I waive my right to self incrimination by filling in that form and if I make a tiny mistake even if it wasn't on purpose I can get in big trouble, thankfully I have't made any mistakes.
I may not like paying taxes but I shouldn't have to fear them either. The mafia didn't go away they still exist. Except now we call the the IRS instead of Mafia. The IRS extorts the American people for our money so that their bosses the private federal reserve can have their cash. Edited July 23, 2007 by dcrooksjr

[nestormakhno]

I like this segment from America from Freedom to Facism. Aaron walks up to a guy on the street.

Aaron: Have you even seen the law that requires you to pay an income tax?
Guy on street: No.
Aaron: So you have never seen the law?
Guy on street: The law, the law is those guys with badges and guns that come and put you in jail. Thats the law.

Another woman tells Aaron: If I wasn't afraid of them then I wouldn't pay.

They tax our income through fear not legality. I don't fear paying any of my other taxes but I hate filling out a w-2 because I waive my right to self incrimination by filling in that form and if I make a tiny mistake even if it wasn't on purpose I can get in big trouble, thankfully I have't made any mistakes.
I may not like paying taxes but I shouldn't have to fear them either. The mafia didn't go away they still exist. Except now we call the the IRS instead of Mafia. The IRS extorts the American people for our money so that their bosses the private federal reserve can have their cash.

I think that little segment just shows how demented people are. If you're doing nothing wrong, why would you be afraid of the IRS? It's ridiculous. It was even more ridiculous in the pre-9/11 US. Now, at least they can accuse you of being a terrorist or something. But tax evasion? When you file your taxes every year? I laugh.

By the way, to whoever it was who's still arguing about the existence of the income tax law with me: think about it logically. If there was actually no law, do you really think that every tax attorney in the United States wouldn't have filed numerous lawsuits to not pay taxes? Doesn't it strike you as odd that only, like, five FORMER IRS agents are aware of this gargantuan, Masonic tax conspiracy?

[dcrooksjr]

beleive what you will. I know thats theirs no law and more and more people are starting to figure this out.
But I tell you again $50,000 is a lot of money if you think that their is a law, look it up present it to them and claim your prize.
Another thing I find odd is they will not show us the law that says I have to pay, I can ask for the law that forbids theft, murder, vandalizism, traffic crimes etc. But when in comes to the income tax they absolutley will not show the law and really thats all the Browns want is to be shown the law.
If it exists how come it is so hard to just show us the law?
Watch America from Freedom to Facism and Money Masters on google video and you'll see.

[nestormakhno]

In response, I'll offer you a bit of counter-advice: stop believing everything you see in propagandist videos.

Now, before I get flogged for being a conservative hick, I'll just say that I don't believe that liberal media is propaganda. Documentaries, however, are, because whether you like it or not, they offer a point of view. Nothing is neutral. So, when I see some source showcasing (hehe, alliteration) those aforementioned five IRS agents who proclaim that there is no law requiring you to pay taxes, I kind of have to giggle, because I realize the implications of there not actually being a law.

All I'm saying - besides the fact that I have a link to the friggin' thing - is that the entire industry of tax law relies on there being a tax... law. One cannot exist without the other, and those are the people I'd believe over IRS employees. Just because you work at the DMV doesn't mean you know how to drive.

[Sonthert]

Its really just semantic bullshit. How could an amendment to the constitution of the United States be declared unconstitutional? :lol:That may be the dumbest thing I've heard. The purpose of amendments is to modify the constitution...their ratification changes the constitution to make the amendment legal and constitutional.

#2, like much of that video, semantic arguments blown way out of proportion. Bizarre logic, too. The 16th amendment granted Congress no new taxing power. OK, fine, lets assume that its true. Congress didn't need any new taxing power, the only important change that occurred which created modern income tax was allowing direct taxes to be non-apportioned. That was the only thing that made modern income taxes illegal in 1912. The 16th amendment changed all that. Congress already had the power to make an income tax, only it needed to be redistributed evenly among the people. Not so anymore.

Actually, I didn't get it backwards. It wasn't all that clear what I should have said was the Supreme Court would rule whichever way would benefit the IRS, a FL court, that had no stake in federal income tax, would tend to rule towards the people. In the case of a state income tax, they will nail you to a crucifix.

There are procedural laws in the US, that is there is no official law that makes them so, its just a convention that its done that way. For instance, the President of the Senate is the Vice President of United States. Of course, if the Vice President of the United States is away, Article 1, Section 3, Clause 5 of the Constitution authorize a President of the Senate Pro Tempore. In its current manifestation, the Pro Tempore President is the most senior member of the majority party of the Senate. The person is elected at the beginning of each Congress. The constitution reads very differently in the matter. Find the law that authorizes the the President of the Senate Pro Tempore to be essentially appointed at the beginning of each Congress from the majority party's most senior member. Its a custom, there is no law. Is income tax? No, its in the Constitution. Congress has the right to levy taxes.

[nestormakhno]

Its really just semantic bullshit. How could an amendment to the constitution of the United States be declared unconstitutional? :lol:That may be the dumbest thing I've heard. The purpose of amendments is to modify the constitution...their ratification changes the constitution to make the amendment legal and constitutional.

#2, like much of that video, semantic arguments blown way out of proportion. Bizarre logic, too. The 16th amendment granted Congress no new taxing power. OK, fine, lets assume that its true. Congress didn't need any new taxing power, the only important change that occurred which created modern income tax was allowing direct taxes to be non-apportioned. That was the only thing that made modern income taxes illegal in 1912. The 16th amendment changed all that. Congress already had the power to make an income tax, only it needed to be redistributed evenly among the people. Not so anymore.

Actually, I didn't get it backwards. It wasn't all that clear what I should have said was the Supreme Court would rule whichever way would benefit the IRS, a FL court, that had no stake in federal income tax, would tend to rule towards the people. In the case of a state income tax, they will nail you to a crucifix.

There are procedural laws in the US, that is there is no official law that makes them so, its just a convention that its done that way. For instance, the President of the Senate is the Vice President of United States. Of course, if the Vice President of the United States is away, Article 1, Section 3, Clause 5 of the Constitution authorize a President of the Senate Pro Tempore. In its current manifestation, the Pro Tempore President is the most senior member of the majority party of the Senate. The person is elected at the beginning of each Congress. The constitution reads very differently in the matter. Find the law that authorizes the the President of the Senate Pro Tempore to be essentially appointed at the beginning of each Congress from the majority party's most senior member. Its a custom, there is no law. Is income tax? No, its in the Constitution. Congress has the right to levy taxes.

Not that I think it's a venerated vade mecum or anything, but Eric, you should read the Wikipedia article on the "validity of ratification" of the 16th amendment. Talk about linguistic masturbation, lol.

Lastly, going by the 16th amendment alone, wouldn't you think that if Congress has the power to levy taxes - and you're a law-abiding citizen - that you have to abide by the law laid down by Congress? So, by default, you have to pay taxes, based on the 16th amendment only...?

P.S. Aaron Russo is a media hack who throws the Nazi label around a tad too liberally. Lyndon LaRouche called. He wants his smearing campaign back.

[dcrooksjr]

The fact of the matter is that the way our system is designed we have three systems.
The legislative makes the laws say the 16th admendment.
The executive enforces said laws
And finally the Supreme Court upholds the laws, another function of the Supreme Court is to make sure that all laws and amendments our constitutional. Their are amendments that cannot be voided by future amendments and that is what the Supreme Court has up held by declaring the 16th amendment un-constitutional.

In response, I'll offer you a bit of counter-advice: stop believing everything you see in propagandist videos.

Now, before I get flogged for being a conservative hick, I'll just say that I don't believe that liberal media is propaganda. Documentaries, however, are, because whether you like it or not, they offer a point of view. Nothing is neutral. So, when I see some source showcasing (hehe, alliteration) those aforementioned five IRS agents who proclaim that there is no law requiring you to pay taxes, I kind of have to giggle, because I realize the implications of there not actually being a law.

All I'm saying - besides the fact that I have a link to the friggin' thing - is that the entire industry of tax law relies on there being a tax... law. One cannot exist without the other, and those are the people I'd believe over IRS employees. Just because you work at the DMV doesn't mean you know how to drive.

So then how do you explain the fact that they have faught in court with the IRS and have won based on previous supreme court descions that their is no vaild law that makes the individual liable to pay.

All I want to know is why the IRS will not give a straight answer to the American public about income tax they avoid the issue. I can ask the government to show me any law I choose that requires me to do some thing or that forbids me from doing something all except for the income taxes law that specifically states that I as an individual am required to pay.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7se2iNZEA00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdf6HsWt24M...;watch_response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lsHgDv0_kQ...ted&search= Edited July 24, 2007 by Sonthert

[Sonthert]

An amendment changes the constitution...what kind of semantic technicality are you trying to get away with? Amendments can't be unconstitutional. When they are passed, they become the official new part of the constitution. They don't have to have to be found constitutional, otherwise, all amendments would be found to be unconstitutional. Find a source to support that any amendment to the constitution has been found to be unconstitutional.

[nestormakhno]

The unconstitutionality of an amendment IS a bit vague. Even the Prohibition Amendment wasn't unconstitutional; it was simply nullified.

And I am still insisting upon logic here: if there really was no law, do you think that the American population - nay, fuck it, the richest people in this country, from Bill Gates to Warren Buffet - would bother paying taxes, while being able to afford someone to come and read them the Internal Revenue Code at night, cover to cover? It doesn't make sense. There is a law.

[Sonthert]

There a large number of laws that are used to avoid taxes, but to utilize them, you need to be rolling in large amounts of money. They are useless to average people. For instance, if you were to buy a commercial building (or a car or other capital item), you could claim depreciation as an expense, so your revenues would be defrayed, that is the amount of money you earned would be offset by a fictitious expense called depreciation. If you were to lease a building, you would also get to defray a larger expense called "rent". Now, if one company buys a piece of capital and then leases it to another company (even though they might be controlled by the same entity) then the same building (or other capital) is drawing an expense as depreciation and an expense as a rental. In other words, if the same entity only owned it and used it, without leasing it out, that entity wouldn't be getting the same tax break as an entity who leased it back from themselves. The wealthy don't need to worry about taxes being legal or not, because a large amount of tax law revolves around large purchases and exceptions for things that always include a lot of money...

[dcrooksjr]

"The Supreme Court, in the Stanton and Brushaber decisions of 1916, declare that the income tax, under the newly enacted 16th Amendment, does not create for the government any new power to tax. Ruling that because the tax is without apportionment (by virtue of the wording of the Amendment itself) then the tax that is authorized by the Amendment must be an Indirect tax because the provisions of Article I, at Section 2 - Clause 3, and Section 9 - Clause 4, still prohibit any direct tax from being laid unless it is apportioned to the States for collection. Since these pre-existing prohibitions on direct taxation in Article I were not repealed, anulled, or amended in conjunction with the passage of the 16th Amendment, clearly Congress never intended to remove this restriction/prohibition on direct taxation. Therefore, in order for the Constitution to remain consistent and not become inherently contradictory it is absolutely necessary to intepret the 16th Amendment as authorizing an Income Tax as an INdirect tax, NOT a direct one.

Article I still today absolutely prohibits the Federal government from taxing the American People directly unless the tax is apportioned to the State governments for collection. We the People have as much right, if not more, to rely on this Constitutional guarantee of protection from heavy-handed (direct) taxation, as the government has to rely on the 16th Amendment to allege a tax is due.

The Circuit courts and the Executive Branch of the government have chosen to operate in direct contradiction to this finding/ruling since Franklin Roosevelt was president. This rebellion within the government has, to this day, gone unannounced, remains unpublicized, and is still unaddressed by the American People. But the havoc and tyranny and despostism unleashed upon the American People by these treasonous snakes is obvious and apparent to anyone today familiar with the horror known as IRS tax collection operations.

The 1916 Supreme Court decisions were sound because the court recognized the potential inherent conflict created by the passage of the 16th Amendment - i.e. Article 1 demands that direct taxes be apportioned and prohibits direct taxation unless apportioned, while the 16th Amendment lays the income tax as a tax without apportionment. If the income tax is construed to be a direct tax, we have engineered the creation of an inherent contradiction within the Constitution by interpretation not actual language of the document, and thus rendered it worthless as a foundation at law upon which We the People can rely upon for the protection of our Rights and property. (Does it protect you from the takings of the IRS today ?).

In order to maintain the consistency of the Constitution, and in order to prevent it from coming into direct conflict with itself, the Court determined that 16th Amendment does not create any new power to tax, i.e.:the power to tax directly and without apportionment. So, as a tax without apportionment, the income tax must be laid as an INdirect tax, not a direct tax in order to not violate the other provisions of the Constitution regarding direct taxation.

Now, Indirect taxes are divided into three categories by the Constitution. Imposts, duties and excises. Imposts and duties are primarily related to the import and export of goods into and out of the country, and are mostly collected at the border - so excise is the only category of Indirect taxation left for the income tax to "fit" into. Excise taxes are taxes that are assumed by those persons who engage in activities that are made subject to the excise tax, and thus arise the claims that the tax is "voluntary" i.e- must be assumed by (voluntarily) engaging in some taxable activity. If one does not want to pay the tax, he simply can choose not to participate in the taxable activity.

The IRS today however, alleges and operates as if, and under the claim that, the 16th Amendment did indeed authorize the income tax as a direct tax without apportionment. This position is based on a number of obviously erroneous Circuit Court (inferior) rulings that have been handed down after 1916 - when the Supreme Court established the Constitutional truth (as laid out above). In these Circuit Court rulings, constitutionally ignorant or consciously treasonous judges rule that the 16th Amendment did authorize a new power to tax - i.e.: directly and without apportionment, foolishly reasoning that since the tax is authorized by the Amendment to be without apportionment it must be Direct (even though the Amendment does not say that), while ignoring the inherent conflict engineered within the Constitution by virtue of their ruling, and while ignoring the explicit correct logic, reasoning and decision of the Supreme Court handed down earlier, which should stand as the final word from the legal system. The Circuit Courts have apparently chosen to ignore the Supreme Court's rulings and controlling decisions and have created a line of decisions that are in direct conflict with both the Supreme Court and any consistent interpretation or reading of the Constitution of the United States of America, and that is a crime against America that must be addressed by the People of this great Nation.

So, the Circuit Courts and the Executive Branch (Treasury/IRS) have apparently chosen to ignore the Constitution and the Supreme Court, and operate in direct contradiction to, and in conflict with, the actual written law, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court rulings, in outright rebellion against all of them. This rebellion within the government itself remains unpublicized and unaddressed to this day, and therein lies the heart of the conflict in America today over the income tax laws. It's not the laws, or Section 61, or Section 1, or Section 6012, or anything else the government may allege in its futile attempts to undermine the People's knowledge of the Truth, it is this rebellion within the government itself, and the conflict between the People and the government over this issue will never be resolved until this treasonous rebellion within the government (by the judicial and executive branches) is recognized and addressed, and HALTED, restoring a Constitutional operation to our government's existence and tax collection systems."

http://www.tax-freedom.com/taxtruth.htm

"1895: In Pollock vs Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co, the Supreme Court rules that general income taxes are unconstitutional because they are unapportioned direct taxes. To this day, the ruling has not been over-turned.

June 15, 1909: After the Supreme Court ruled general income taxes unconstitutional, President Taft proposes three new taxes to Congress. A graduated inheritance tax, another general income tax, and a new corporate tax. In the attempt to bypass the Supreme Court’s Pollack ruling, Taft also proposes the 16th Amendment with the intention of taxing profits made from commercial activity.

1913: With the ratification of the 16th Amendment, Congress creates the federal internal income tax and the Federal Reserve Bank to fight the inflation caused by paper currency. All income tax collections are forwarded to the Federal Reserve to pay the interest on it's publicly circulated money. The withdrawal of currency from public circulation through the new tax and the new Federal Reserve stabilizes inflation.

January 24, 1916: In Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad, the Supreme Court ruled: that the 16th Amendment doesn’t over-rule the Court’s ruling in the Pollock case which declared general income taxes unconstitutional; The 16th Amendment applies only to gains and profits from commercial and investment activities: The 16th Amendment only applies to excises taxes; The 16th Amendment did not Amend the U.S. Constitution; The 16th Amendment only clarified the federal governments existing authority to create excise taxes without apportionment.

1939: Congress passes the Public Salary tax, taxing the wages of federal employees.

1940: Congress passes the Buck Act authorizing the federal government to tax federal workers living in the States.

1942, Congress passes the Victory Tax under Constitutional authority to support the WWII effort. President Roosevelt proposes a voluntary tax withholding program allowing workers across the nation to pay the tax in installments. The program is a success and the number of tax payers increases from 3 percent to 62 percent of the U.S. population.

1944: The Victory Tax and Voluntary Withholding laws are repealed as required by the U.S. Constitution, however, the federal government continues to collect the tax claiming it’s authority under the 1913 income tax and the 16th Amendment.

Today: A mixture of the 1913 income tax, the 16th Amendment. the Public Salary Act and the Victory tax has embedded itself as a legitimate tax on the people of the U.S. in spite of the long standing rulings by the Supreme Court that strictly limit the scope of any income tax."

http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/taxationtale.htm

Edit:Merged Posts

FRANK R. BRUSHABER, Appt., v, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. http://www.civil-liberties.com/cases/bru_case.html

Pollock vs Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1894/1894_893/
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getc...7&invol=429

Edit:Merged Posts Edited July 25, 2007 by Sonthert

[Sonthert]

Impressive post! Well worth the reading. I asked my lawyer for his point on the matter some months ago, his take was income tax is legal, but because of something called roughly customary procedural laws, that is laws that they make up, they can still punish you and put you in prison for certain things.

As I understand it, failing to file a tax return isn't a crime. Signing a false one is.

[dcrooksjr]

Thanks for the positive feedback.
The last thing I have to say based on that post is don't judge a documentary as conspiracy with out doing the research every thing that is in Freedom to Fascism as far as income tax is concerned is verifiable hence the supreme court cases.
I though Aaron did an excellent job presenting the evidence from both sides. He gives the tax honesty movement their say and the IRS got their turn.
The tax honesty movement cited real court cases that are out their in the public domain as well as constitutional law.
The IRS was shadowy and dodged the questions, a former IRS commissioner even told Aaron in plain english that the supreme court was irrelevant.
Witch under U.S law it is not, so since they (the IRS) think the supreme court is irrelevant this leads me to believe that they just make it up as they go along.
I'm sorry but I just do not believe the IRS. When they refuse to answer questions or dodge questions and refuse interviews it makes me wonder why.
On the other hand the tax honesty people in the video were very articulate, educated and they answered the questions with the law of the constitution and the previous supreme court decisions witch are still valid and are most certainly not irrelevant as the IRS wishes us to believe.
I firmly believe that the tax honesty movement is telling me the truth.

[Sonthert]

Yeah, but Russo's line of questions was asinine. What does "Voluntary Compliance mean?". Thats why the IRS guy got so pissed. The IRS wants you to file your taxes and pay your money, so they don't have to throw a big Capone-net over you. They want you to voluntarily comply. The IRS guy is confounded that somebody is asking this question, can't explain it simply (I can see him leaving, being several miles away and saying..."I Should have explained it this way...") and Russo is acting like its some sort of bizarre proof that people don't have to pay taxes. That end part with the satanic politician rituals, as a trailer, didn't help his case at all.

[dcrooksjr]

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

[Sonthert]

The problem is, of course, is that was a district court...again. It goes before the Supreme Court, they make a new ruling which validates income tax...good thing Bush got elected...twice...to load the Supreme Court with "Yes, sir" men.

[dcrooksjr]

Am I missing something that you know.
All the documentation shows me that the Supreme Court has a habit of ruling against the IRS and not for the IRS. Its the lower courts like the one in the article that you have to be vary of, isn't it.


Edit: Oh yeah I forgot that Dictator Bush got to select new judges. Edited July 30, 2007 by dcrooksjr

[Sonthert]

In state income tax cases, state courts drop on top of the defendants. In federal cases, the higher federal courts are the ball busters, while lower courts (who have nothing to gain and aren't being directed) tend to be lenient. At least thats what I understand it to be.

Lets put it a different way...the Supreme Court is made up of political animals. For some reason, Americans believe the Supreme Court Justices are all objective and apolitical and fair. Wrong! IF the Supreme Court Ruled against the IRS, there would be a major problem, the IRS is the vaunted life-blood of the government. The members of the Supreme Court would have to break their political ties and piss people off. Lots of those politicians have skeletons in their closet, J Edgar Hoover used to extort people all the time, he was a two-bit blackmailer (and a lousy cross-dresser). As such, if political people get out of line, they have to contend with the possibility that their secrets will be reveled and of course, if the big secrets come crashing out, they have to make sure this guy doesn't ever get reelected...because he would have nothing to stop him anymore. Edited July 31, 2007 by Sonthert

[dcrooksjr]

The Browns have been captured

[nofrendo]

I would say that taxes are def. legal, although I completely disagree with what they are being spent on. And the national "debt" doesn't need to be "paid off," it is just an indicator that we are buying a whole lot more then we are selling... it's an import vs export thing. That's why it is called a deficit. Ideally they should be balanced, but our nation is not going to have its kneecaps broken and be thrown out of a moving car if they are not.

[dcrooksjr]

Nofrendo its not an import vs export thing.
The national dept is in fact a loan witch is paid for by those taxes, when bush requested his war money that was a loan that was added to that dept.