Illegal Income Tax?

[trex]

Who cares if it is legal or not? The bottom line is that most of us aren’t anarchists, and like the idea of having a federal government. If it isn’t legal, it should be. Aircraft carriers are expensive.

There are plenty of no-government, tax free places in the world for anyone that hates income tax. Try moving to Somalia, or the parts of Colombia that the FARC controls.

[greekfire]

“Who cares if it is legal or not?”

Are you kidding me?

Wanting the government to act within the bounds set forth in the Constitution is not anarchy.

I wasn’t looking for language specifically dealing with a 1040, I just included that for reference. From what I have gathered so far, the Supreme Court ruled in 1916 that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new powers of taxation. And “income”, as defined in the Eisner v Montgomery case, is based on corporate gains or profits. I guess this is one of the arguments used by tax protesters.

I don’t necessarily subscribe to all of the viewpoints from the video, but I do find it thought-provoking. If nothing else, it has made me research our laws.

[greekfire]

“Who cares if it is legal or not?”

Are you kidding me?

Wanting the government to act within the bounds set forth in the Constitution is not anarchy.

I wasn’t looking for language specifically dealing with a 1040, I just included that for reference. From what I have gathered so far, the Supreme Court ruled in 1916 that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new powers of taxation. And “income”, as defined in the Eisner v Montgomery case, is based on corporate gains or profits. I guess this is one of the arguments used by tax protesters.

I don’t necessarily subscribe to all of the viewpoints from the video, but I do find it thought-provoking. If nothing else, it has made me research our laws.

[Anonymous]

Michelle Steffes

I remember a friend of mine talking about these things about 15 years ago. Same argument, the income tax was illegal. He had a “CPA” which was willing to help him pay no taxes if my friend gave him 25% of his income (in lieu of about a 40% income tax). He would have to get rid of all his bank accounts and other such things. This is probably the same scam. It takes about 3 to 5 years for the IRS to figure out you stopped paying taxes and by that time the “CPA” would be long gone.

[Anonymous]

Michelle Steffes

I remember a friend of mine talking about these things about 15 years ago. Same argument, the income tax was illegal. He had a “CPA” which was willing to help him pay no taxes if my friend gave him 25% of his income (in lieu of about a 40% income tax). He would have to get rid of all his bank accounts and other such things. This is probably the same scam. It takes about 3 to 5 years for the IRS to figure out you stopped paying taxes and by that time the “CPA” would be long gone.

[RottedOak]

Please note that if you try to use any of the typical tax protest arguments (no law requires filing, etc.) as a basis for failure to file, the IRS will assess a substantial additional penalty for taking a “frivolous position” against filing. These arguments get traction on discussion boards and in ordinary conversation because most people don’t have the detailed knowledge of constitutional and statute law to refute them, but in court they will just make the judge mad at you for wasting the court’s time.

[RottedOak]

Please note that if you try to use any of the typical tax protest arguments (no law requires filing, etc.) as a basis for failure to file, the IRS will assess a substantial additional penalty for taking a “frivolous position” against filing. These arguments get traction on discussion boards and in ordinary conversation because most people don’t have the detailed knowledge of constitutional and statute law to refute them, but in court they will just make the judge mad at you for wasting the court’s time.

[Borat]

Ron Paul puts it very well in his interview in that movie. He says something like — “well, they say there’s a law, so even though they can’t show it to you, they have all the guns and they can put you in jail if you don’t pay.” So regardless of whether or not it’s illegal it is still in effect. As if illegality ever stopped a government from doing anything! Hell, Cheney now exists in an undefined quantum state, neither in the executive or legislative branch but simultaneously in both — except when he’s not. And Scooter gets to scoot after he obstructs justice. And Clinton pardons Marc Rich in 2000 after Scooter pleaded his case (it’s true!) Iran/Contra, Watergate, etc… etc… ad nauseum. Anyway, you get the idea. Maybe it is illegal but that’s what governments specialize in — illegal activities; they’ll still throw your ass in lockup if you don’t pay.

[Borat]

Ron Paul puts it very well in his interview in that movie. He says something like — “well, they say there’s a law, so even though they can’t show it to you, they have all the guns and they can put you in jail if you don’t pay.” So regardless of whether or not it’s illegal it is still in effect. As if illegality ever stopped a government from doing anything! Hell, Cheney now exists in an undefined quantum state, neither in the executive or legislative branch but simultaneously in both — except when he’s not. And Scooter gets to scoot after he obstructs justice. And Clinton pardons Marc Rich in 2000 after Scooter pleaded his case (it’s true!) Iran/Contra, Watergate, etc… etc… ad nauseum. Anyway, you get the idea. Maybe it is illegal but that’s what governments specialize in — illegal activities; they’ll still throw your ass in lockup if you don’t pay.

[rankandfile]

RottedOak looks down his nose as he describes the inability of the masses to have detailed knowledge of “constitutional and statute law”. Since he is so well steeped in these fields, perhaps he can enlighten all of us serfs by providing us with the specific law that grants the power for the federal government to charge a direct, unapportioned tax on the labor and wages of the American people. Just show me the law, RottedOak, and we serfs will go away.

Others use terms like kook to describe people who question and challenge the government and laws that we live under. Rather than do their own due diligence, they take the easier, more politically-correct route and resort to name calling.

If they had done their due diligence, they would know that the 16th Amendment was hastily ratified in December of 1913 at a time when most of the US Congressmen were at home spending the Christmas holiday with their families. They will also know that there were no fewer than 8 Supreme Court cases from 1916 to 1923 that came to the conclusion that the 16th Amendment did not grant the government with the right for ANY NEW TAXES. I.e., the taxation laws were as they always have been since the formation of the Constitution: the government has the right to tax corporate gains and profits, but it does not have the right to tax the labor and wages of the American people.

For those who are bathing in the IRS Koolaid, a person’s labor was originally considered their own private property. A person performs a service for someone and in turn gets a wage for it. THIS IS PRIVATE PROPERTY. The government does not have the right to tax it. Corporate gains and profits, on the other hand, are fair game.

To RottedOak and others blinded by years of IRS dogma, please do not label and denigrate those who question the status quo as “kooks” who have “silly” arguments. These people can, sometimes, be the very people who are on your side; yet you don’t even know it…at least not yet. Again, I ask, just show us the specific law and we will go away.

[rankandfile]

RottedOak looks down his nose as he describes the inability of the masses to have detailed knowledge of “constitutional and statute law”. Since he is so well steeped in these fields, perhaps he can enlighten all of us serfs by providing us with the specific law that grants the power for the federal government to charge a direct, unapportioned tax on the labor and wages of the American people. Just show me the law, RottedOak, and we serfs will go away.

Others use terms like kook to describe people who question and challenge the government and laws that we live under. Rather than do their own due diligence, they take the easier, more politically-correct route and resort to name calling.

If they had done their due diligence, they would know that the 16th Amendment was hastily ratified in December of 1913 at a time when most of the US Congressmen were at home spending the Christmas holiday with their families. They will also know that there were no fewer than 8 Supreme Court cases from 1916 to 1923 that came to the conclusion that the 16th Amendment did not grant the government with the right for ANY NEW TAXES. I.e., the taxation laws were as they always have been since the formation of the Constitution: the government has the right to tax corporate gains and profits, but it does not have the right to tax the labor and wages of the American people.

For those who are bathing in the IRS Koolaid, a person’s labor was originally considered their own private property. A person performs a service for someone and in turn gets a wage for it. THIS IS PRIVATE PROPERTY. The government does not have the right to tax it. Corporate gains and profits, on the other hand, are fair game.

To RottedOak and others blinded by years of IRS dogma, please do not label and denigrate those who question the status quo as “kooks” who have “silly” arguments. These people can, sometimes, be the very people who are on your side; yet you don’t even know it…at least not yet. Again, I ask, just show us the specific law and we will go away.

[surveyor]

avoiding taxes

There are easier and much more legal ways to avoid paying taxes than the methods shown here. At the end of it, which would you rather have? Fighting the IRS or firm legal ground?

[surveyor]

avoiding taxes

There are easier and much more legal ways to avoid paying taxes than the methods shown here. At the end of it, which would you rather have? Fighting the IRS or firm legal ground?

[drunkle]

funny… taxes on corporations and “income”, but not on wages sounds fair to me. loops holes and evasions for corporations and capital gains whilst wages are taxed doesnt.

[drunkle]

funny… taxes on corporations and “income”, but not on wages sounds fair to me. loops holes and evasions for corporations and capital gains whilst wages are taxed doesnt.

[Author]

Posts