|
Hard Evidence That Form 1040 Has NO Legal Basis (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| wolverine16 |
 Source
Like I said before, I've read some of the court cases involving the IRS. Maybe an alternative collection system would be better, but inreality if you look at the above graph simply eliminating individual & corporate income taxes would be impossible. Assuming you were to consider all that falls under "other" as Constitutional tax collection, you'd have a whopping 8% - 10% of current government revenue to pay for everything outside of what is collected from payroll taxes. So even if social security and medicare were somehow fully funded by payroll taxes, we'd be completely out of money to pay for anything else after reducing the military to 1/5 of it's current size.
Edit: Oops! I forgot, since we're in the process of completely eliminating the estate tax as well, we'll have even less than 8% of current revenue. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
Uh oh! A section of that book is the reason why my job gets so complicated, as people falsely believe that their mortgages are repaid just by signing the promissory note. I've actually seen answers filed that specifically cite Jekyll as a source. A lot of it is based on conspiracy theory and clouds what are otherwise some valid points. |
|
|
| DJMaytag |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
Source
Like I said before, I've read some of the court cases involving the IRS. Maybe an alternative collection system would be better, but inreality if you look at the above graph simply eliminating individual & corporate income taxes would be impossible. |
Again, you're missing the point of the whole post. THERE IS NO INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX! According to the figures in this chart, almost ONE TRILLION DOLLARS were paid into the IRS, that almost all of was not owed (according to the law). That's one massive DONATION, though on a technical level, once you fill out and sign a 1040 form saying that you are liable to pay a tax, you ARE liable to pay that tax - which is also another BIG reason for the post. If people had the information that there is no law requiring you to fill out and sign a 1040, then they wouldn't be forced to pay a tax they don't owe.
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
Assuming you were to consider all that falls under "other" as Constitutional tax collection, you'd have a whopping 8% - 10% of current government revenue to pay for everything outside of what is collected from payroll taxes. So even if social security and medicare were somehow fully funded by payroll taxes, we'd be completely out of money to pay for anything else after reducing the military to 1/5 of it's current size. |
It's actually 18%, as the corporate income taxes are legit. It's stated that excise taxes (4%) go "to support certain activities-including highways and airports and airways-and deposits others in the general fund." That should take care of most of the constitutional activities the government has. Military spending would obviously decrease, and we would have to close bases in other countries (a good thing, as we don't need to be the world's police force), saving a ton of money. The military would then have to be kept to what it was supposed to do, defend our borders.
Social security taxes may well be legitimate in the tax code somewhere, that is not something I have done the research on (neither have I done so with state taxes, which I do pay). It should be noted that excess fund are and have been spent from Social Security revenues. I'll have to dig up my sources on that, but I've read that that's been the case since day one and FDR knew it.
So the total budget if everyone woke up to the scam that's been pulled for almost 100 years, would then be reduced to about HALF of what it is now, which I think is completely feasible given some proper cuts in spending. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJMaytag
Again, you're missing the point of the whole post. THERE IS NO INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX! According to the figures in this chart, almost ONE TRILLION DOLLARS were paid into the IRS, that almost all of was not owed (according to the law). That's one massive DONATION, though on a technical level, once you fill out and sign a 1040 form saying that you are liable to pay a tax, you ARE liable to pay that tax - which is also another BIG reason for the post. If people had the information that there is no law requiring you to fill out and sign a 1040, then they wouldn't be forced to pay a tax they don't owe.
It's actually 18%, as the corporate income taxes are legit. It's stated that excise taxes (4%) go "to support certain activities-including highways and airports and airways-and deposits others in the general fund." That should take care of most of the constitutional activities the government has. Military spending would obviously decrease, and we would have to close bases in other countries (a good thing, as we don't need to be the world's police force), saving a ton of money. The military would then have to be kept to what it was supposed to do, defend our borders.
Social security taxes may well be legitimate in the tax code somewhere, that is not something I have done the research on (neither have I done so with state taxes, which I do pay). It should be noted that excess fund are and have been spent from Social Security revenues. I'll have to dig up my sources on that, but I've read that that's been the case since day one and FDR knew it.
So the total budget if everyone woke up to the scam that's been pulled for almost 100 years, would then be reduced to about HALF of what it is now, which I think is completely feasible given some proper cuts in spending. |
Didn't realize you considered corporate income taxes to be legit. Anyway, if you could somehow reduce government expenditures to fit 18% of the current budget and still maintain functionality, please send a resume to the White House ASAP. Although a lot of cuts should be made in spending, 18% just doesn't seem feasable, unless you eliminate almost all defense spending and just about every program that most Americans want, like the VA, EPA, FDA, FBI and highways. All I'm saying is if income taxes do not exist, what alternative will pay for such things that actually provide vital services that people want in their democracy? |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
Wolverine16 is very misguided by using that pie chart. It is part right in showing 8%, but not right in not showing the previous levels from previous years.
How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.
Adolph Hitler
The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one
Adolph Hitler
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
Read Title 26.
Good file to read which has that same table:
THE DECLINE OF CORPORATE INCOME TAX REVENUES
By Joel Friedman (PDF)
Found this looking for something else.
EDIT:
Loophole Inc.
A special report on Florida's corporate income tax
The state loses more than $1-billion a year in exceptions to its corporate income tax. Ninety-eight percent of businesses pay nothing.
SYDNEY P. FREEDBERG
Published October 26, 2003
Carnival Corp., Florida's 10th-largest public company with 4,220 South Florida employees and a $136-million state payroll, posted more than $1-billion in profits last year.
It also paid nothing in Florida corporate income tax.
Neither did Verizon Communications Inc., the phone giant that employs 12,500 people in Florida, or Saddlebrook Resorts Inc., the elite retreat in Wesley Chapel that is home to a famous tennis training center.
In fact, 98 percent of the estimated 1.5-million businesses in Florida paid nothing. And many of those that did pay found ways to reduce their tax bills.
Now if these companies don't pay their fair share and their employees do, how is it again fair for fairness' sake? |
See second picture:
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
 |
|
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
Wolverine16 is very misguided by using that pie chart. It is part right in showing 8%, but not right in not showing the previous levels from previous years.
How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.
Adolph Hitler
The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one
Adolph Hitler |
Gee, sorry I chose to show a recent example when talking about the current context if no one paid income taxes, but nice to see you brought out the Hitler quotes again. I'm really not even sure of what your point is supposed to be, since I've actually posted several times that corporate tax revenues have decreased over the years and that I thought defense spending was too high, including the other thread where you started posting Hitler and Marx quotes in reference to me as well as this example.
As for your 2nd graph, originally posted by Trancer X, I seem to recall posting in support of that graph, meanwhile you posted articles suggesting I was a communist because I thought more should be done to insure the poor. But thank you greatly for posting that I don't think because I said it seems difficult for me to believe that funding such things and others like maintaining a sufficient defense force (though much less than the current level), foreign aid, EPA, CIA, federal employee wages, etc. would be covered without some other source of income. OH, maybe I should have posted a chart with 1908's federal government revenues, since it would have absolutely no relevence to what my point was :rolleyes: |
|
|
| DJMaytag |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
Didn't realize you considered corporate income taxes to be legit. |
Yup, they are... and their percentage would be MUCH higher if they weren't avoiding them and moving offshore.
| quote: | | Anyway, if you could somehow reduce government expenditures to fit 18% of the current budget and still maintain functionality, please send a resume to the White House ASAP. |
LOL! It'd be thrown out in a SECOND! :D
They DON'T WANT THOSE CUTS! They want to keep people sending in $$$ so they can keep spending and keep growing the size of our government. So long as they can keep the ruse up, then they will continue collecting about a TRILLION dollars in "donations" every year.
| quote: | | Although a lot of cuts should be made in spending, 18% just doesn't seem feasable, unless you eliminate almost all defense spending |
If you eliminate OFFENSE spending, you've just shrunk the military spending by about 90% (or more when you think about how much the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions are costing us).
You may find this hard to believe, but the Federal government existed on that "18%" from it's inception up until 1913 when the Fed and Bureau of Revenue (now IRS) were started (coincidence? I think not...). The government was small and limited, yet we still managed to go from a 3rd world nation to a global power in that time.
| quote: | | and just about every program that most Americans want, like the VA, EPA, FDA, FBI and highways. |
WANT? Few would say they WANT them, as it's akin to saying a drug addict WANTS crack. The system has been set up such that people are "hooked" on a service and will vote against anyone trying to get rid of it (FDR knew this, hence why he called Social Security an "entitlement system", and knew that it would be a death trap for any politican who tried to get rid of it).
What have been the results of the services by the agencies you listed?
We still have pollution (ironically, the Federal government is the nation's #1 polluter!) and forests are being chopped down, killing off endangered species (or bringing some close to being endangered) thanks to special interests.
The VA is ineffective and will try to screw you at any opportunity (my ex was in the military, got disabled, and had to put a HUGE amount of effort to get ANYTHING done there).
The FDA hasn't stopped food poisoning from happening, has it? The testing process is driving up prescription costs to dizzying levels, as well as kept new drugs from those who will die before they get certified before release to the public (if you're terminal, wouldn't you at least want the CHANCE to try a new drug that might help? What does a terminally ill patient have to lose?).
If a company puts out bad food, then people WILL be affected, and the word will be out with a quickness in this era of communication. A business wants to suceed and grow, therefore it's in it's own interests to put out a safe product for consumption (this may not be true for non-food/drug companies).
I can't think of a soul who is not employed or related to someone employed by the FBI that would want to keep it around (same goes for the CIA). If the FBI/CIA was truly a bumbling bunch of fools that had no idea about what was going to happen on 9/11, then they DESERVE to be cut. Hell, more than likely the FBI is more apt to be spying on YOU OR I than anything else!
I think I addressed highways as being paid for out of excise taxes, as they always have been.
| quote: | | All I'm saying is if income taxes do not exist, what alternative will pay for such things that actually provide vital services that people want in their democracy? |
The problem with the Federal government providing these services is that our country no longer becomes a democracy. We're heading down the path of socialism with all this stuff. You might remember this quote in a recent thread:
| quote: | "The Fabians were an elite group of intellectuals who formed a semi-secret society for the purpose of bringing socialism to the world. Whereas Communists wanted to establish socialism quickly through violence and revolution, the Fabians preferred to do it slowly through propaganda and legislation. The word socialism was not to be used. Instead, they would speak of benefits for the people such as welfare, medical care, higher wages, and better working conditions. In this way, they planned to accomplish their objectives without bloodshed and even without serious opposition. They scorned the communists, not because they disliked their goals, but because they disagreed with their methods. To emphasize the importance of gradualism, they adopted the turtle as the symbol of their methods (...).
Thumbing his nose at the docile masses is H.G. Wells who, after quitting the Fabians, denounced them as "the new Machiavellian." The most revealing component, however, is the Fabian crest which appears between Shaw and Web (prominent leaders). It's a wolf in sheep's clothing."
- G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island |
The power of the government to control our lives has grown ever since 1913 with the creation of the Fed and IRS. It most certainly grown leaps and bounds since FDR's New Deal. At what point does it stop? Where do we draw the line when it comes to a new social program "for the greater good"? It's pretty easy for me, it's all or nothing. We can't have just a little bit of socialsim, because it will become full blown socialism eventually (as i has been growin over the last 80 years). |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
Uh oh! A section of that book is the reason why my job gets so complicated, as people falsely believe that their mortgages are repaid just by signing the promissory note. I've actually seen answers filed that specifically cite Jekyll as a source. A lot of it is based on conspiracy theory and clouds what are otherwise some valid points. |
Correction, the reason your job gets so complicated is because of the ignorance displayed by said individuals. While there is a vein of conspiracy theory running through that book, much of it is well-founded - but hardly a source of professional financial advice or guidance.
You also have to keep in mind that at one time in the not too distant past, there were all sorts of widely acknowledged 'conspiracies' such as the Earth being flat, our solar system revolving around the earth as opposed to the sun (geocentric vs heliocentric), etc. If it weren't for such conspiracy theorists such as Copernicus, Giordano Bruno (who was put to death for his heretical beliefs), Galileo, Isaac Newton, etc., we might still be living in relatively dark times. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJMaytag
quote:
"The Fabians were an elite group of intellectuals who formed a semi-secret society for the purpose of bringing socialism to the world. Whereas Communists wanted to establish socialism quickly through violence and revolution, the Fabians preferred to do it slowly through propaganda and legislation. The word socialism was not to be used. Instead, they would speak of benefits for the people such as welfare, medical care, higher wages, and better working conditions. In this way, they planned to accomplish their objectives without bloodshed and even without serious opposition. They scorned the communists, not because they disliked their goals, but because they disagreed with their methods. To emphasize the importance of gradualism, they adopted the turtle as the symbol of their methods (...).
Thumbing his nose at the docile masses is H.G. Wells who, after quitting the Fabians, denounced them as "the new Machiavellian." The most revealing component, however, is the Fabian crest which appears between Shaw and Web (prominent leaders). It's a wolf in sheep's clothing."
- G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island
|
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...329#post4509329
;) |
|
|
| Yoepus |
The argument the author makes there is flawed.
Amendment 16 reads| quote: |
source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...endmentxvi.html
Amendment XVI
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. |
There you have it, what's an income?
definition: | quote: | source: dictionary.com
Income.
The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments. |
Who makes income?
People do.
Why can Congress do this?
Article VI, Claus 2, US Constitution:
| quote: |
source:http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
Article. VI.
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. |
That's why the US can not tax the Chinese, as they are not "of the Land". You however, as long as you are living in the USA are "of the Land" and therefore must pay your income tax if you make an income.
Not paying your income tax just because some website you read says you don't have to is by far one of the stupidist things I've ever heard a person do. If you want expert advice on the tax code, go to an accountant. They have spent the majority of their sad sad lives studying tax law and the tax code and can recommend to you your proper course of action in regard to taxes.
Of course nobody wants to pay taxes! I don't even like giving money to bums, why should I give it to bums in suits who threaten me? But just because I read something on the internet that agrees with what I feel does not make it true.
The arguments made in your link, although as much as I wish they weren't, are fallacious, they suppose that the US Congress does not have "jurisdiction" over US citizens and therefore they don't have right over US citizen's money. The US congress does not have any jurisdiction on US citizen's (aside from who can become one) but it does have jurisdiction on every income made in the USA.
Here are some links:
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact...xes/ustax.shtml
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/...on/amendment16/
Don't let your philosophical desires control over rational realities.
Oh and as for reducing the size of the US government, don't forget what the founding fathers put at the front of the US constitution:
| quote: |
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. |
To "promote the general welfare" you sometimes need big government programs, this does not make the USA a socialist nation, nor is it counter to the American way, it is the American way. |
|
|
| DJMaytag |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
The argument the author makes there is flawed.
Amendment 16 reads
| quote: |
source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...endmentxvi.html
Amendment XVI
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. |
There you have it, what's an income?
definition:
| quote: |
source: dictionary.com
Income.
The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments.
|
Who makes income?
People do.
Why can Congress do this?
Article VI, Claus 2, US Constitution:
| quote: | source:http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
Article. VI.
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. |
That's why the US can not tax the Chinese, as they are not "of the Land". You however, as long as you are living in the USA are "of the Land" and therefore must pay your income tax if you make an income.
|
wow, they've got you hook line and sinker... let me try to educate you.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated in their rulings that the 16th amendment DID NOT extend Congress ANY NEW powers of taxation:
| quote: | The reason the 16th Amendment was passed was to tell the courts that the income tax is and has always been an indirect tax, making it impossible for the courts to conclude otherwise. This was in response to a Supreme Court error made in 1895 in a case known as Pollock, but by the time the 16th Amendment was passed, the Supreme Court had corrected itself.
Both the Supreme Court and the Secretary of the Treasury have specifically stated that the 16th Amendment DID NOT change the constitutional limits on Congress’ power to tax. According to the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining (240 U.S. 103) and Brushaber v. Union Pacific (240 U.S. 1) the purpose of this Amendment was to make it clear that the income tax is and has always been an indirect “excise” tax, which never required “apportionment” (but that must be geographically uniform). The Secretary of the Treasury formally agreed with the Supreme Court in Treasury Decision 2303:
“The provisions of the sixteenth amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited[/b [Congress’ original power to tax incomes] [b]from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment.” [Treasury Decision 2303]
|
Your statement that "you must pay your income tax if you make an income" shows your lack of knowledge on this matter (I am by no means an expert, but I've been doing research on the matter for years and have read quite a bit of Title 26). Income by itself is NOT taxable. "Taxable Income" is by all means taxable, but do you have any "taxable income" is the key question? It's a bit of legalese thrown in there to appear one way while meaning another That language is a hallmark of the US Code - and the reason why there are TONS of definitions in every section. Plain old proper english won't get you by when trying to read it, and using dictionary.com to look things up WILL give you completely different meanings for words you think mean what they mean.
| quote: | | Not paying your income tax just because some website you read says you don't have to is by far one of the stupidist things I've ever heard a person do. If you want expert advice on the tax code, go to an accountant. They have spent the majority of their sad sad lives studying tax law and the tax code and can recommend to you your proper course of action in regard to taxes. |
That's like going to an auto mechanic and asking for the instructions for fixing your car! They make a pretty decent amount of money off filing taxes for people, so why would want to look into what the truth is? If everyone found out, then there would be a TON of unemployed accountants out there on the streets!
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Of course nobody wants to pay taxes! I don't even like giving money to bums, why should I give it to bums in suits who threaten me? But just because I read something on the internet that agrees with what I feel does not make it true.
The arguments made in your link, although as much as I wish they weren't, are fallacious, they suppose that the US Congress does not have "jurisdiction" over US citizens and therefore they don't have right over US citizen's money. The US congress does not have any jurisdiction on US citizen's (aside from who can become one) but it does have jurisdiction on every income made in the USA.
Here are some links:
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact...xes/ustax.shtml
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/...on/amendment16/
|
Yeah, nobody in the government has ever lied. :rolleyes:
Fact sheets are NOT legally binding, so the IRS can say whatever they want to in them. It's propaganda to promote their cause, which is to keep people from asking questions.
BTW, if the government had jurisdiction over "every income made in the USA", what would prevent them from taking 100% of your income?
A couple other key questions to ask:
What statutue shows that you are required to pay taxes? Where is it in the tax code, Title 26 of the US Code? I see you know how to use a search engine to find things in the Constitution, maybe you can find it in Title 26 for me, because I've been looking, and I can't find it. BTW, don't trip over those pesky words that mean completely different things that what they do in plain English - check your definitions!!!
Why does the government dodge this simple question at EVERY opportunity? (actions sometimes speak louder than words) If it's such a cut and dry issue, theny why won't they point it out? If I asked the local or state law enforcement officer what law says I can steal your car, he would look it up and tell you what statutue I would be breaking if I did so, and would be able to tell me the penalty as well. Why doesn't the IRS do this when asked?
Why did the IRS drop it's case against a convicted tax offender that was refusing to comply with his probation terms (ie fill out his 1040 forms and let him walk away a completely free man (no more probation either)? Could it have been that they were scared that a legal precedent would be set if he were allowed to present the documetation he wanted to use as evidence? Could it be that the IRS would rather let one guy go to ensure they keep everyone else fooled into filling out 1040 forms and sending in a TRILLION DOLLAR GIFT every year? |
|
|
|
|
