Confused! Arguments on both sides...

[thorie]

Intrigued by the notion that the Federal Reserve System and the IRS may be unconstitutional, I did some quick research.

http://www.stage6.com/Liberty/video/1146320/Theft-By-Deception:-The-Federal-Income-Tax
[Video made by Someone?]

This video claims that it is not necessary to pay the federal income tax on wages earned within the US.

Here is a counter-argument site that attempts to debunk the myths of federal income tax. It addresses issues such as the unconstitutionality of the general domestic income tax, the 16th amendment, section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code, and many other "arguments" typically made by "tax protesters".

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
[Written by a Attorney at Law]

This site details the exact reasons why Congress DOES have the power to tax on wages earned within the US.

Anyways, there is much more I need to research.
In terms of money and the Federal Reserve, I was reading the site:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/FedReserveFacts.html
[Written by an Economics PhD]

I don't believe everything I see and read on television or the internet, but there is a lot of convincing information out there on both sides of the argument. I struggle to keep my head straight on all the details and try to maintain getting my information from reputable sources (although everyone seems to have an agenda these days).

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on what is considered fact and myth in terms of the IRS, Federal Income Tax, and the Federal Reserve System.

[Chester Copperpot]

That evans legal attorney guy is a very smooth talker that tries to confuse more than educate.

[Chester Copperpot]

That evans legal attorney guy is a very smooth talker that tries to confuse more than educate.

That other guy Flaherty and his debunking of the Fed is a complete and utter non truth.. I can debunk all his 'debunking' ...

And dont let anybody fool you.. That guy is friends with Ben Bernanke.

He has very weak arguments and purposefully talks about points that are non issues.

[fsk]

Edward Flaherty is a troll.

I have some good bits on my blog. Here is a decent starting point:

http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-paul-federal-reserve-and-gold.html

Regarding the income tax, there are two main points to consider, morality and legality.

1. The income tax is immoral. This is obvious. The income tax converts everyone into government slaves.
2. Is the income tax legal? This is a complicated argument. It boils down to "The people who control the most guns say the income tax is legal. Therefore, the income tax is legal."

[seapilot]

My view is the 13th amendment puts the 16th amendment or personal income tax into question, because of the definition of involuntary servitude. The IRS claims its voluntary because you sign your income tax form, which is b.s. because if you dont technically you are in noncompliance then they arrest you take your house, earnings and might throw you in jail.

[jon_perez]

Edward Flaherty is a troll.

That other guy Flaherty and his debunking of the Fed is a complete and utter non truth.. I can debunk all his 'debunking' ... He has very weak arguments and purposefully talks about points that are non issues.I'm still very interested in and am waiting for a fact by fact refutation of the points in Flaherty's page: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/FedReserveFacts.html

But I guess it makes me a troll for even bringing up that suggestion... :rolleyes:

[jon_perez]

That evans legal attorney guy is a very smooth talker that tries to confuse more than educate.The Evans guy,

hxxp://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

is not a smooth talker. He's an obfuscator.

My take on the matter: if the average citizen cannot understand the laws that are supposed to apply to him/her, then something is very very very very wrong.

[fsk]

I already discussed Edward Flaherty on my blog.

[thorie]

His arguments are similar to those written by the IRS in their publication:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

On page 14, it says, "I.R.C. sections 861 and 911 define the sources of income (U.S. versus non-U.S. source income) for such purposes as the prevention of double taxation of income..." and further more, "These sections neither specify whether income is taxable, nor do they determine gross income. These frivolous assertions are clearly contrary to well-established legal precedent."

This lead me to here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_statutory_arguments#The_861_argument

It mentions a pending court case with actor Wesley Snipes.

What is also interesting is that there is now a "penalty/fine" against arguing your position. Then they list all the horrible penalties and jail time faced by those who have argued this case.

I interpret this as, "You better not even *think* of fighting for your rights."

I am a law-abiding, tax-paying man. I am not trying to "cheat" the system and get something for free, or evade taxes. I am simply looking for the truth.

So far, however, the relevant court cases do seem to show that federal income tax is required to be paid on domestic income. And I'm not ready to make the argument that the judicial system is flawed.

What a windy path this is!

[fsk]

And I'm not ready to make the argument that the judicial system is flawed.


Why not? I'm ready to make the argument that the judicial system is flawed. Government courts have an absolutely unaccountable monopoly.

When making an anti-income tax argument, I think it is more productive to argue from a MORAL perspective than from a LEGAL perspective.

The MORAL argument against an income tax is obvious. The income tax converts everyone into government slaves.

The legal arguments are incredibly complicated and obscure, on both the pro-income-tax and anti-income-tax side.

[Dave Pedersen]

check out

http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/default.htm

Bob Schultz is doing a great service to everyone by holding the courts to the fire. They deserve everyone's support in their effort to force the supreme court to address this issue and the core issue of the meaning the of right to redress of grievances clause.

also:

http://www.questforfairtrialinconcordnh.blogspot.com/

http://www.showedthelaw.blogspot.com/

People are suffering false imprisonment as we speak concerning this ongoing government hoax.

[fsk]

You're sort of missing the point. If government courts are corrupt, then how is appealing to a government court going to accomplish anything?

Suppose the Supreme Court says that the income tax, as currently implemented, is absolutely perfectly legal? Then what do you do?

[DirtMcGirt]

"The power to tax is the power to destroy" --Quote by Supreme court in the case of McCulloch vs. Maryland (1819)

[Dave Pedersen]

If government courts are corrupt, then how is appealing to a government court going to accomplish anything?

The courts are not all equally corrupt. The lowest level of the court system is most insulated from meaningful scrutiny. The higher up they go the more light is on them to rule rightly. The supreme court is where the buck stops and it is where they will have to say yes we are sovereign or no we are not. The courts try to play both sides and they try to dodge the issue and preserve a veneer of legitimacy. Why? To delay our collective response to overt tyranny. There is a chance the supreme court will rule in favor of the constitution since the consequence of ruling against we the people will bring them one step closer to the gallows in their lifetime.