Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 410

Thread: There is no federal or state income tax on working wages by law in this country.

  1. #1

    There is no federal or state income tax on working wages by law in this country.

    Why do I state this?

    Because the people of this nation have been conditioned to believe that employment (working for someone else) is the equivalent of providing a service. It is not.

    This is where Ron Paul can win over the working people of this country, by showing that businesses have been giving away a portion of their paychecks to the government for the last 70 years.

    This knowledge will have a dramatic impact on the Accounting industry, as well as, the Retirement Financial industry.


    This from a Human Resources site on the internet:

    Employment Status – Employed or Self-employed?

    What is the difference between a “contract of service” and a “contract for services”?

    These are common-law terms used to distinguish employees from persons who are self-employed.

    The term:
    -“contract of service” relates to a person in employment (as in the case of a domestic servant who is described as being “in service”.)
    -“contract for services” relates to a person who is self-employed and who provides services to clients.

    The term “contract of service” is referred to in employment and tax legislation. A person who works under a contract of service is:
    -an “employee” for payroll purposes, and
    -an “employee” for employment rights purposes, and
    -a “worker” for other employment rights purposes.

    In contrast, a person who works under a contract for services, i.e. a self-employed person, is neither an employee nor a worker. There is no requirement for an employer to put such a person on the payroll; rather payment may be made on invoice. There is no entitlement to any of the employment rights available to employees and workers.

    How, then, are these terms to be distinguished? Traditionally, there are two key tests to identify an employee, i.e. a person who works under a “contract of service”.
    These include:
    -“mutuality of obligation”, i.e. both parties to the contract have obligations to each other, the employee to perform the work as directed, the employer to pay for the work performed.
    -the “degree of control” exercised by the employer over the work performed by the employee.

    Other factors, however, have been taken into consideration when courts and tribunals have endeavored to distinguish between employment and self-employment.
    These include:
    -whether the individual must perform the work personally, or is able to send a qualified substitute.
    -the nature of the pay and benefits that are provided by the employer.
    -whether or not the individual has a business structure.
    -who decides on how the contract should be performed.
    -the extent of the financial risk borne by the individual.
    -who provides the materials and equipment necessary for the work.
    The duration of the contract is also important, the longer the engagement, the more likely it is that the relationship is employment.

    Another simple way of distinguishing employment from self-employment is to consider what it is that the employer is “buying”:
    -if the employer is “buying” an employee, there will be a lengthy recruitment process in order to find just the right person.
    -if the employer is “buying” a service, the person who will provide the service is likely to be selected by recommendation or simply by choosing an ad in the Yellow Pages.


    The Internal Revenue Service has a form which is used for this purpose.
    (Form SS-8, Determination of Worker Status)
    This form is used to determine who is liable for the employer side of the Social Security and Medicare taxes, if either side questions who is liable.


    If we go to the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26) we will find the following definitions, laid out in the Social Security Act of 1935.

    TITLE 26 > Subtitle C > CHAPTER 21 > Subchapter C > § 3121
    § 3121. Definitions
    (a) Wages
    For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash;

    (b) Employment
    For purposes of this chapter, the term “employment” means any service, of whatever nature, performed


    Here we see that employment is defined as service, of whatever nature, thus either performing service (employment) or performing a service (self-employment) is liable to this taxation.




    Now, we come to the crux of the matter.


    In 1942, Congress passed the Current Tax Payment Act to collect federal income tax at source on wages. Let’s go to the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26) to find this definition from that Act.



    TITLE 26 > Subtitle C > CHAPTER 24 > § 3401
    § 3401. Definitions
    (a) Wages
    For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash;


    Here we see that wages is not defined by employment, but by services.


    As discussed earlier, employment (labor) is not a service. An employee is “in service” to his employer, he does not “provide a service or services” to his employer. An employee may perform services for the employer, but it should be clearly understood that these services are those provided by the employer to his customers.



    All remuneration paid expressly for employment, such as hourly wages do not fall under the scope of this definition of wages.

    On the other hand, when an employer provides a service or services to his clients, it is an employee who will perform this service. Now if the employee is paid compensation based on the performance of this service or services, usually in the form of a commission, a fee, and/or a tip, then the employee has received remuneration for services and this compensation is fully within the scope of this definition of wages.

    Also an employee may receive fringe benefits, such as paid insurance, access to recreational facilities, sick leave, paid holidays and vacation, profit-sharing plans, year-end bonuses, etc. All these are funded through the profits of the employer and therefore fall under remuneration for services and are fully within the scope of this definition of wages.

    However, holidays, vacation, sick leave and year-end bonuses may be paid in the form of an hourly wage. This does not make all hourly wages subject to, nor does it relieve fringe benefits from, the scope of this definition of wages.

    Federal Income Tax

    Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code, also supports what I have stated.


    TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61
    § 61. Gross income defined
    (a) General definition
    Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
    Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;




    I welcome your comments
    Last edited by Wheeljack; 02-11-2012 at 08:47 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Ron Paul says the U.S. is slipping into fascism. He is correct, but he is 70 years behind the fact.

    The U.S. slipped into fascism in 1942 when the Congress gave the reporting of the peoples wages into the hands of business and the people of this country perfected this fiction by allowing themselves to become ignorant of their own laws.

    When the employer issues a W-2 to the employee, the employer also reports to the IRS the same info by the transmittal of a W-3.

    So, why does the IRS require the employee to submit a copy of the W-2?

    It is the legal verification by the employee that what the employer reported is true and correct. When the employer reports a falsehood, through his ignorance in the language of the Law, and the employee validates that falsehood, again through their ignorance of the Law, it becomes perfected as the truth.

    Ron Paul wants to repeal the 16th Amendment.

    This is totally unnecessary, as the Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment did not grant Congress any new power, thus its repeal would not deny Congress this power.

    The 16th Amendment established a protection for the people by defining what income the Congress could tax. Congress can not tax all income. It was limited by the four words following income..., from whatever source derived,.

    These words protect capital, for it is the source, when it is returned from its investment in the form of income.


    Ron Paul does not need to convince anybody to repeal any law to obtain a 0% income tax on working wages. The Law is already in place, all that is needed is to show the people what this law actually does.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Wheeljack View Post
    Ron Paul does not need to convince anybody to repeal any law to obtain a 0% income tax on working wages. The Law is already in place, all that is needed is to show the people what this law actually does.
    This is true.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Ron Paul know some weird people too.



    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  5. #4
    If that was true imagine all the back taxes the government would owe the people.

  6. #5
    It is true. And Yes, the government does owe the people refunds, but the people have to claim them, which requires the people to be educated.

    There have been people who have raised this issue over the years, but when you read the court rulings you will see that they did not know how to defend their position, thus they lost.

    I would very much like to show the Ron Paul campaign this simple truth, which could be used to open the eyes of the working people and their employers.

    The money in the peoples pockets would make the payroll tax reduction look silly and unnecessary.

  7. #6
    Wording aside, Obamacare makes a provision for 1099s to be given to just about anyone who sells anything to anyone. At losthorizons.com this tax thing has been explained for years, and people did not even wake up enough to see this new thing in that new legislation.

  8. #7
    yes Wheel..even Peter Schiff's father is in jail over it..

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Crickett View Post
    At losthorizons.com this tax thing has been explained for years, and people did not even wake up enough to see this new thing in that new legislation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Ron Paul know some weird people too.



    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Crickett,

    I have read Hendrickson's book. He does not defend himself with actual case law rulings. He attacks the position of the government, which is supported by their case law, thus he loses.

    W-2's are covered by what I have said. 1099's are not. As you have said, 1099's are given for services, not for employment.

    This is the difference;
    Employment is an investment in a business the value of which is determined by the employer, not the employee.
    Services are things purchased the value of which is determined by the provider, not the customer.

    The income tax is an indirect tax, and a hidden tax, thus it can be passed on to the customer.

    Why did the Congress go to the income tax? And, why is it graduated?

    Because the excise taxes they were tacking onto goods were killing the working class. The working people were paying a much higher percentage of their wages, in taxes, as compared to the richer people. The excise taxes were also not hidden thus the consumer knew the tax.

    Congress wanted to get the richer middle and upper classes to contribute equally on the percentage of their income.

    With the income tax, Congress could eliminate almost all the excise taxes.

    So what happened?

    The businesses had to figure what they would pay in income tax up front and incorporate it into the pricing of their goods and services.

    The working class is still paying the tax, but it was hidden and still passes through the businesses. Thus the lower rates in the scale usually cover the increase paid by the consumers, while the upper rates actually get into taxing the profits of the businesses.

    With the withholding of income tax at source in 1942, and the subsequent failure of the people to know the law, the working class is now being taxed twice on their wages.

    So, all this malarkey we hear on TV about 49% of the people not having any skin in the game is pure BS.

  12. #10
    The 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. I don't need the United States Supreme Court to tell me if / when the rules are being broken.

    http://www.freedom-school.com/16th.html

    As a matter of fact, the de facto (illegal) courts have tried to suppress the truth from being told

    Additionally, the income tax is voluntary. How can you compel anyone to volunteer?

    We've known these arguments for years. It does little to cry about it when the only avenue of redress left is to exit the system and refuse to have our earnings extorted by an illegal government. Is that dangerous? Let me quote someone who was active in REALLY fighting the system... an ex - slave:

    "If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.

    This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
    " (Frederic Douglass)

    http://www.blackpast.org/?q=1857-fre...re-no-progress
    Last edited by Enforcer; 02-26-2012 at 05:32 AM.

  13. #11
    Enforcer:

    As I pointed out before, the 16th Amendment did not give the Congress any new power, therefore if it was properly ratified or not, it is of no consequence whatsoever to the implementation of the income tax.

    Also, as stated before, the 16th Amendment was intended as a protection to the people. To clarify what exactly the tax applied to.

    The income tax is voluntary in the sense that when you pursue the creation of profits, you have volunteered into the system.

    When the income tax was created, the working class simply received a paycheck for the time spent working and possibly a year-end bonus.

    If you worked in sales and were paid by commission, then your pay was controlled by how well you created profits for the company.

    With the unionization of the workforce, the workers began to reach into the profits of the companies for benefits, such as vacation and holiday pay, sick pay, profit sharing and pension plans.

    It's only these things that fall under the auspices of the income tax.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Wheeljack View Post
    Enforcer:

    As I pointed out before, the 16th Amendment did not give the Congress any new power, therefore if it was properly ratified or not, it is of no consequence whatsoever to the implementation of the income tax.

    Also, as stated before, the 16th Amendment was intended as a protection to the people. To clarify what exactly the tax applied to.

    The income tax is voluntary in the sense that when you pursue the creation of profits, you have volunteered into the system.

    When the income tax was created, the working class simply received a paycheck for the time spent working and possibly a year-end bonus.

    If you worked in sales and were paid by commission, then your pay was controlled by how well you created profits for the company.

    With the unionization of the workforce, the workers began to reach into the profits of the companies for benefits, such as vacation and holiday pay, sick pay, profit sharing and pension plans.

    It's only these things that fall under the auspices of the income tax.
    As I understand the IRS Tax Code, the income tax taxes profits. Profits are:

    "The amount of money received for goods and services minus the amount spent on same; excess revenue..."

    Would that definition be correct? If I work for wages and derive NO benefits from a company, then I would have no taxable income since there is no profit on labor. My time is a straight across the board trade for a set amount of money. Wage earners make no investment and realize no "profit."

    Secondly, if one does not volunteer to pay the income tax (i.e. having a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number") then you would be hard pressed to convince me that an individual working for wages and having no company benefits is making any profit; therefore, not subject to any such income tax under a constitutional Republic.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Enforcer View Post
    As I understand the IRS Tax Code, the income tax taxes profits. Profits are:

    "The amount of money received for goods and services minus the amount spent on same; excess revenue..."

    Would that definition be correct? If I work for wages and derive NO benefits from a company, then I would have no taxable income since there is no profit on labor. My time is a straight across the board trade for a set amount of money. Wage earners make no investment and realize no "profit."

    Secondly, if one does not volunteer to pay the income tax (i.e. having a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number") then you would be hard pressed to convince me that an individual working for wages and having no company benefits is making any profit; therefore, not subject to any such income tax under a constitutional Republic.
    Enforcer:

    Your definition is correct. The first two sentences are correct. The third sentence is not.

    Wage earners are making an investment. They invest their time, which the employer has established a value for, in the wage. The wage is the return of the investment (capital). If there is no benefits paid, then there is no return on the investment (profit).

    On your second point, when you accept an offer of employment, from an employer who has accepted the social security plan, you have volunteered to enter the system.

    Regardless of this, I am not trying to convince you that working for wages without benefits is making profits.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Wheeljack View Post
    Enforcer:

    Your definition is correct. The first two sentences are correct. The third sentence is not.

    Wage earners are making an investment. They invest their time, which the employer has established a value for, in the wage. The wage is the return of the investment (capital). If there is no benefits paid, then there is no return on the investment (profit).

    On your second point, when you accept an offer of employment, from an employer who has accepted the social security plan, you have volunteered to enter the system.

    Regardless of this, I am not trying to convince you that working for wages without benefits is making profits.
    So, what is at dispute here is whether or not wages equal income? How do you respond to this?

    * Oliver v. Halstead 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9
    "There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

    * Evens v Gore, 253 U.S. 245. US Supreme court, never overruled
    "After further consideration, we adhere to that view and accordingly hold that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize or support the tax in question. " (A tax on salary)

    * Edwards v. Keith, 231 F 110,113
    "The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute."

    * Brushaber v Union Pacific R/R 240 U.S. I, 17; 36 S.Ct. 236, 241.
    "Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112). The worker does not receive a profit or gain from his/her labors-merely an equal exchange of funds for services"

    * Central Illinois Publishing Service v. U.S., 435 U.S. 31
    "Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two."

    * Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746. 1883
    "Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment...It has been well said that, THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IS HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE..."

    Okay, that's my research so far. I welcome another explanation.

  17. #15
    When you make the blanket statement that wages are not income you will run afoul the law.

    You must understand what the law is calling "wages".

    What workers receive as compensation for labor is commonly referred to as wages. Compensation for labor is the pay for the actual hours worked.

    What the law calls "wages" is defined as compensation for services.
    Compensation for services includes commissions, fees, and fringe benefits. (Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code)

    Go back to my original post and reread it.

  18. #16
    Working people did not pay an income tax on their wages or salaries until 1943 when the Current Tax Payment Act was passed.

    Why did they suddenly start? We are led to believe that the Victory Tax Act of 1942 brought the income levels down to $624, which encompassed many workers. Then with the passage of the Current Tax Payment Act the determination of wages, and the withholding of taxes on them, was given to the employers. Who then, because they had been withholding for Social Security for 5 yrs., promptly did not comprehend the difference between employment and services.

    The Current Tax Payment Act was championed by Randolph E. Paul, General Counsel of the Treasury.

    In an address to the Philadelphia Bar Association, on June 14,1943, Mr. Paul stated the following; (Copied from the text of his speech)

    The duty to withhold an amount for income and victory taxes is net imposed on all persons making payments of compensation for personal services rendered. First, there must exist, as in the Social Security tax, the employer-employee relationship, as distinguished from the relationship of independent contractors. Then even where this relationship exists, wage payments in certain enumerated types of occupations, are excepted from the withholding requirement. The three main peacetime groups to which this exception applies are (1) agricultural laborers, (2) domestic servants in private homes, college clubs or fraternities, and (3) casual laborers not engaged in the course of the employer's trade or business. In addition, the service pay of members of the military or naval forces is excluded from the withholding provisions. Services performed for a foreign government or instrumentality and services performed while outside of the United States, where a major part of the services for an employer during the calendar year is to be performed outside of the continental limits, are also excluded. In this regard, however, the law specifically states that services performed on or in connection with an American vessel, or as an employee of the War Shipping Administration, are not services performed outside the United States. A further exception, new to withholding, is made in the case of remuneration paid for Services performed by a minister of the gospel.

    From the letters we have received at the Treasury while this Act was under consideration, I know that many persons, particularly in the lower wage levels, have been greatly alarmed at the prospect of having 20 percent of their salaries withheld from them. Much of this alarm arises from an inaccurate conception of the withholding provisions. For the most part these persons fail to recognize that withholding does not result in the imposition of any new tax but is merely a convenient method of paying the tax liability which existing law imposes.


    Since it was an R. E. Paul that brought the withholding tax to life. I believe that it should only be fitting that another R. E. Paul show the American people what the extent of that life was to really be.


    What say you.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    One month and no comments. wow!!

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Enforcer View Post
    As I understand the IRS Tax Code, the income tax taxes profits. Profits are:

    "The amount of money received for goods and services minus the amount spent on same; excess revenue..."

    Would that definition be correct? If I work for wages and derive NO benefits from a company, then I would have no taxable income since there is no profit on labor. My time is a straight across the board trade for a set amount of money. Wage earners make no investment and realize no "profit."

    Secondly, if one does not volunteer to pay the income tax (i.e. having a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number") then you would be hard pressed to convince me that an individual working for wages and having no company benefits is making any profit; therefore, not subject to any such income tax under a constitutional Republic.
    Didn't finish the whole thread, but I agree with this^^ Working part time with no benefits, I paid 0 income taxes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Didn't finish the whole thread, but I agree with this^^ Working part time with no benefits, I paid 0 income taxes.

    Is that because you didn't earn more than your deductions? You got back what your employer took out.

    Or because your employer did not take out withholding?


    I suspect it is the former.

    What I am attempting to educate you on is that it should be the latter.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Wheeljack View Post
    Is that because you didn't earn more than your deductions? You got back what your employer took out.

    Or because your employer did not take out withholding?


    I suspect it is the former.

    What I am attempting to educate you on is that it should be the latter.
    Good luck. I have shown the law since 2007 on this forum. You can lead a horse, but you can't make them drink.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Ron Paul know some weird people too.



    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  24. #21
    I have personalty seen the courts disregard these statements. I have also seen jurys back the irs when these issues are brought forth.
    Last edited by puppetmaster; 04-09-2012 at 07:57 PM.
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."
    James Madison

    "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams



    Μολὼν λάβε
    Dum Spiro, Pugno
    Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by puppetmaster View Post
    I have personalty seen the courts disregard these statements. I have also seen jurys back the irs when these issues are brought forth.
    And that is always the crux of the matter. If you believe there is no justice, then why bother.

    Glad our forefathers did not hold this opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Ron Paul know some weird people too.



    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  26. #23
    Your interpretation of their laws don't matter to them.
    "You cannot solve these problems with war." - Ron Paul

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by mczerone View Post
    Your interpretation of their laws don't matter to them.
    Except I use Supreme Court rulings..."their laws?"
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Ron Paul know some weird people too.



    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Irwin Schiff
    Freedom Report

    Twitter Page


    "I am convinced that there are more threats to American liberty within the 10 mile radius of my office on Capitol Hill than there are on the rest of the globe." -- Ron Paul

  30. #26
    I inadvertently left this thread because nobody else was commenting, so I thought it was dead.

    It is true that this is one of the most important issues, yet most people are off to some interesting eye candy on the board because the issue of taxation really taxes your intelligence. Unfortunately, too many people are drinking fluoridated water, smoking too much wacky weed, and graduated from a government school.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Enforcer View Post
    I inadvertently left this thread because nobody else was commenting, so I thought it was dead.

    It is true that this is one of the most important issues, yet most people are off to some interesting eye candy on the board because the issue of taxation really taxes your intelligence. Unfortunately, too many people are drinking fluoridated water, smoking too much wacky weed, and graduated from a government school.
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4345549
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Ron Paul know some weird people too.



    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Wheeljack View Post
    Is that because you didn't earn more than your deductions? You got back what your employer took out.

    Or because your employer did not take out withholding?


    I suspect it is the former.

    What I am attempting to educate you on is that it should be the latter.
    I didn't get a detailed paystub or anything, but it was the former IIRC.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    Except I use Supreme Court rulings..."their laws?"
    Didn't Irwin Schiff make all the same arguments you're making? (haven't thought about the Schiff case in years)
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by mbgg1 View Post
    The law?
    Which one, specifically?
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Ron Paul know some weird people too.



    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-14-2011, 07:58 PM
  2. Federal Reserve Wages PR Battle for Power, Secrecy
    By FrankRep in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-12-2010, 04:52 PM
  3. NC legislature working hard to take away more income
    By slacker921 in forum North Carolina
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-18-2009, 05:04 PM
  4. Proof that income tax on wages does not exist
    By sratiug in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 11-18-2008, 11:23 AM
  5. Court Finds Man not Required to File Income Tax Returns on Wages
    By PatriotOne in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 03-22-2008, 04:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •