"WHERE IS THE LAW?" - The most idiotic argument for not paying income tax.

[BoutTreeFiddy]

I'm sure everybody here has seen Freedom to Fascism. In roughly the first hour, Aaron Russo interviews former IRS agents, tax specialists, etc. The main point that he is trying to get at is that there is no law requiring citizens to pay income taxes or that the income tax applies only to corporate gains.

So the fuck what? As if that'll get these people anywhere. Is Obama care constitutional? How about the bailouts? The point I'm trying to get at is, if there isn't a law requiring citizens to pay income tax, how hard would it be for Congress to simply pass another bill? It's not like there would be controversy, since most people pay the tax and many think it's the patriotic thing to do. Would the supreme court justices simply toss a bill requiring citizens to pay income tax? Highly unlikely, in fact, no, they would probably support it, with much support coming from the two ugly dykes Kagan and Sotomayor.

I'm afraid that too many in the liberty movement are principled and not practical. Sure, I can refuse to pay taxes. What would that do to further the liberty movement? Not a damn thing. I'd rather pay some money now and live to fight another day. And what would be the point of me not paying taxes when no one else will join me?

[low preference guy]

Those people actually believed the jury will judge correctly. It happened before, some juries used nullification to not condemn people who didn't pay their taxes because they weren't shown the law.

The only mistake of these evaders was believing their fellow Americans were better people than they actually are. You should not call them idiots.

[Kludge]

Do you understand what your payments to the USG contribute to?

Are you aware of US imperialism, the unnecessary and often grossly immoral deaths caused by our occupations of nations?

The resources required to regulate (socially engineer) yourself and your neighbors?

The numbers the USG uses to keep the Chinese gov't off its ass for being insolvent?

The prisons, the LEOs, their use in enforcing immoral laws?

Fuck the legal arguments. Paying taxes to the USG implicates you in some of the greatest moral crimes of the 21st century.

[Rael]

Fuck the legal arguments. Paying taxes to the USG implicates you in some of the greatest moral crimes of the 21st century.

Horseshit.

This isnt like where the lady at the grocery checkout asks you to donate $1 to boy scouts and you just say no. I don't believe for a second that you pay no taxes.

[Kludge]

Horseshit.

This isnt like where the lady at the grocery checkout asks you to donate $1 to boy scouts and you just say no. I don't believe for a second that you pay no taxes.

I pay local and state taxes until I can get out of this country.

[Kotin]

Horseshit.

This isnt like where the lady at the grocery checkout asks you to donate $1 to boy scouts and you just say no. I don't believe for a second that you pay no taxes.

Who said he didn't?


He merely stated it's huge moral crime..

[low preference guy]

I am not sure is such a big moral crime.

If some thief puts a gun to your head and asks you for your money, you give it to him, and he uses that money to buy another gun to kill someone, have you committed a "huge moral crime"? I'd say no.

I think it's something you will want to learn to avoid, but I wouldn't call it a huge moral crime. Taxation is not exactly the same, as you have more time to figure out how to fight the criminals, but the difference between the two situations is only of degree (the amount of time you're given before force is used against you).

[Danke]

I pay local and state taxes until I can get out of this country.

You're leaving us, Kludge? :(

[Kludge]

I am sure is such a big moral crime.

If some thief puts a gun to your head and asks you for your money, you give it to him, and he uses that money to buy another gun to kill someone, have you committed a "huge moral crime"? I'd say no.

I think it's something you will want to learn to avoid, but I wouldn't call it a huge moral crime. Taxation is not exactly the same, as you have more time to figure out how to fight the criminals, but the difference between the two situations is only of degree (the amount of time you're given before force is used against you).

It's not the same thing at all.

You have plenty of time with regards to the IRS, at least. There are plenty of things which can be done to at least minimize payments to the USG, even if you aren't willing to put yourself & family at risk of being detained/split by the occupiers.

Further, you aren't at risk of being killed for not paying taxes. At "worst," they'll pay for resisters' food, water, and shelter until their ridiculous extortion scheme collapses.

Fuck 'em. I'd rather they pay for my physically-controlled existence than contribute to them physically controlling others, and probably myself eventually, anyway.

[low preference guy]

^ quick correction, I meant "I am not sure"

[Kludge]

You're leaving us, Kludge? :(

Not too long after the kid's born. ~May-June 2011, I suspect.

[low preference guy]

Not too long after the kid's born. ~May-June 2011, I suspect.

Where are you going? Canada? Are you going to a country without income taxes?

[BoutTreeFiddy]

Do you understand what your payments to the USG contribute to?

Are you aware of US imperialism, the unnecessary and often grossly immoral deaths caused by our occupations of nations?

The resources required to regulate (socially engineer) yourself and your neighbors?

The numbers the USG uses to keep the Chinese gov't off its ass for being insolvent?

The prisons, the LEOs, their use in enforcing immoral laws?

Fuck the legal arguments. Paying taxes to the USG implicates you in some of the greatest moral crimes of the 21st century.

Dude, get the fuck out of here.

If some psycho came up to me and a bum on the street and said, "He dies or you die," would it be immoral for me to preserve my own life? I don't think so. Just because self preservation is a priority of mine doesn't mean that I condone what happens to another person.

And you are missing the practicallity of the argument. Do you think that my risking time in jail for not paying my taxes would help the cause of not killing innocents in foreign countries? Definitely not, if I was the only one. I don't know about you but I would rather be dead than in jail with this guy:

YouTube - tossed salad man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=077UtUWGQOA)

[Acala]

Here is another reason that argument is stupid: it is wrong.

HERE is the law:

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table: [table with rates by income bracket]

That is found in Title 26, subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 1, section 1 (c) of the United States Code.

If you decide not to pay your Federal Income tax, I salute you. But don't think saying "there is no law" will protect you. It took me exactly 3 minutes to find it.

[Golding]

I've noticed that what people call practicality usually winds up turning into apathy. Are we supposed to believe that saying "the government breaks the law all the time" with an excusing tone is supposed to be an adequate response? It just shows that there are more areas that politicians should have their head in a vice. There's nothing wrong with holding the government to high standards.

[Kludge]

Where are you going? Canada? Are you going to a country without income taxes?

I will be living in claimed territory but not disclosing my existence, essentially getting me out of all government interaction.


Dude, get the fuck out of here.

If some psycho came up to me and a bum on the street and said, "He dies or you die," would it be immoral for me to preserve my own life? I don't think so. Just because self preservation is a priority of mine doesn't mean that I condone what happens to another person.

And you are missing the practicallity of the argument. Do you think that my risking time in jail for not paying my taxes would help the cause of not killing innocents in foreign countries? Definitely not, if I was the only one. I don't know about you but I would rather be dead than in jail with this guy

You're willing to kill others by proxy so you won't have to stay in prison. That's fine by me, but I don't want to be involved in it, and don't tell me to get the fuck out, and don't rationalize your behavior with bullshit as "he dies or you die." Total fucking bullshit.

[low preference guy]

I will be living in claimed territory but not disclosing my existence, essentially getting me out of all government interaction.

neato

[BoutTreeFiddy]

I will be living in claimed territory but not disclosing my existence, essentially getting me out of all government interaction.



You're willing to kill others by proxy so you won't have to stay in prison. That's fine by me, but I don't want to be involved in it, and don't tell me to get the fuck out, and don't rationalize your behavior with bullshit as "he dies or you die." Total fucking bullshit.

We can argue about this all day, but this is real talk motherfucker. Maybe you are willing to go to jail since you don't condone what the US does, but how many others are willing to do it, and how has your going to jail contributed?

Enjoy your time in jail, nobody's stopping you. Do you even work? And if you do, do you pay taxes? If you do, shut the fuck up about me paying taxes.


I pay local and state taxes until I can get out of this country.

If you so god damned principled, why even distinguish between fed and state taxes? Give me all your arguments, you know damn well that taxes all have one thing in common.

You pick and choose, then you judge. You can talk all the shit you want, but I'm gonna call you out on it.

[BuddyRey]

The "show me the law!" approach is the bait which can best initially hook those who haven't put much thought into Natural Law or other non-utilitarian justifications for the Income Tax's abolition. I know it reeled me in and I eventually stumbled on Rothbard's and Spooner's arguments through sheer curiosity. You're right that "show me the law!" isn't the final determining question, but it's the first hitch that unlocks the trapdoor leading to the Slip & Slide down the rabbit hole for many people.

[Danke]

Here is another reason that argument is stupid: it is wrong.

HERE is the law:

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table: [table with rates by income bracket]

That is found in Title 26, subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 1, section 1 (c) of the United States Code.

If you decide not to pay your Federal Income tax, I salute you. But don't think saying "there is no law" will protect you. It took me exactly 3 minutes to find it.

If it was that simple, don't you think all the others (including the former Commissioner of IRS) would have told Mr. Russo?

[BoutTreeFiddy]

If it was that simple, don't you think all the others (including the former Commissioner of IRS) would have told Mr. Russo?

I'm not going to judge the validity of Mr. Acala's post, but that's simply missing the point. The law may or may not exist today, but what's stopping those in the federal government from passing the law tomorrow?

In other words, for those arguing, "SHOW ME THE LAW!" I would not be surprised if Congress passed a law by next week and said, "Here's the law, now will you shut the fuck up?"

[Michaelwiseguy]

The best way to avoid paying the governments your tax money is to make it your life goal to work and earn as little money as possible.

Things to do;

1) Have no kids

2) Buy nicest cheapest foreclosed house in low tax area.

3) Pay house off in 1 to 3 years at most.

4) Don't buy car that is not paid for 100%

5) Quit full time job and work part time or not at all.

6) Declare bankruptcy and pay no credit card debt.

I'm working on #6 and have no secured debt.

My property taxes homesteaded in SW Florida are less $900/year.

I survive on about $500 a month. The governments have gotten very little from me in the past 5 years. Here's a picture of my home.

http://www.leepa.org/dotnet/photo/photo.aspx?id=1339316&Height=400

[Danke]

I'm not going to judge the validity of Mr. Acala's post, but that's simply missing the point. The law may or may not exist today, but what's stopping those in the federal government from passing the law tomorrow?

In other words, for those arguing, "SHOW ME THE LAW!" I would not be surprised if Congress passed a law by next week and said, "Here's the law, now will you shut the fuck up?"


I know, you are basically saying we have a rogue government that doesn't follow the Constitution.

I don't see that many examples, but I will concede it is currently hard to get impartial justice.

[Acala]

If it was that simple, don't you think all the others (including the former Commissioner of IRS) would have told Mr. Russo?

It is that simple. The statute I just cited is exactly what the prosecutor is going to show the judge when the defendant claims "there is no law". What a former commissioner of the IRS says in a movie is irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence in court. Courts don't look to the movies to find the law - they look in the code. And the code says, in remarkably clear language, that I must pay a tax on my income of a specified amount or suffer specified penalties.

Furthermore, the US Code is controlled by the US Congress. Even if the Supreme Court agreed that "there is no law" how long do you think it would take Congress to write one? About as long as it took me to write this response.

[BoutTreeFiddy]

The best way to avoid paying the governments your tax money is to make it your life goal to work and earn as little money as possible.

Things to do;

1) Have no kids

2) Buy nicest cheapest foreclosed house in low tax area.

3) Pay house off in 1 to 3 years at most.

4) Don't buy car that is not paid for 100%

5) Quit full time job and work part time or not at all.

6) Declare bankruptcy and pay no credit card debt.

I'm working on #6 and have no secured debt.

My property taxes homesteaded in SW Florida are less $900/year.

I survive on about $500 a month. The governments have gotten very little from me in the past 5 years. Here's a picture of my home.

http://www.leepa.org/dotnet/photo/photo.aspx?id=1339316&Height=400

I see what you are saying, and it may be possible to live like that, but I want the finer things in life.

Okay, so you may be able to cut a ton of corners and live on 500 a month. Do I want to do that in order to pay less taxes? Not really. I want to be able to pursue very nice things, and it would be easier if the feds didn't take my money.

And for all the moral arguments, my beef with the feds is not what they do with the money they steal from me, but with the act of stealing it from me in the first place. Until I have the means to avoid them without serious consequence, I guess I have no choice.

[Danke]

It is that simple. The statute I just cited is exactly what the prosecutor is going to show the judge when the defendant claims "there is no law". What a former commissioner of the IRS says in a movie is irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence in court. Courts don't look to the movies to find the law - they look in the code. And the code says, in remarkably clear language, that I must pay a tax on my income of a specified amount or suffer specified penalties.

Furthermore, the US Code is controlled by the US Congress. Even if the Supreme Court agreed that "there is no law" how long do you think it would take Congress to write one? About as long as it took me to write this response.

Title 26 is only prima facie evidence of the law. It is not the law.

[amy31416]

I see what you are saying, and it may be possible to live like that, but I want the finer things in life.

Okay, so you may be able to cut a ton of corners and live on 500 a month. Do I want to do that in order to pay less taxes? Not really. I want to be able to pursue very nice things, and it would be easier if the feds didn't take my money.

And for all the moral arguments, my beef with the feds is not what they do with the money they steal from me, but with the act of stealing it from me in the first place. Until I have the means to avoid them without serious consequence, I guess I have no choice.

As long as you're aware that your pursuit of the "finer things in life" helps fund killing innocent people, incarcerating people for nonviolent crimes and an incredibly corrupt government that is often loyal to another country or globalist organizations.

So very sorry that the IRS is inconveniencing you by taking some of your money and making you wait an extra month to buy a Beemer.

I respect thieves more than I respect materialistic people who put more value on a piece of junk that fills some gaping hole in their self-esteem than on innocent people's lives. The only issue for you here s that they're taking it from you, not that they use it to destroy this country and human beings. Bet you'd feel differently if your family's home got hit with a Patriot missile and took out almost everyone--especially when the occupying force offered you $500 as the value on their lives.

You're a fantastic person. Hope that Beemer or Mercedes completes you and comforts you when you're on your death bed reflecting on your life.

[Incrimsonias]

It is that simple. The statute I just cited is exactly what the prosecutor is going to show the judge when the defendant claims "there is no law". What a former commissioner of the IRS says in a movie is irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence in court. Courts don't look to the movies to find the law - they look in the code. And the code says, in remarkably clear language, that I must pay a tax on my income of a specified amount or suffer specified penalties.
.

Actually it's not that simple as it refers to a tax imposed on "taxable income"... of course this opens the floodgates of what constitutes "taxable income".

[amy31416]

The best way to avoid paying the governments your tax money is to make it your life goal to work and earn as little money as possible.

Things to do;

1) Have no kids

2) Buy nicest cheapest foreclosed house in low tax area.

3) Pay house off in 1 to 3 years at most.

4) Don't buy car that is not paid for 100%

5) Quit full time job and work part time or not at all.

6) Declare bankruptcy and pay no credit card debt.

I'm working on #6 and have no secured debt.

My property taxes homesteaded in SW Florida are less $900/year.

I survive on about $500 a month. The governments have gotten very little from me in the past 5 years. Here's a picture of my home.

http://www.leepa.org/dotnet/photo/photo.aspx?id=1339316&Height=400

Quite respectable, and I have a similar situation--but they'll find ways to get you when they get even more desperate.

[Acala]

Title 26 is only prima facie evidence of the law. It is not the law.

The law in any given case is what the judge instructs the jury it is. And where will the judge look first to find the law? The US Code. And there it is. So what will the defendant say when confronted with the US Code citation? That it isn't really there?

[Incrimsonias]

The law in any given case is what the judge instructs the jury it is. And where will the judge look first to find the law? The US Code. And there it is. So what will the defendant say when confronted with the US Code citation? That it isn't really there?

The defendant could say that my income is not subject to direct taxation(from the federeal govt) as per the constitution therefore it cannot be considered taxable income

[BoutTreeFiddy]

As long as you're aware that your pursuit of the "finer things in life" helps fund killing innocent people, incarcerating people for nonviolent crimes and an incredibly corrupt government that is often loyal to another country or globalist organizations.

So very sorry that the IRS is inconveniencing you by taking some of your money and making you wait an extra month to buy a Beemer.

I respect thieves more than I respect materialistic people who put more value on a piece of junk that fills some gaping hole in their self-esteem than on innocent people's lives. The only issue for you here s that they're taking it from you, not that they use it to destroy this country and human beings. Bet you'd feel differently if your family's home got hit with a Patriot missile and took out almost everyone--especially when the occupying force offered you $500 as the value on their lives.

You're a fantastic person. Hope that Beemer or Mercedes completes you and comforts you when you're on your death bed reflecting on your life.

So you respect thieves more than materialistic people (and you consider me part of that group)?

So a thief, who goes out and steals the property of others is a better human being in your eyes, than a person like me, who has not stolen, not violated anybody's rights, and simply wants to purchase items with money that I earn.

Where the fuck did I go wrong?

[Acala]

Actually it's not that simple as it refers to a tax imposed on "taxable income"... of course this opens the floodgates of what constitutes "taxable income".

Taxable income is defined in Title 26, subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter B, Part 1, section 63. It is clearly defined as gross income minus certain specified deductions. And gross income is clearly defined in section 61:

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

[heavenlyboy34]

The defendant could say that my income is not subject to direct taxation(from the federeal govt) as per the constitution therefore it cannot be considered taxable income

That's a good way to get kicked off a jury. ;)

[Acala]

The defendant could say that my income is not subject to direct taxation(from the federeal govt) as per the constitution therefore it cannot be considered taxable income

Now that is a horse of a different color. You are now saying that there IS a law, but it is unconstitutional. I consider that to be a better argument than trying to pretend there is no law imposing an income tax when there clearly is.

Unfortunately, the income tax IS Constitutional because the bastards amended the Constitution. That was the entire purpose of the 16th amendment.

Now if you want to argue that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified, I have no response because I just don't know the facts. Intellectually it is the best argument yet. But the practical reality is that as long as the US Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what government acts are Constitutional, the income tax is going to stand.

[Vessol]

Even if there were solid laws that enforced the income tax(which there is) it does not mean it is moral.

However I agree that unless you want to make a stand, it is best not to stand out and contribute while trying to slowly change things through EDUCATION.

That's our number one tool.

[amy31416]

So you respect thieves more than materialistic people (and you consider me part of that group)?

So a thief, who goes out and steals the property of others is a better human being in your eyes, than a person like me, who has not stolen, not violated anybody's rights, and simply wants to purchase items with money that I earn.

Where the fuck did I go wrong?

Yep. Some thieves are honorable, you are not.

You have, by blindly supporting and paying the government, supported harming PLENTY of innocent people and violate their natural rights. As have I--but I'm working to put an end to that because it's not okay. You know full well what you're supporting, and still attempt to take some bullshit high ground. You haven't got a leg to stand on, ethically.

Enjoy your Porsche, or whatever vehicle morally bankrupt people like these days.

[amy31416]

Even if there were solid laws that enforced the income tax(which there is) it does not mean it is immoral.

However I agree that unless you want to make a stand, it is best not to stand out and contribute while trying to slowly change things through EDUCATION.

That's our number one tool.

You're paying thugs to murder innocent people, destroy their country, imprison non-violent "offenders," etc. etc. etc.

How is it not immoral?

And are there people here who truly believe that we're going to actually reduce taxes through education/elections within the next 100 years? Are you kidding me? The best we'll do is slow it down a tad bit.

[BoutTreeFiddy]

Yep. Some thieves are honorable, you are not.

You have, by blindly supporting and paying the government, supported harming PLENTY of innocent people and violate their natural rights. As have I--but I'm working to put an end to that because it's not okay. You know full well what you're supporting, and still attempt to take some bullshit high ground. You haven't got a leg to stand on, ethically.

Enjoy your Porsche, or whatever vehicle morally bankrupt people like these days.

Yes, I blindly support and PAY the government. They're not stealing from me, I PAY them.

Whatever, as a person with thousands of posts, you have seniority on this forum. You're right. And with seniority means people are less likely to call you out on your bullshit.

[Vessol]

You're paying thugs to murder innocent people, destroy their country, imprison non-violent "offenders," etc. etc. etc.

How is it not immoral?

Please fill me in how you escape funding this immorality that occures?

If you buy anything that has a sales tax(including your computer you are using) you are paying for this immorality.

Do you legally work? Then you are funding it as well.

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[BoutTreeFiddy]

Please fill me in how you escape funding this immorality that occures?

If you buy anything that has a sales tax(including your computer you are using) you are paying for this immorality.

Do you legally work? Then you are funding it as well.

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Exactly.

And she has the audacity to say I'm some sort of terrible person because I want nice things.

Amy, do you survive with the most bare-bones necessities? Do you never buy anything that you don't absolutely need? Food, clothing, etc? Maybe you're not into cars, but surely you do take part in luxuries.

I want a nice apartment/condo, a few pairs of nice shoes, 4-5 nice suits, a decent car that isn't 10+ years old. Is that too much to ask for?

And you call me materialistic even though I didn't even list the types of things I'd like to buy.

You're a bitch, you know it. I don't care, but I don't put up with bullshit.

[Incrimsonias]

Now that is a horse of a different color. You are now saying that there IS a law, but it is unconstitutional. I consider that to be a better argument than trying to pretend there is no law imposing an income tax when there clearly is.

Unfortunately, the income tax IS Constitutional because the bastards amended the Constitution. That was the entire purpose of the 16th amendment.

Now if you want to argue that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified, I have no response because I just don't know the facts. Intellectually it is the best argument yet. But the practical reality is that as long as the US Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what government acts are Constitutional, the income tax is going to stand.

, well it's actually much more subtle than whether the 16th amendment was ratified or not.
It states:
" The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Notice it says nothing about a direct tax. A direct federal tax can only be issued if it is apportioned among the States. The 16th amendment fails to clarify this point, it simply states that Congress has the power to tax without apportionment, which they can do in the form of INDIRECT taxes! Indirect taxes are not subject to apportionment and are limited in their scope to excise, duty, imports, and one other i can't remember. But the important point is that it is not a DIRECT tax, and is in a sense voluntary.

[Michaelwiseguy]

Exactly.

And she has the audacity to say I'm some sort of terrible person because I want nice things.

Amy, do you survive with the most bare-bones necessities? Do you never buy anything that you don't absolutely need? Food, clothing, etc? Maybe you're not into cars, but surely you do take part in luxuries.

I want a nice apartment/condo, a few pairs of nice shoes, 4-5 nice suits, a decent car that isn't 10+ years old. Is that too much to ask for?

And you call me materialistic even though I didn't even list the types of things I'd like to buy.

You're a bitch, you know it. I don't care, but I don't put up with bullshit.Play nice people. "Nice things" is a very, very, very relative concept and I got your meaning of it right away. For the average Joe it's having enough air conditioning and heat in the house and car. When you bust your ass for a living and have nothing to show for it, it gets frustrating. People need to be re educated on what is priority and what is not. Learn to understand you need to get what is important first and don't mortgage what you acquired in your early years. It took me 49 years to get the necessities to this point in my life. It wasn't important to me to be popular and to show off with my money and knowledge. A little important to have a decent amount of fun though. That's relative too. To survive in bad times like now, you need to have the necessities that no one can foreclose on. In good times, everything else you acquire is gravy, and more power to you if you can.

[amy31416]

Yes, I blindly support and PAY the government. They're not stealing from me, I PAY them.

Whatever, as a person with thousands of posts, you have seniority on this forum. You're right. And with seniority means people are less likely to call you out on your bullshit.

Who mentioned seniority? That's an asinine thing to bring up.

Are you a free man or not? You allow the government to steal from you because you're too afraid to make a stand.

You allow them via deductions or you willingly write a check because you're scared. The sooner you recognize that, the better off you'll be.

Just be honest with yourself, at the very least.

[LibForestPaul]

Here is another reason that argument is stupid: it is wrong.

HERE is the law:

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table: [table with rates by income bracket]

That is found in Title 26, subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 1, section 1 (c) of the United States Code.

If you decide not to pay your Federal Income tax, I salute you. But don't think saying "there is no law" will protect you. It took me exactly 3 minutes to find it.
Define taxable
Define income

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Slave_kidnap_post_1851_boston.jpg



SEC. 3. And be it also enacted, That when a person held to labor in any of the United States, or in either of the Territories on the Northwest or South of the river Ohio, under the laws thereof, shall escape into any other part of the said States or Territory, the person to whom such labor or service may be due, his agent or attorney, is hereby empowered to seize or arrest such fugitive from labor, and to take him or her before any Judge of the Circuit or District Courts of the United States, residing or being within the State, or before any magistrate of a county, city, or town corporate, wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made, and upon proof to the satisfaction of such Judge or magistrate, either by oral testimony or affidavit taken before and certified by a magistrate of any such State or Territory, that the person so seized or arrested, doth, under the laws of the State or Territory from which he or she fled, owe service or labor to the person claiming him or her, it shall be the duty of such Judge or magistrate to give a certificate thereof to such claimant, his agent, or attorney, which shall be sufficient warrant for removing the said fugitive from labor to the State or Territory from which he or she fled.

[amy31416]

Please fill me in how you escape funding this immorality that occures?

If you buy anything that has a sales tax(including your computer you are using) you are paying for this immorality.

Do you legally work? Then you are funding it as well.

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Apparently you didn't read the post where I stated that I'm extricating myself from the system--it does take preparation.

Don't get pissy with me for pointing out the obvious--it IS immoral and I never once said that I have been able to be completely moral in this regard--yet. But I'm trying and planning to do so, and I'm not pretending that paying taxes is okay.

Got that, chief? I know it pisses you off to hear it, but you need to get over it.

Paying taxes helps fund the murder of innocent people--it's so obvious as to be ridiculous. If our taxes went toward kitten shelters and rainbow generators, maybe you'd have a point.

[amy31416]

Exactly.

And she has the audacity to say I'm some sort of terrible person because I want nice things.

Amy, do you survive with the most bare-bones necessities? Do you never buy anything that you don't absolutely need? Food, clothing, etc? Maybe you're not into cars, but surely you do take part in luxuries.

I want a nice apartment/condo, a few pairs of nice shoes, 4-5 nice suits, a decent car that isn't 10+ years old. Is that too much to ask for?

And you call me materialistic even though I didn't even list the types of things I'd like to buy.

You're a bitch, you know it. I don't care, but I don't put up with bullshit.

I used to want some of those things, but realized the immorality of it when I get it at the expense of some kid being born without half of his skull because of depleted uranium. There are more important things in life--and you only have one to live as far as I know.

You are materialistic. And you call me a bitch because I hit a nerve. You also say that you "don't put up with bullshit" and that's not true--you don't put up with anyone who might make you think about the actions you take.

That's good. It's a start anyways. :)

ETA: Compared to most Americans, I am relatively bare bones.

[Vessol]

Even by planning to do so, you are still supporting the system, are you not? If you are planning to stop murdering innocent people, why wait? Just stop murdering innocents right now.

Unless you completely isolate yourself from all of society then you will in some way shape or form, support it.

Stop playing "holier then thou" and playing strawmans. You didn't piss me off nor did you hit a nerve for me. I was just pointing out your own hypocrisy.

I don't live under some illusion that taxes in any way are moral. However I do understand that I can do little besides educating myself and others to stop it. This is my path, it is my right to take it.

[amy31416]

Even by planning to do so, you are still supporting the system, are you not? If you are planning to stop murdering innocent people, why wait? Just stop murdering innocents right now.

Unless you completely isolate yourself from all of society then you will in some way shape or form, support it.

Stop playing "holier then thou" and playing strawmans. You didn't piss me off nor did you hit a nerve for me. I was just pointing out your own hypocrisy.

I don't live under some illusion that taxes in any way are moral. However I do understand that I can do little besides educating myself and others to stop it. This is my path, it is my right to take it.

On point 1: You're right. But I'm pregnant and that adds to the delay. I should have extricated myself years ago--I just didn't know how bad it was. Ignorance is no excuse though.
On point 2: I plan to.
On point 3: I'm not playing "holier than thou," I'm pointing out that it's bullshit to pretend that paying taxes is not immoral.
On point 4: Read your own posts, you stated that you did not believe that paying taxes was immoral.

Do I need to quote you?

You have the right to do whatever you want--just stop your whimpering when you're called out. This is a message board for conversation, remember?

[BoutTreeFiddy]

Got that, chief? I know it pisses you off to hear it, but you need to get over it.



LOL, it pisses people off. You are willing to judge other people for the things you do yourself.

"But I'm preparing..." Kids in Iraq can't prepare for what's coming to them. Neither can the kids in Afghanistan. Get on it bitch, kids are dying. They don't have time for you to prepare. Stop paying taxes now and their lives will be saved.

You funny as hell.

You didnt' strike a nerve. I deal with lefties like you all the time that use the same reasoning, including my boss, who is a French man.

Make me care,

BIIIAAAAATTTTTTCCCHHHH

[BoutTreeFiddy]

ETA: Compared to most Americans, I am relatively bare bones.

Shit. Americans on welfare have cable TV, maybe a car, definitely a public housing unit.

Until you are looking for clean water, don't judge me.

Just because we a fortunate, doesn't mean we have to feel guilty about it.

[Vessol]

On point 1: You're right. But I'm pregnant and that adds to the delay. I should have extricated myself years ago--I just didn't know how bad it was. Ignorance is no excuse though.
On point 2: I plan to.
On point 3: I'm not playing "holier than thou," I'm pointing out that it's bullshit to pretend that paying taxes is not immoral.
On point 4: Read your own posts, you stated that you did not believe that paying taxes was immoral.

Do I need to quote you?

You have the right to do whatever you want--just stop your whimpering when you're called out. This is a message board for conversation, remember?

Quote me once where I said that Taxes in any way are moral. I simply said that they are immoral, but I have little choice otherwise than to follow them currently. You are using the same justfication with your pregnancy which is completely reasonable.

[amy31416]

LOL, it pisses people off. You are willing to judge other people for the things you do yourself.

"But I'm preparing..." Kids in Iraq can't prepare for what's coming to them. Neither can the kids in Afghanistan. Get on it bitch, kids are dying. They don't have time for you to prepare. Stop paying taxes now and their lives will be saved.

You funny as hell.

You didnt' strike a nerve. I deal with lefties like you all the time that use the same reasoning, including my boss, who is a French man.

Make me care,

BIIIAAAAATTTTTTCCCHHHH

Don't be an asshole, what kind of twit would publicize their personal actions on a public message board?

It is cute how you keep trying to redirect the argument though.

You got nuthin'. And yeah, I am a bitch--you can say that a million times and it won't make a dent. Just makes you look like a desperate ass attempting to weasel out of a real debate.

[BoutTreeFiddy]

On point 1: You're right. But I'm pregnant and that adds to the delay. I should have extricated myself years ago--I just didn't know how bad it was. Ignorance is no excuse though.


Damn, you pregnant? I kinda feel sorry.......

I won't go there.

[amy31416]

So you are saying that your unborn child is more valuable then those other children whom are killed daily by your support of Imperialism?

Is that some kind of moral justification?

Nope. I'm saying that some things are physically impossible.

[amy31416]

Damn, you pregnant? I kinda feel sorry.......

I won't go there.

Don't be a pansy and pretend to be a "gentleman" when you promote such a cowardly stance.

Stand up for your capitulation!

[Vessol]

Nope. I'm saying that some things are physically impossible.

I edited my post as I felt it was a bit rude

"Quote me once where I said that Taxes in any way are moral. I simply said that they are immoral, but I have little choice otherwise than to follow them currently. You are using the same justfication with your pregnancy which is completely reasonable."

I agree that it is morally reprehensible and completely wrong. However I see little other alternatives besides fighting it through education of myself and educating and informing others.

I do not live under any belief that taxation in any form is morally right. I've stated as much in the past few months through countless debates where I've shown myself and my true colors as a AnCap.

[newbitech]

Is this a topic about everyone egging people on to not pay taxes?
I agree with amy. The only reason that anyone who knows the truth pays taxes is because they are afraid of the consequences of doing what is right.

That is the twisted system we live in. If you know the truth and are not actively trying to find a way to not pay taxes then I think you are in denial, too afraid to act, immoral, or some combination of these.

There is no shame in being afraid or of being in denial. The truth is something that has been actively squelched in the USA and the world since the beginning of time. For whatever reason, this generations of American's is starting to wake up to this truth. Not many have mustered up the strength or courage to act, yet. Many still want to roll over and go back to sleep. A select few just don't care and actually try to use the truth to there advantage in ways that continue to hurt others.

One day soon, there will be a leader or leaders that will rise up in the liberty movement who will not be afraid to act and prove that the benefits of resisting taxation far outweigh the consquences. One day, we will be able to ignore unjust laws and render the "government" impotent in their ability to enforce those laws. Until that day, I imagine that we will all sit around egging each other on to be the first to resist.

For me, I will constantly be looking for ways to walk that fine line of resistence and persecution until the day comes where I am powerful enough to stand and make my statement without fear.

[amy31416]

Even if there were solid laws that enforced the income tax(which there is) it does not mean it is immoral.

However I agree that unless you want to make a stand, it is best not to stand out and contribute while trying to slowly change things through EDUCATION.

That's our number one tool.


I edited my post as I felt it was a bit rude

"Quote me once where I said that Taxes in any way are moral. I simply said that they are immoral, but I have little choice otherwise than to follow them currently. You are using the same justfication with your pregnancy which is completely reasonable."

I agree that it is morally reprehensible and completely wrong. However I see little other alternatives besides fighting it through education of myself and educating and informing others.

See above.

And actually, I am not using the same justification, and I can't explain why--figure it out if you're a smart fellow.

[low preference guy]

^ ouch! someone got burned!

[Vessol]

See above.

Ah. Lmao.

I was writing that when I was alt-tabbing between this and a few other windows I have open.

Oftentimes I mix up words, that whole sentence is off.

What I meant to say was.

"Even if there were laws that enforced the income tax, it does not mean that they are moral."

That explains why I was so confused.

I was mainly combating the idea that somehow the income tax is only wrong because it isn't actually a law. Many minarchists will attack the income tax but support other taxes.

Sorry for the confusion. I should probably recheck my posts more.

[Galileo Galilei]

I'm sure everybody here has seen Freedom to Fascism. In roughly the first hour, Aaron Russo interviews former IRS agents, tax specialists, etc. The main point that he is trying to get at is that there is no law requiring citizens to pay income taxes or that the income tax applies only to corporate gains.

So the fuck what? As if that'll get these people anywhere. Is Obama care constitutional? How about the bailouts? The point I'm trying to get at is, if there isn't a law requiring citizens to pay income tax, how hard would it be for Congress to simply pass another bill? It's not like there would be controversy, since most people pay the tax and many think it's the patriotic thing to do. Would the supreme court justices simply toss a bill requiring citizens to pay income tax? Highly unlikely, in fact, no, they would probably support it, with much support coming from the two ugly dykes Kagan and Sotomayor.

I'm afraid that too many in the liberty movement are principled and not practical. Sure, I can refuse to pay taxes. What would that do to further the liberty movement? Not a damn thing. I'd rather pay some money now and live to fight another day. And what would be the point of me not paying taxes when no one else will join me?

The film is making a political argument, not a legal argument.

BTW - there is a "law", but the "law" is written by an administrative agency, not congress, and is hence, totally unconstitutional. 85% of all "laws" are now written by administrative agencies, not congress, since the 17th amendment was passed.

[LibForestPaul]

Is this a topic about everyone egging people on to not pay taxes?
I agree with amy. The only reason that anyone who knows the truth pays taxes is because they are afraid of the consequences of doing what is right.

That is the twisted system we live in. If you know the truth and are not actively trying to find a way to not pay taxes then I think you are in denial, too afraid to act, immoral, or some combination of these.

There is no shame in being afraid or of being in denial. The truth is something that has been actively squelched in the USA and the world since the beginning of time. For whatever reason, this generations of American's is starting to wake up to this truth. Not many have mustered up the strength or courage to act, yet. Many still want to roll over and go back to sleep. A select few just don't care and actually try to use the truth to there advantage in ways that continue to hurt others.

One day soon, there will be a leader or leaders that will rise up in the liberty movement who will not be afraid to act and prove that the benefits of resisting taxation far outweigh the consquences. One day, we will be able to ignore unjust laws and render the "government" impotent in their ability to enforce those laws. Until that day, I imagine that we will all sit around egging each other on to be the first to resist.

For me, I will constantly be looking for ways to walk that fine line of resistence and persecution until the day comes where I am powerful enough to stand and make my statement without fear.

I know my standard of living comes at the cost of rotting corpses of children throughout the world. But far too afraid to go against the government. Mostly because of my pessimistic view of fellow citizens. 3 percenters, more like .3 or .03

I hear it everyday, from family and friends,
As long as I get mine, I do not care if a gun is pointed at your head.

[amy31416]

Is this a topic about everyone egging people on to not pay taxes?
I agree with amy. The only reason that anyone who knows the truth pays taxes is because they are afraid of the consequences of doing what is right.

That is the twisted system we live in. If you know the truth and are not actively trying to find a way to not pay taxes then I think you are in denial, too afraid to act, immoral, or some combination of these.

There is no shame in being afraid or of being in denial. The truth is something that has been actively squelched in the USA and the world since the beginning of time. For whatever reason, this generations of American's is starting to wake up to this truth. Not many have mustered up the strength or courage to act, yet. Many still want to roll over and go back to sleep. A select few just don't care and actually try to use the truth to there advantage in ways that continue to hurt others.

One day soon, there will be a leader or leaders that will rise up in the liberty movement who will not be afraid to act and prove that the benefits of resisting taxation far outweigh the consquences. One day, we will be able to ignore unjust laws and render the "government" impotent in their ability to enforce those laws. Until that day, I imagine that we will all sit around egging each other on to be the first to resist.

For me, I will constantly be looking for ways to walk that fine line of resistence and persecution until the day comes where I am powerful enough to stand and make my statement without fear.

Well said.

And to wrap this up--there is legitimate reason to fear the government when you go against their system. I do not deny that. That said--don't try to fool yourself as to your role, and I understand that some people are more capable of bucking the system than others.

Would I condemn an elderly widow for staying within the system? Of course not.

But don't try to tell me that participating is something that is moral or good, just because you worked for your money and deserve a giant flat-screen TV. Maybe you do deserve it...but the folks in other countries sure as hell didn't deserve getting their asses blown off because they're sitting on oil or whatever the reason du jour is.

[amy31416]

Ah. Lmao.

I was writing that when I was alt-tabbing between this and a few other windows I have open.

Oftentimes I mix up words, that whole sentence is off.

What I meant to say was.

"Even if there were laws that enforced the income tax, it does not mean that they are moral."

That explains why I was so confused.

I was mainly combating the idea that somehow the income tax is only wrong because it isn't actually a law. Many minarchists will attack the income tax but support other taxes.

Sorry for the confusion. I should probably recheck my posts more.

What a difference two letters can make, eh?

[amy31416]

Shit. Americans on welfare have cable TV, maybe a car, definitely a public housing unit.

Until you are looking for clean water, don't judge me.

Just because we a fortunate, doesn't mean we have to feel guilty about it.

I didn't say to feel guilty, my argument was against your defense of taxes when they go toward such immorality.

You keep trying to change the argument.

How do you know if Americans on welfare have cable TV anyways?

[Acala]

, well it's actually much more subtle than whether the 16th amendment was ratified or not.
It states:
" The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Notice it says nothing about a direct tax. A direct federal tax can only be issued if it is apportioned among the States. The 16th amendment fails to clarify this point, it simply states that Congress has the power to tax without apportionment, which they can do in the form of INDIRECT taxes! Indirect taxes are not subject to apportionment and are limited in their scope to excise, duty, imports, and one other i can't remember. But the important point is that it is not a DIRECT tax, and is in a sense voluntary.

The16th amendment makes apportionment unnecessary. That was the whole point of it - to make way for the direct income tax without apportionment. And it specifically says "income" and from any source. It is extremely broad.

But even if you think the amendment itself is unclear, we lose because the rules of statutory interpretation will send the court to the legislative history to resolve uncertainty in a statute or amendment. The history of the 16th amendment is clear - it was intended to allow the tax on income.

But we have digressed. The OP was about the claim that "there is no law". There clearly is, so people should stop saying that. If they say "it is unconstitutional" they will sound less foolish. But they will still lose.

[BoutTreeFiddy]

Don't be an asshole, what kind of twit would publicize their personal actions on a public message board?

It is cute how you keep trying to redirect the argument though.

You got nuthin'. And yeah, I am a bitch--you can say that a million times and it won't make a dent. Just makes you look like a desperate ass attempting to weasel out of a real debate.

The debate stopped when you stated your support for people that willingly violate and take other people's property over those who earn a living and want to be able to purchase nice things.

That's where the debate ended, now it's shit talking time.

There is no attempt to weasel out of a debate, there was no real debate in the first place. You simply stated a personal opinion that, on it's face, is in opposition to libertarian rationale. How am I supposed to argue with that? It's not like I'll win a debate with a person like you, especially when the argument is not about something where we can pinpoint a right or wrong answer.

Shit will go in circles.

Maybe some better advice with dealing with libertarians, particularly ones like myself is to ACCEPT that everyone is not like yourself.

Maybe you don't like it, but libertarians are free thinkers, which means that I may not give a shit about things you give a shit about.

For instance, I'm tired of hearing about Israel and Palestine, I wish they would both vanish into thin air. A quicker solution would be for Israel to simply force the Palestinians out and claim the land for themselves. Why? There is no 2 state solution. And I think the area would be more stable with Israel controlling it rather than Palestine. Should the US be involved with this? No, but I do speculate on what would happen if Israel controlled both Palestine and Israel as opposed to the 2 state solution.

Or how about this, I don't care about homeless bums because most of them would rather do what they do than get an actual job. Sure, many of them are felons or are mentally ill, but there are plenty of shelters in my area for that. Is it wrong for me to want them to stop hassling me?

Or how about the fact that the unemployment rate is much higher for blacks than it is for any other race. Am I supposed to feel bad about that? No, I don't feel bad about it. Plenty of the blacks I've talked to expect jobs to be thrown at them and if not, it's because of white people. I say, toughen up, and look for a job. Slavery happened more than 140 years ago. Get over it.

See, I'm a very opinionated guy that's doesn't conform to the typical libertarian stances on positions. Does that make me non-libertarian?

[Acala]

The film is making a political argument, not a legal argument.

BTW - there is a "law", but the "law" is written by an administrative agency, not congress, and is hence, totally unconstitutional. 85% of all "laws" are now written by administrative agencies, not congress, since the 17th amendment was passed.

The law applying the income tax is not administrative. It is found in the US Code. Those are statutes enacted by Congress. Administrative regulations are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR for short, coincidentally).

Now the rule requiring filing a tax return might only be an administrative rule. I have not researched it. But that is a different matter.

[Kotin]

LOL, it pisses people off. You are willing to judge other people for the things you do yourself.

"But I'm preparing..." Kids in Iraq can't prepare for what's coming to them. Neither can the kids in Afghanistan. Get on it bitch, kids are dying. They don't have time for you to prepare. Stop paying taxes now and their lives will be saved.

You funny as hell.

You didnt' strike a nerve. I deal with lefties like you all the time that use the same reasoning, including my boss, who is a French man.

Make me care,

BIIIAAAAATTTTTTCCCHHHH



watch it.

[amy31416]

The debate stopped when you stated your support for people that willingly violate and take other people's property over those who earn a living and want to be able to purchase nice things.

That's where the debate ended, now it's shit talking time.

There is no attempt to weasel out of a debate, there was no real debate in the first place. You simply stated a personal opinion that, on it's face, is in opposition to libertarian rationale. How am I supposed to argue with that? It's not like I'll win a debate with a person like you, especially when the argument is not about something where we can pinpoint a right or wrong answer.

Shit will go in circles.

Maybe some better advice with dealing with libertarians, particularly ones like myself is to ACCEPT that everyone is not like yourself.

Maybe you don't like it, but libertarians are free thinkers, which means that I may not give a shit about things you give a shit about.

For instance, I'm tired of hearing about Israel and Palestine, I wish they would both vanish into thin air. A quicker solution would be for Israel to simply force the Palestinians out and claim the land for themselves. Why? There is no 2 state solution. And I think the area would be more stable with Israel controlling it rather than Palestine. Should the US be involved with this? No, but I do speculate on what would happen if Israel controlled both Palestine and Israel as opposed to the 2 state solution.

Or how about this, I don't care about homeless bums because most of them would rather do what they do than get an actual job. Sure, many of them are felons or are mentally ill, but there are plenty of shelters in my area for that. Is it wrong for me to want them to stop hassling me?

Or how about the fact that the unemployment rate is much higher for blacks than it is for any other race. Am I supposed to feel bad about that? No, I don't feel bad about it. Plenty of the blacks I've talked to expect jobs to be thrown at them and if not, it's because of white people. I say, toughen up, and look for a job. Slavery happened more than 140 years ago. Get over it.

See, I'm a very opinionated guy that's doesn't conform to the typical libertarian stances on positions. Does that make me non-libertarian?

I never even attempted to label you. Do you feel guilty about something or what? What's all this other bullshit about Israel/Palestine/blacks/bums/unemployment/libertarians, etc?

I never brought any of that up. What I did mention is what a materialistic coward you are for paying taxes so you can have the finer things in life while knowing that you support the murder of innocent people and that it's obvious that paying taxes is nowhere near moral.

You try to argue by talking about affirmative action? You don't have an argument, and you know it.

That's ridiculous.

[brandon]

I never even attempted to label you. Do you feel guilty about something or what? What's all this other bullshit about Israel/Palestine/blacks/bums/unemployment/libertarians, etc?

I never brought any of that up. What I did mention is what a materialistic coward you are for paying taxes so you can have the finer things in life while knowing that you support the murder of innocent people and that it's obvious that paying taxes is nowhere near moral.

You try to argue by talking about affirmative action? You don't have an argument, and you know it.

That's ridiculous.

You have a computer with internet access. Why do you keep paying for it knowing your money is going to support murderers? Do you even have a job?

I usually agree with you but your position on this is just completely hypocritical and ridiculous, and reeks of some "holier than though" elitism.

[amy31416]

You have a computer with internet access. Why do you keep paying for it knowing your money is going to support murderers? Do you even have a job?

I usually agree with you but your position on this is just completely hypocritical and ridiculous, and reeks of some "holier than though" elitism.

Yes I do. And I use it, in part, to research, entertain myself and close an estate. Hypocritical? Yes, for now.

I do not have cable/satellite or any of the other common luxuries. I buy almost everything second-hand and/or off of Craigslist.

It's a process, I admitted that in a much earlier post. But I'm not fooling myself and pretending that I'm not part of some immoral bullshit machine.

That's the point. Stay in it if you choose, but don't lie to yourself.

[MN Patriot]

Yes, I agree with the original post, it is idiotic to claim there is no law for paying income tax. There are many people in prison who have made that claim, so obviously they were convicted of violating the law.

A better approach would be to instigate an all out tax revolt. Wake up the tax slaves, make them aware of the situation they are in. Doing so would be perfectly legal. Liberty candidates who want to end the income tax could advocate repealing tax withholding laws. Like my signature has said for probably a year now, require every worker to write a check to the government for the taxes that is stolen from them every payday.

It isn't like we would be telling people to NOT pay their taxes, we are telling them to pay their taxes. It is up to each worker to make sure they get their tax payment sent in on time. Imagine how the leftist political establishment would have to deal with that. The millions of people who suddenly realize "Holy crap, I have to pay this much in taxes?"

[BoutTreeFiddy]

I didn't say to feel guilty, my argument was against your defense of taxes when they go toward such immorality.

You keep trying to change the argument.

How do you know if Americans on welfare have cable TV anyways?

What the fuck?

When did I defend taxes?

Go through my posts dumbass, it's pretty clear that I don't want money taken out of my paycheck.

Where did I........?

God please forgive the retarded, for they are annoying but have not sinned.

[newbitech]

I see what you are saying, and it may be possible to live like that, but I want the finer things in life.

Okay, so you may be able to cut a ton of corners and live on 500 a month. Do I want to do that in order to pay less taxes? Not really. I want to be able to pursue very nice things, and it would be easier if the feds didn't take my money.

And for all the moral arguments, my beef with the feds is not what they do with the money they steal from me, but with the act of stealing it from me in the first place. Until I have the means to avoid them without serious consequence, I guess I have no choice.


Mr BoutTreeFiddy, I think this is where you are being crossed. Earlier, you said for you not paying taxes was about self-presevation. Here you say it is about wanting the finer things in life.

I can see how both of those could be considered one and the same, but based on your response to this PRACTICAL poster, it seems that you just simply aren't willing to do whatever you can to actually apply a principled AND practical approach.

Not being judgemental, I think everyone is in different stages of "revolt" at this point. At least everyone who has researched further and can quote from Freedom to Facism and raise the types of questions you raised in the OP.

I think the problem here is maybe your word selection. You came across like you wanted a practical solution for not paying taxes, and when you were given one, you sort of arrogantly thumbed your nose at it.

Seems a little condescending and maybe makes your OP look a bit inauthentic.
my opinion.

peace.

[amy31416]

What the fuck?

When did I defend taxes?

Go through my posts dumbass, it's pretty clear that I don't want money taken out of my paycheck.

Where did I........?

God please forgive the retarded, for they are annoying but have not sinned.

Did you or did you not say that you go along with taxes because you want nice stuff?

I can go back, but I think you know you said it.

ETA: You're going to get banned if you keep up the lame ad hominem attacks--I don't report people for "insulting" me, but others may not be so generous. Perhaps you know you've lost the debate and you're looking for an easy way out.

[Incrimsonias]

The16th amendment makes apportionment unnecessary. That was the whole point of it - to make way for the direct income tax without apportionment. And it specifically says "income" and from any source. It is extremely broad.

But even if you think the amendment itself is unclear, we lose because the rules of statutory interpretation will send the court to the legislative history to resolve uncertainty in a statute or amendment. The history of the 16th amendment is clear - it was intended to allow the tax on income.

But we have digressed. The OP was about the claim that "there is no law". There clearly is, so people should stop saying that. If they say "it is unconstitutional" they will sound less foolish. But they will still lose.

But it doesn't specify that it refers to a direct tax. Without such specification, it could be argued that it simply refers to an indirect tax thus not needing apportionment. BUt yes this a digression, and I'm sure another could argue it much better than me.

[BoutTreeFiddy]

Yes I do. And I use it, in part, to research, entertain myself and close an estate. Hypocritical? Yes, for now.

I do not have cable/satellite or any of the other common luxuries. I buy almost everything second-hand and/or off of Craigslist.

It's a process, I admitted that in a much earlier post. But I'm not fooling myself and pretending that I'm not part of some immoral bullshit machine.

That's the point. Stay in it if you choose, but don't lie to yourself.

You are no libertarian.

Libertarians believe in the free market. I want what I want. Taxes are an obstacle between me and what I want to obtain. So just because governments take my money to do immoral things, me trying to buy the things I want becomes immoral?

Whatever, you'll try to rationalize every phony argument.

[amy31416]

You are no libertarian.

Libertarians believe in the free market. I want what I want. Taxes are an obstacle between me and what I want to obtain. So just because governments take my money to do immoral things, me trying to buy the things I want becomes immoral?

Whatever, you'll try to rationalize every phony argument.

Impressive "argument" in it's ridiculousness.

If only because you can't address a single point and continue to deflect in such a desperate manner. I'm glad you've moved up from calling me a bitch in an enormous font. Congrats.

[Kludge]

Fairly certain BTF is just trolling.

[Danke]

The law applying the income tax is not administrative. It is found in the US Code. Those are statutes enacted by Congress. Administrative regulations are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR for short, coincidentally).


You are mixing up a few things.

Title 26 has not been enacted by congress.

[low preference guy]

Fairly certain BTF is just trolling.

He won the most obnoxious member award in my book. Note that's no easy feat, at all.

[Acala]

You are mixing up a few things.

Title 26 has not been enacted by congress.

Title 26 is part of the United States Code. The entire United States code derives from congressional acts. Administrative acts are codified in the CFR, not the US Code. I am at home so I don't have access to an annotated code. If I did, I could tell you exactly WHEN and under what enactment Congress enacted it.

Where did you get the idea that Title 26 was not enacted by Congress?

[Danke]

Where did you get the idea that Title 26 was not enacted by Congress?

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/about.html

[Peace&Freedom]

The law applying the income tax is not administrative. It is found in the US Code. Those are statutes enacted by Congress. Administrative regulations are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR for short, coincidentally).

Now the rule requiring filing a tax return might only be an administrative rule. I have not researched it. But that is a different matter.

The law applying the income tax is private law binding on a subset of people who consent to it, it is not positive law binding on all Americans. The statutes of Title 26 are not included in the Federal Register and thus not part of the binding law enacted by Congress, it is administrative code only. In addition there are no implementing regulations for Title 26, without which the statutes (private or positive) have no force. What implementing regs there are that are evoked with reference to the income tax are misapplied from Title 27, which is supposed to pertain to the BATF.

The erroneous or fraudulent misapplication of the law to enforce a tax and reporting on most Americans who are not subject to it was and is the heart of the matter, and is not going away. If you get a stern letter from Funkytown taxing authority saying you owe them taxes, pay up, when you know full well you've had no dealings with Funkytown, never been to Funkytown, and no one's taken you to Funkytown, you are not subject to Funkytown's jurisdiction and owe them no money or reports, period. This does not mean you dispute the validity of their tax laws or authority, you simply reject their misapplying the law to you. Rejecting that misapplication is at the heart of lawfully fighting control-freak authoritarianism.

[BoutTreeFiddy]

Did you or did you not say that you go along with taxes because you want nice stuff?



My god.

I go along with taxes because I want nice stuff.

Let's just make this clear: I go along with taxes (which take money out of my paycheck) because I want nice stuff (nice stuff requires money in order to purchase).

So I support the very taxes which make it more difficult for me to purchase the nice things that I want.

You make perfect fucking sense.

[Kludge]

My god.

I go along with taxes because I want nice stuff.

Let's just make this clear: I go along with taxes (which take money out of my paycheck) because I want nice stuff (nice stuff requires money in order to purchase).

So I support the very taxes which make it more difficult for me to purchase the nice things that I want.

You make perfect fucking sense.

......


So you're conceding?

[amy31416]

My god.

I go along with taxes because I want nice stuff.

Let's just make this clear: I go along with taxes (which take money out of my paycheck) because I want nice stuff (nice stuff requires money in order to purchase).

So I support the very taxes which make it more difficult for me to purchase the nice things that I want.

You make perfect fucking sense.

When you use giant fonts, it makes puppies cry. You're such a jerk!

(That's about as reasonable as your arguments. Good job.)

[newbitech]

......


So you're conceding?


looks like a surrender to me.

http://www.nps.gov/spar/historyculture/images/Surrender_burgoyne.jpg

[Kotin]

wow what a fail.

[qh4dotcom]

Yep. Some thieves are honorable, you are not.

You have, by blindly supporting and paying the government, supported harming PLENTY of innocent people and violate their natural rights. As have I--but I'm working to put an end to that because it's not okay.

Well then you need to start riding a bike or riding the bus because every time you put gas on a car 18 cents out of every gallon goes to support the Federal government and all those immoral things you talked about.

Same goes for your cellular bill...you are supporting the Federal government by paying the Federal taxes on your cellular bill. Solution: Don't pay your bill anymore.

See, it's not that easy as you think.

[newbitech]

Well then you need to start riding a bike or riding the bus because every time you put gas on a car 18 cents out of every gallon goes to support the Federal government and all those immoral things you talked about.

Same goes for your cellular bill...you are supporting the Federal government by paying the Federal taxes on your cellular bill. Solution: Don't pay your bill anymore.

See, it's not that easy as you think.

tough spot to be in if you know the truth and want to do what is right, isn't it?
How are you dealing with this issue?

[amy31416]

Well then you need to start riding a bike or riding the bus because every time you put gas on a car 18 cents out of every gallon goes to support the Federal government and all those immoral things you talked about.

Same goes for your cellular bill...you are supporting the Federal government by paying the Federal taxes on your cellular bill. Solution: Don't pay your bill anymore.

See, it's not that easy as you think.

Why would you assume that I don't ride a bike/walk or that I have a cell phone?

You really think I'm not aware of such details?

[low preference guy]

Why would you assume that I don't ride a bike/walk or that I have a cell phone?

You really think I'm not aware of such details?

also, maybe you figured out how to make your own oil? people shouldn't underestimate the resourcefulness of RPFers.

[low preference guy]

for all you out there that are going Galt: if you have time, write an anonymous book about it. go to an airport and use the internet connection to upload a torrent of it, and create a quick RPF account to post the name of the book.

[amy31416]

also, maybe you figured out how to make your own oil? people shouldn't underestimate the resourcefulness of RPFers.

I'm actually working on that, off and on. :p

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/about.html

;)

[brandon]

Why would you assume that I don't ride a bike/walk or that I have a cell phone?

You really think I'm not aware of such details?

Buying a bike would be supporting the wars as well. Participating in the US economy in any way whatsoever will be doing what you are against.

[low preference guy]

Buying a bike would be supporting the wars as well. Participating in the US economy in any way whatsoever will be doing what you are against.

yeah. breathing too. when you breath, you release CO2, which helps plants grow. those plants are often then eaten by humans, including government officials.

[amy31416]

Buying a bike would be supporting the wars as well. Participating in the US economy in any way whatsoever will be doing what you are against.

I have a bike, but did not purchase it new. It's pretty rare that I'd purchase a new item whether it's a book, a bike or a car.

Now what?

[Kludge]

Buying a bike would be supporting the wars as well. Participating in the US economy in any way whatsoever will be doing what you are against.

We generally walk, anyway, not bike. Her post was more to say "I'm not going to go over every aspect of my life with you to prove we minimize our tax contributions," I suspect.

[Danke]

Well then you need to start riding a bike or riding the bus because every time you put gas on a car 18 cents out of every gallon goes to support the Federal government and all those immoral things you talked about.


I agree, it ain't easy. But stop paying where you can. The gas tax is for roads. I have no problem with that. It is voluntary, a user fee.

[YumYum]

We are so close to economic collapse, I think that arguing about whether someone should pay taxes or not can be compared to passengers on the Titanic (after it hit the iceberg) debating other passengers on the merits of purchasing the tickets.

[Kludge]

We are so close to economic collapse, I think that arguing about whether someone should pay taxes or not can be compared to passengers on the Titanic (after it hit the iceberg) debating other passengers on the merits of purchasing the tickets.

Not at all. The government is still afloat and may be for my entire lifetime. We're talking about whether or not we should be throwing off the women and children so we can have their rations of food left on the boat.

[Danke]

Rejecting that misapplication is at the heart of lawfully fighting control-freak authoritarianism.

I wish you would post more often, Peace&Freedom.

[Anti Federalist]

We are so close to economic collapse, I think that arguing about whether someone should pay taxes or not can be compared to passengers on the Titanic (after it hit the iceberg) debating other passengers on the merits of purchasing the tickets.

that^^^

[Old Ducker]

We are so close to economic collapse, I think that arguing about whether someone should pay taxes or not can be compared to passengers on the Titanic (after it hit the iceberg) debating other passengers on the merits of purchasing the tickets.

Americans react to impending doom: http://theburningplatform.com/blog/2010/08/21/americans-react-to-impending-doom/

[Acala]

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/about.html

How does this support your contention that Title 26 of the US code was NOT enacted by Congress? Who do you think DID enact it?

[Acala]

The law applying the income tax is private law binding on a subset of people who consent to it, it is not positive law binding on all Americans. The statutes of Title 26 are not included in the Federal Register and thus not part of the binding law enacted by Congress, it is administrative code only. In addition there are no implementing regulations for Title 26, without which the statutes (private or positive) have no force. What implementing regs there are that are evoked with reference to the income tax are misapplied from Title 27, which is supposed to pertain to the BATF.

The erroneous or fraudulent misapplication of the law to enforce a tax and reporting on most Americans who are not subject to it was and is the heart of the matter, and is not going away. If you get a stern letter from Funkytown taxing authority saying you owe them taxes, pay up, when you know full well you've had no dealings with Funkytown, never been to Funkytown, and no one's taken you to Funkytown, you are not subject to Funkytown's jurisdiction and owe them no money or reports, period. This does not mean you dispute the validity of their tax laws or authority, you simply reject their misapplying the law to you. Rejecting that misapplication is at the heart of lawfully fighting control-freak authoritarianism.

Say WHAT?

No offense friend but you don't know WHAT you are talking about.

Statutes are NEVER "included" in the Federal Register. The Federal Register is a government periodical that reports administrative agency actions - proposing rules, responding to comments on rules, finalizing rules. When the rules become final, they become part of the Code of Federal Regulations. That is all administrative law.

Statutory law is made by legislation, not administrative process, so it is not reported in the Federal Register. It simply goes into the US Code when it is passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Statutory law is binding whether it has implementing regulations or not. In fact, implementing regulations are a relatively recent development that came about with the rise of the Administrative "branch" of government.

As for "positive" law versus "private" law, I have no idea what you are talking about and no judge in the country would either.

You may not like, and in fact totally reject, the jurisdiction of the US government. But they disagree and WILL apply their law to you. And no magic legalistic mumbo jumbo is going to get you out of it. Fair warning.

[Danke]

How does this support your contention that Title 26 of the US code was NOT enacted by Congress? Who do you think DID enact it?

:confused:

It was not enacted. How much clearer can it be?

[Michaelwiseguy]

for all you out there that are going Galt: if you have time, write an anonymous book about it. go to an airport and use the internet connection to upload a torrent of it, and create a quick RPF account to post the name of the book.I win the John Galt award, hands down. No one can compete with me on that one, Biaches.

[Old Ducker]

I ain't goin Galt unless I can afford do it on a proper scale. The simple fact is that unless you wanna live a third world life, you will need a community of people of different skills and experience. Of course that's what Galt had.

[low preference guy]

I win the John Galt award, hands down. No one can compete with me on that one, Biaches.

you will win it for me when you write the book. ;)

or when you write a blog post/thread with the details about how to get it done.

[Michaelwiseguy]

The best way to avoid paying the governments your tax money is to make it your life goal to work and earn as little money as possible.

Things to do;

1) Have no kids

2) Buy nicest cheapest foreclosed house in low tax area.

3) Pay house off in 1 to 3 years at most.

4) Don't buy car that is not paid for 100%

5) Quit full time job and work part time or not at all.

6) Declare bankruptcy and pay no credit card debt.

I'm working on #6 and have no secured debt.

My property taxes homesteaded in SW Florida are less $900/year.

I survive on about $500 a month. The governments have gotten very little from me in the past 5 years. Here's a picture of my home.

http://www.leepa.org/dotnet/photo/photo.aspx?id=1339316&Height=400

You call this living 3rd world? I'm using a 24" HP flat computer screen bought $200 and watching Lockup on a 55' Samsung TV at the same time.

[low preference guy]

good stuff.

[YumYum]

Americans react to impending doom: http://theburningplatform.com/blog/2010/08/21/americans-react-to-impending-doom/

lol! :D

[Old Ducker]

You call this living 3rd world? I'm using a 24" HP flat computer screen bought $200 and watching Lockup on a 55' Samsung TV at the same time.

That ain't goin' galt. You have simply downscaled your lifestyle, but you are still dependent on the system.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I just don't see how it's possible some completely absurd statements about the 16th Amendment persist. How does that happen when you have posters who have posted extensively on the subject? Taxation and Naturalization are in the same boat. It doesn't matter how in depth you post about it brain cells are not making a connection.

Despite the fact we know it wasn't lawfully ratified based on the historical record and it is null and void on it's face, let's assume for a moment the 16th Amendment was lawfully ratified. All it did was close a couple loopholes. For instance prior to the (unlawfully ratified) 16th Amendment the courts held that income derived from renting property was in fact a direct tax.

To understand taxation you must start at the beginning and work forward, not in reverse. Now... not that this hasn't been mentioned before, but... tax on land is direct.... tax on human beings is indirect. Not that this hasn't been mentioned before, but... the difference between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution is the former only acted upon States and objects of the latter can be a state or individual.

Alexander Hamilton's brief before the Supreme Court on the carriage tax:

February 24, 1795.
What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution. We shall seek in vain for any antecedent settled legal meaning to the respective terms—there is none.

We shall be as much at a loss to find any disposition of either which can satisfactorily determine the point.

Shall we call an indirect tax, a tax which is ultimately paid by a person, different from the one who pays it in the first instance?

Truly speaking, there is no such tax—those on imported articles best claim the character. But in many instances the merchant cannot transfer the tax to the buyer; in numerous cases it falls on himself, partly or wholly. Besides, if the same article which is imported by a merchant for sale, is imported by a merchant for his own use, or by a lawyer, a physician, or mechanic, for his own use, there can be no question about the transfer of the tax. It remains upon him who pays it.
According to that rule, then, the same tax may be both a direct and indirect tax, which is an absurdity. To urge that a man may either buy an article already imported, or import it himself, amounts to nothing; sometimes he could not have that option.

But the option of an individual cannot alter the nature of a thing. In like manner he might avoid the tax on carriages by hiring occasionally instead of buying.
The subject of taxation, not the contingent optional conduct of individuals, must be the criterion of direct or indirect taxation. Shall it be said that an indirect tax is that of which a man is not conscious when he pays? Neither is there any such tax. The ignorant may not see the tax in the enhanced price of the commodity—but the man of reflection knows it is there. Besides, when any but a merchant pays, as in the case of the lawyer, etc., who imports for himself, he cannot but be conscious that it falls upon himself.

By this rule, also, then a tax would be both direct and indirect—and it will be equally impracticable to find any other precise or satisfactory criterion.

In such a case no construction ought to prevail calculated to defeat the express and necessary authority of the government.

It would be contrary to reason, and to every rule of sound construction, to adopt a principle for regulating the exercise of a clear constitutional power which would defeat the exercise of the power.

It cannot be contested that a duty on carriages specifically is as much within the authority of the government as a duty on lands or buildings.

Now, if a duty on carriages is to be considered as a direct tax, to be apportioned according to the rates of representation, very absurd consequences must ensue.
‘T is possible that a particular State may have no carriages of the description intended to be taxed, or a very small number.

But each State would have to pay a proportion of the sum to be laid, according to its relative numbers; yet, while the State would have to pay a quota, it might have no carriages upon which its quota could be assessed, or so few, as to render it ruinous to the owners to pay the tax. To consider then a duty on carriages as a direct tax, may be to defeat the power of laying such a duty. This is a consequence which ought not to ensue from construction.

Further: If the tax on carriages be a direct tax, that on ships according to their tonnage must be so likewise. Here is not a consumable article. Here the tax is paid by the owner of the thing taxed, from time to time, as would be the tax on carriages.

If it be said that the tax is indirect because it is alternately paid by the freighter of the vessel, the answer is, that sometimes the owner is himself the freighter, and at other times the tonnage accrues when there is no freight, and is a dead charge on the owner of the vessel.

Moreover, a tax on a hackney or stage-coach or other carriage, or on a dray or cart employed in transporting commodities for hire, would be as much a charge on the freight as a tax upon vessels; so that, if the latter be an indirect tax, the former cannot be a direct tax.

And it would be too great a refinement for a rule of practice in government to say, that a tax on a hackney or stage-coach, and upon a dray or cart, is an indirect one, and yet a tax upon a coach or wagon ordinarily used for the purposes of its owner, is a direct one.

The only known source of the distinction between direct and indirect taxes is in the doctrine of the French Economists—Locke and other speculative writers—who affirm that all taxes fall ultimately upon land, and are paid out of its produce, whether laid immediately upon itself, or upon any other thing. Hence, taxes upon lands are in that system called direct taxes; those on all other articles indirect taxes.

According to this, land taxes only would be direct taxes, but it is apparent that something more was intended by the Constitution. In one case, a capitation is spoken of as a direct tax.

But how is the meaning of the Constitution to be determined? It has been affirmed, and so it will be found, that there is no general principle which can indicate the boundary between the two. That boundary, then, must be fixed by a species of arbitration, and ought to be such as will involve neither absurdity nor inconvenience.The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes.

Capitation or poll taxes.
Taxes on lands and buildings.General assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate; all else must of necessity be considered as indirect taxes.To apply a rule of apportionment according to numbers to taxes of the above description, has some rationale in it; but to extend an apportionment of that kind to other cases, would, in many instances, produce, as has been seen, preposterous consequences, and would greatly embarrass the operations of the government. Nothing could be more capricious or outré, than the application of quotas in such cases.The Constitution gives power to Congress to lay and collect the taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, requiring that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Here duties, imposts, and excises appear to be contradistinguished from taxes, and while the latter is left to apportionment, the former are enjoined to be uniform.

But, unfortunately, there is equally here a want of criterion to distinguish duties, imposts, and excises from taxes.

If the meaning of the word excise is to be sought in the British statutes, it will be found to include the duty on carriages, which is there considered as an excise, and then must necessarily be uniform and not liable to apportionment; consequently not a direct tax.

An argument results from this, though not perhaps a conclusive one: yet where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.[1]Hamilton, when Secretary of the Treasury, recommended a tax on pleasure carriages and Madison opposed it in the House on the ground that it was a direct tax, and therefore unconstitutional. The bill laying the tax became a law, and certain persons in Virginia refused to pay the tax, taking Madison’s position as to its unconstitutionality. The case came before the Supreme Court, and Hamilton appeared for the government with the Attorney-General of the United States. One of the newspapers said next day (Feb. 25th): “Yesterday, in the Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Hamilton, late Secretary of the Treasury, made a most eloquent speech in support of the constitutionality of the carriage tax. He spoke for three hours. and the whole of his argument was clear, impressive, and classical. The audience, which was very numerous, and among whom were many foreigners of distinction and many of the Members of Congress, testified the effect produced by the talents of this great orator and statesman.”

Now let's jump to The Revenue Act of 1862:
http://www.robinsonlibrary.com/social/publicfinance/revenue/incometax/graphics/1862-1.gif

[Michaelwiseguy]

That ain't goin' galt. You have simply downscaled your lifestyle, but you are still dependent on the system.I get $0 from society and give $0 back. Sales tax cannot be avoided, but at 6% of spending, property tax, etc that's about $100 a month in taxes. For 0$ mortgage/rent, that's not too bad.

[newbitech]

I get $0 from society and give $0 back. Sales tax cannot be avoided, but at 6% of spending, property tax, etc that's about $100 a month in taxes. For 0$ mortgage/rent, that's not too bad.

is it texas that doesn't have property taxes on real estate?

[Michaelwiseguy]

is it texas that doesn't have property taxes on real estate?SW Florida on a property appraised at $76k with $50k homestead exemption. This years taxes is about $900. The house sold for $311k in 2006 the year it was built, 1900sf. I bought if for $32k last year and am getting $3,300 in an irs tax credit rebate..

[newbitech]

SW Florida on a property appraised at $76k with $50k homestead exemption. This years taxes is about $900. The house sold for $311k in 2006 the year it was built, 1900sf. I bought if for $32k last year and am getting $3,300 in an irs tax credit rebate..

sounds good. I am saving up for one of these

http://www.campingworld.com/rvsales/detail.cfm?v=147232 (http://www.campingworld.com/rvsales/detail.cfm?v=147232)


yeah it runs on diesel.

I will probably also get one of these and keep it somewhere along the FL coast..

http://www.sailboatlistings.com/view/19178 (http://www.sailboatlistings.com/view/19178)


eessh who was he and why banned heh...

[Fredom101]

is it texas that doesn't have property taxes on real estate?

No, Texas has some of the highest property taxes in the country. The reason? Because they have no state income tax. They get your money one way or another.

[Fredom101]

I completely agree with the OP.
"Show me the law" is a horrible argument.
Politicians don't follow laws. Maybe there is a law, maybe not. But if someone were to "show you the law", would taxes then become moral and good? I think not.
This was basically Wesley Snipes' argument. He lost, then he was threatened with jail time. We're not going to get anywhere with this argument. We MUST point out the immorality of taxation, over and over until people get it. THAT is how we will win.

[aGameOfThrones]

How does this support your contention that Title 26 of the US code was NOT enacted by Congress? Who do you think DID enact it?


NOTE: Of the 50 titles, only 23 have been enacted into positive (statutory) law. These titles are 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, and 49. When a title of the Code was enacted into positive law, the text of the title became legal evidence of the law. Titles that have not been enacted into positive law are only prima facie evidence of the law. In that case, the Statutes at Large still govern.



Prima Facie Evidence: Evidence good and sufficient on its face; such evidence as, in the judgment of the law, is sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts constituting the party's claim or defense, and which if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient. Prima facie evidence is evidence which if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain a judgment in favor of the issue which it supports, but which may be contradicted by other evidence. State v. Haremza, 213 Kan. 201, 515 P.2d 1217, 1222.

[erowe1]

Another variation of the same fallacy the OP talks about is the idea that we can get rid of the income tax if only we repeal the 16th amendment.

This myth is especially popular with Fair Tax proponents. If we did repeal the 16th amendment and replace the income tax with a sales tax, the lack of an amendment in the Constitution authorizing an income tax would do absolutely nothing to stop Congress from reinstituting a new income tax the moment they decide they need the revenue. The fact that it's not constitutional wouldn't stop them from that any more than it stops them from anything else, and for those who even bothered to address the question at all, they'd have no problem justifying it as an excise tax authorized in Article I, Section 8.

[Fredom101]

Another variation of the same fallacy the OP talks about is the idea that we can get rid of the income tax if only we repeal the 16th amendment.

This myth is especially popular with Fair Tax proponents. If we did repeal the 16th amendment and replace the income tax with a sales tax, the lack of an amendment in the Constitution authorizing an income tax would do absolutely nothing to stop Congress from reinstituting a new income tax the moment they decide they need the revenue. The fact that it's not constitutional wouldn't stop them from that any more than it stops them from anything else, and for those who even bothered to address the question at all, they'd have no problem justifying it as an excise tax authorized in Article I, Section 8.

Exactly why Schiff and the fair tax proponents are dead wrong.
Allow the Fair Tax and we may well end up with both and income tax and a huge consumption tax.

[freshjiva]

Wow. I am appalled at the tone of this thread. Everyone sounds like vicious piranhas.

To keep it simple, I personally wouldn't mind paying taxes if the government only did things the people want it to do. If the government was fully transparent, and didn't have all the pork and special interests tied into the federal budget, tax rates would be nowhere near the levels they are today. And if paying those taxes added to the general welfare and quality of living in this beautiful country, I would have no problems with paying them.

Too bad our government doesn't always act out of the interests of the people.

[FrankRep]

"WHERE IS THE LAW?" - The most idiotic argument for not paying income tax.


Tangents: Neutralizing Movements That Undermine the Work of Patriotic Americans to Preserve Freedom (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=258001)



Tangent: The Income Tax Rebellion



But we have thought, and still do, that any widespread and organized refusal to pay taxes by people acting in unison would be a mistaken approach to the problem....

Naturally, therefore, we would be reluctant — or would even be discouraged if we were discourageable — to see any sizable fraction of our members running off on all kinds of futile tangents from hopeless new parties to tax rebellion.

— Robert Welch, June 1972 Bulletin


The John Birch Society does not oppose federal taxation; we oppose the unconstitutional misuse of taxing power and the waste of billions in tax dollars. We also oppose a direct federal tax on incomes because it is overly intrusive, it imposes an unnecessary regulatory burden, and it gives politicians an irresistible opportunity to manipulate the actions of taxpayers. If the federal government were limited to constitutionally authorized powers, there would be no need for an income tax and the government would function with other authorized tax revenues.

Nevertheless, we do not cheat on our taxes, refuse to pay them, or play games with the IRS. Abusive tax collection methods employed by the Internal Revenue Service abated considerably following congressional hearings. However, Congress continued to allow many unconstitutional procedures relating to searches, seizures, and presumed guilt. We are not likely to enjoy all constitutional protections even with a “kinder, gentler” tax collection system until the 16th Amendment is repealed and the graduated income tax is abolished.

Meanwhile, citizens must not be led into the tax rebellion trap. We sometimes suspect that the IRS makes the tax evasion rope deliberately long in order to snare people who are engaged in the freedom fight. The enemy could hardly contrive a better way to take patriotic men and women out of the battle than to tie them down with extensive audits, expensive court contests, and endless appeals. Tax rebels or evaders who manage to stay out of jail spend much of their time — often the rest of their lives — trying to pay back-taxes, huge penalties, and heavy interest charges. Perhaps nothing cripples a free citizen so severely or hampers his effectiveness so badly as this tangent.

Some tax evaders complain they alone are fighting the Conspiracy by withholding the tax dollars needed for building the new world order. They insist that a great number of equally courageous Americans could break the back of the enemy by cutting off the flow of tax money. This argument hardly holds up when one considers the Insider control of our nation’s flow of unbacked currency. Any reduction in tax revenue caused by tax rebels would be made up by more printing-press dollars, resulting in “taxes” being paid in the form of lost value of our currency.

Moreover, tax rebels supply just one more excuse for federal enforcement agencies to add more officers and more harsh enforcement measures. This reaction on the part of government plays conveniently (or even purposely) into the hands of the Insiders who seek more government, more power, and more control over every aspect of our lives. Please don’t fall for this tangent — it’s a certain trap.

The federal graduated income tax is a symptom of a far greater problem: a brainwashed public suffering under the belief that the United States would fall apart without this means of massive taxation. When enough people understand the proper and limited role of the federal government, they will prevail upon Congress to introduce an amendment repealing the 16th Amendment. Solution to the income tax? Build a better understanding among our fellow citizens of the principles of a limited and frugal U.S. government. And create awareness of the unique power that an accountable Congress has under the Constitution to restore fiscally sound government without the income tax.

[pacelli]

I'm sure everybody here has seen Freedom to Fascism. In roughly the first hour, Aaron Russo interviews former IRS agents, tax specialists, etc. The main point that he is trying to get at is that there is no law requiring citizens to pay income taxes or that the income tax applies only to corporate gains.


Give this a listen:

YouTube - Tax Protest- The Definition of Income.wmv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVDM2cicyPY)

[Danke]

Give this a listen:


From that audio, he is trying to say having a SSN makes you liable for the federal income tax. That is a misunderstanding.

[Matt Collins]

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm (http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm)

[Elwar]

When you fill out your income taxes...is there a potential that the information you give could be used against you in the court of law?

Should you be forced to present such evidence, or be a witness against yourself?

Should you be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against yourself?

[Elwar]

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm (http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm)

That lawyer never defined the term "income". He gave reference to some "including" items that aren't apportioned, which runs afoul of the apportionment provisions of the Constitution and the Pollock decision (which wasn't repealed by the 16th Amendment).

[roho76]

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm (http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm)


Well, of course they haven't seen the income tax law. Most people are not lawyers. Most people have never seen any actual law. Most people wouldn't know where to look for any actual law even if they wanted to. And even most lawyers don't spend their time looking up the actual statutes that we all obey in our everyday lives.


Russo interviews some former IRS agents who have joined the tax protestor movement. Any big government agency with tens of thousands of employees will at some point employ some foolish people. The fact that some former IRS agents are tax protestors is not persuasive.

So the everyday citizen, IRS agents, and even some Lawyers are not able to understand the law but it must be obeyed? I can't remember the quote or the Latin phrase about "if the law is to complicated for an ordinary man to understand then it is no law" but it seems to fit in this particular situation.

I am of the understanding that it is misapplied. No law can supersede those that come before it (this doesn't mean they won't throw you in jail just because they feel like it) which according to what I've read seems about right. That's why people fail with the "Constitutionality of the law" issue. It is Constitutional because it doesn't apply to whom we think it does. I have read the portions of the tax code that are supposed to apply to me but the definitions that they use to describe things like United States, employee, employer, corporation, and the like are altered in a way to be outside of the normal everyday meanings that most of us share. "Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius": The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. So even if you were to read the tax code you would think they are talking about you unless you read them together with the definitions of the terms used. This is the trickery that politicians use to get their way. When you sign your 1040 you are committing fraud, perjuring yourself and willingly giving the Feds a donation.

(1) Our system of taxation is dependent on taxpayers' belief that the tax laws they follow apply to everyone and that the Internal Revenue Service will respect and protect their rights under the law. These are the fundamental principles of voluntary compliance.[/I]
Internal Revenue Manual, Part 5, Collection Activity 105.4.1.2 (07/27/98)

Now do you think the government would leave such a thing up to "voluntary compliance", to quote Harry Reid's statement lightly, if it were 100% legal? Is the mandatory ObamaCare based on "Voluntary Compliance" also since I have to staple it to my 1040? The fact is that they hope you will perjure yourself into being in hot water with them. Once you lie to the government that's it, you're done. This is how they get you to complying with them financially plus interest and fees.

This is all laid out in "Cracking the Code" by Pete Hendrickson whom the IRS is making an example of as we speak without even allowing him to enter into evidence the necessary language of the tax code itself to which is his defense. How you can have a trial about taxes without being able to site the tax code itself is beyond me. It's another one of those "I'll tell you what the law means" by the judge because he is the judge, jury, and executioner which we have seen time and time again. It's sad but he will probably end up a victim of the daily corruption of our legal system and thrown in jail.

Besides I can't for the life of me understand how most of us here are against the Federal Reserve because of their unlawful existence and then think the income tax laws, while morally wrong, are 100% legal. WTF? They were both passed under the shadows of the night by a sinister group of people and not to mention the IRS and the Federal Reserve are connected at the hip and all of our tax dollars go directly to them not the government. Our income taxes go straight to the Federal Reserve to pay off the interest on the money they loan our government.

How many of you are going to lay down and comply with ObamaCare? Do you actually think the Repugs are going to repeal this piece of sh*t. Because if you think you are going to get away without doing it then you may as well not even file your taxes because that is an invitation to come and get you.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

"Ooohh. . . We might get in trouble!" is the dumbest reason to be a coward.

[WaltM]

That lawyer never defined the term "income". He gave reference to some "including" items that aren't apportioned, which runs afoul of the apportionment provisions of the Constitution and the Pollock decision (which wasn't repealed by the 16th Amendment).

Yes he did. (well, he didn't DEFINE it himself, he cites the IRS on what is defined)
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/income.htm
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/wages.htm

[WaltM]

"Ooohh. . . We might get in trouble!" is the dumbest reason to be a coward.

and that's hardly our argument

Our argument is, if it were legal, we'd be stupid to do so (pay taxes without need to), consulting experts in law, taxes, we see that we're far from knowing anything secret or magical (and the law has been as such).

Furthermore, we know what happens to people when they make stupid arguments (and feel free to try them again, we'll laugh at you).

[Elwar]

and that's hardly our argument

Our argument is, if it were legal, we'd be stupid to do so (pay taxes without need to), consulting experts in law, taxes, we see that we're far from knowing anything secret or magical (and the law has been as such).

Furthermore, we know what happens to people when they make stupid arguments (and feel free to try them again, we'll laugh at you).

Who is "we"?

[WaltM]

So the everyday citizen, IRS agents, and even some Lawyers are not able to understand the law but it must be obeyed?


Everyday citizens are not required to understand the law, but that's no excuse.

Lawyers and agents are however, expected to know and defend it.




I can't remember the quote or the Latin phrase about "if the law is to complicated for an ordinary man to understand then it is no law" but it seems to fit in this particular situation.


If that were the case, lawyers would argue ignorance on the behalf of the defendent.

But again, belief and ignorance is no real excuse. If you do no understand the law, you are free to ask.

If you actually believe you lack such a responsibility, you MAY have a case
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/belief.htm

However, that too, is subject to the judge and jury.
And there's a difference between not knowing HOW MUCH you owe, and not knowing you owe anything at all.




Besides I can't for the life of me understand how most of us here are against the Federal Reserve because of their unlawful existence and then think the income tax laws, while morally wrong, are 100% legal.


The Fed is legal, just immoral.

So there's no inconsistency here, lay down your conspiracies.




WTF? They were both passed under the shadows of the night by a sinister group of people and not to mention the IRS and the Federal Reserve are connected at the hip and all of our tax dollars go directly to them not the government. Our income taxes go straight to the Federal Reserve to pay off the interest on the money they loan our government.


Slow down here, passed, or not passed? Can't be both.

If passed, it's legal.
If not passed, it's not legal.




How many of you are going to lay down and comply with ObamaCare?


the same who laid down for medicare and SS.





Do you actually think the Repugs are going to repeal this piece of sh*t. Because if you think you are going to get away without doing it then you may as well not even file your taxes because that is an invitation to come and get you.

what's your point?

[WaltM]

Who is "we"?

Matt Collins and I, and the rest of Americans who don't buy these conspiracy arguments.

Call us tools, or slaves if you like, that's what "we" are, unlike "them", those who think they're smarter than the law and its enforcers.

[amy31416]

Walt--why do you give a flying fuck if people pay their taxes or not? You have some stake in it?

[WaltM]

Walt--why do you give a flying fuck if people pay their taxes or not? You have some stake in it?

I don't want people to go to prison, that's about it.

No pony in the IRS's race.

Why is it always ME asked this question? Matt started it here.

[Elwar]

Matt Collins and I, and the rest of Americans who don't buy these conspiracy arguments.


Ok, as long as "they" gave you permission to speak for them.

[WaltM]

Ok, as long as "they" gave you permission to speak for them.

I don't care if they did really.

[amy31416]

I don't want people to go to prison, that's about it.

No pony in the IRS's race.

Why is it always ME asked this question? Matt started it here.

Because you argue it most vehemently, why do you think?

Why do you care if people go to prison? They know the risks.

[Elwar]

I don't want people to go to prison, that's about it.


But if they didn't go to prison, then you'd lose the main argument for making people pay taxes...

In order for the IRS to work, people must fear going to prison.

[WaltM]

Because you argue it most vehemently, why do you think?

Why do you care if people go to prison? They know the risks.

as long as they do, I don't care.

I just think it's pretty sad that some people go to prison when it could've been avoided, all because of their ignorance & stupidity.

Yeah, funny that I care, isn't it.

(oh, maybe there's another reason, such as, I want to show I'm smarter than them)

[WaltM]

But if they didn't go to prison, then you'd lose the main argument for making people pay taxes...

In order for the IRS to work, people must fear going to prison.

Not so fast.

You acknowledged that there's a difference between protesting and evading (or not paying).

So, people may not go to prison on moral disbelief or disagreement, as long as they comply.

But no, the IRS doesn't work solely on the fear of people going to prison, they can actually make it happen (if you doubt it, please show me you are right).

Why is the burden of proof on me to show you'll be in prison when I have reason to believe I WILL be in prison for evasion (not just protesting). Whereas I've heard only isolated cases (yeah, less than 20 amongst 300 million Americans) actually "win" their cases (just criminally, not as far as being free from paying).

What the HELL do you mean "but if they don't go to prison"
You might as well ask me "but if they don't go to prison (for murder)" then I lose the argument why they shouldn't commit murder.

[amy31416]

as long as they do, I don't care.

I just think it's pretty sad that some people go to prison when it could've been avoided, all because of their ignorance & stupidity.

Yeah, funny that I care, isn't it.

(oh, maybe there's another reason, such as, I want to show I'm smarter than them)

More likely. ;)

Either way, legal or not, paying taxes with how our government operates is immoral--if you're into that sort of thing.

But, I'm not going to argue it either.

[WaltM]

More likely. ;)

Either way, legal or not, paying taxes with how our government operates is immoral--if you're into that sort of thing.

But, I'm not going to argue it either.

I'd rather be smart when I can afford to.

But having to choose between being right and being out of prison, I chose being out of prison.

And I can only hope people who went to prison (for anything) knew what they were asking for (unless they were wrongly accused and falsely convicted).

[Elwar]

You acknowledged that there's a difference between protesting and evading (or not paying).

Sometimes one or the other, sometimes both, sometimes neither.


So, people may not go to prison on moral disbelief or disagreement, as long as they comply.

As long as they comply in a way that the IRS can't use their tax forms against them. Good luck with that. But mainly, yes.


But no, the IRS doesn't work solely on the fear of people going to prison, they can actually make it happen (if you doubt it, please show me you are right).

They work on fear. And they can send people to prison.


Why is the burden of proof on me to show you'll be in prison when I have reason to believe I WILL be in prison for evasion (not just protesting).

I'm not burdening you with anything.


Whereas I've heard only isolated cases (yeah, less than 20 amongst 300 million Americans) actually "win" their cases (just criminally, not as far as being free from paying).

Most of those "300 million Americans" are not questioning the law in fake court, they are questioning their compliance. Which is a loss from the start.


What the HELL do you mean "but if they don't go to prison"

I'm saying that if people don't go to prison then the IRS loses the fear, which is the only leg they have to stand on. And it's the argument always fallen back on when discussing the legitimacy of the tax laws "Ya, enjoy that argument in prison", "Try that argument in court, see what the (income tax funded) judge says." etc.


You might as well ask me "but if they don't go to prison (for murder)" then I lose the argument why they shouldn't commit murder.

If murder were legal and moral and the only way to convince someone of not doing it was to be afraid of going to prison for doing it, then yes, you would lose the argument if nobody was ever sent to prison for it.