|
Hard Evidence That Form 1040 Has NO Legal Basis (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
This finally piqued my curiosity to do some constitutional research which I'm always fond of doing. Anyway, let's bust out the constitutional law with context:
Several court rulings, including two Supreme Court rulings from 1916 (Brushaber v. Union Pacific (240 U.S. 1) and Stanton v. Baltic Mining (240 U.S. 103)), have been misinterpreted in a way that some might claim negates the 861/"source" issue. Before addressing the mistake involved in such a conclusion, it should be mentioned that court commentary on a law, even Supreme Court commentary, cannot expand the scope of that law beyond what the statutes and regulations describe. In addition, theorizing about what Congress could have taxed cannot change what they did tax.
Some will argue that the federal courts have in effect stated that because of the 16th Amendment, the "source" of income is irrelevant for purposes of the income tax. In one sense this is entirely true, and in another it is entirely false. The problem is that the matter of "sources" discussed by the courts is entirely separate from what the federal statutes and regulations mean by "sources" of income.
In 1895, the Supreme Court threw out the federal income tax as unconstitutional (Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601). The problem was that a tax on property ownership is a "direct" tax, which requires apportionment, and the court ruled that a tax on the income generated from property ownership amounted to a tax on the property itself.
The court therefore threw out the income tax on the basis that, as applied to income from property ownership, it was an unconstitutional unapportioned "direct" tax. (Though the court said that this problem related only to income from property ownership, and not income from labor or doing business, the court said it was not at liberty to throw out pieces of the law and leave the rest intact, so the entire income tax was thrown out.)
In 1913, the 16th Amendment was ratified, and a new federal income tax was instituted. (While there is some question whether the ratification process of the 16th was actually legitimately completed, this is ultimately irrelevant to Congress’ taxing power.) The 16th Amendment stated that Congress has the power to tax incomes, from whatever "source" derived, without having to go through the complicated process of "apportionment" (dividing the tax up among the states based on population), which is a Constitutional requirement for all "direct" taxes.
Many people (including federal judges) have misinterpreted the 16th Amendment to mean that the income tax, although a "direct" tax, no longer required apportionment. This is false. According to both the Supreme Court and Treasury Decision 2303, what the 16th Amendment did was to identify the income tax as an "indirect" tax, even if the income taxed was the result of property ownership. In other words, the amendment did not mean "Congress may now impose a direct income tax without apportionment"; it meant "the income tax is an indirect tax, so it does not need to be apportioned."
| quote: | | "The provisions of the sixteenth amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited [Congress’ original power to tax incomes] 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 (quoting the "Stanton" decision)] |
But in the process of explaining this, the Supreme Court made statements which some now misread, hoping to refute the 861/"source" issue. Basically, the claim is that the Supreme Court said that the "source" of income is irrelevant. And it did, but in the context of whether the "source" was labor, as opposed to property ownership. This is NOT the context in which the statutes and regulations address "sources" of income.
An extreme example helps to clarify the difference. There are hundreds of millions of Chinese in China who receive income, but have no connection to the U.S. Did the 16th Amendment empower the United States Congress to tax them? Obviously not. The activity and type of commerce from which their income derives (i.e. the "source" of their income) is obviously not subject to the U.S. income tax. Obviously, these Chinese could accurately say that their income is exempt from U.S. taxation because of the "source" of that income. This is a matter of taxing jurisdiction, not whether the income came from labor or from property ownership. The two are entirely separate issues.
So when the courts state that the "source" is irrelevant, it only means that whether the income came from labor OR whether it came from property ownership, is irrelevant. It says nothing at all about Congress’ taxing jurisdiction.
| quote: | | "The Sixteenth Amendment... has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects." [William E. Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)] |
In fact, in one of the main Supreme Court cases dealing with the 16th Amendment, the court went out of its way to make the distinction between the two issues. After basically saying that the "source" of income is irrelevant, the court then said this:
| quote: | | "Mark, of course, in saying this we are not here considering a tax... entirely beyond the scope of the taxing power of Congress, and where consequently no authority to impose a burden, either direct or indirect, exists. In other words, we are here dealing solely with the restriction imposed by the 16th Amendment on the right to resort to the source whence an income is derived in a case where there is power to tax..." [Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)] |
And in another case:
| quote: | | "The legislative history merely shows that the words 'from whatever source derived' of the Sixteenth Amendment were not affirmatively intended to authorize Congress to tax state bond interest or to have any other effect on which incomes were subject to the federal taxation, and that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable." [South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988) (footnote 13)] |
The Supreme Court was specifically saying that in discussing the irrelevance of the "source," they were NOT saying anything about Congress’ taxing jurisdiction. When the current regulations discuss the "sources of income for purposes of the income tax" (26 CFR § 1.861-1) they are discussing the types of commerce subject to taxation, which has nothing at all to do with the discussion of "sources" by the courts, which dealt with income from labor versus income from property ownership. Conversely, when the courts talk about how the "source" is irrelevant, this has nothing at all to do with which activities and types of commerce Congress and the Secretary of the Treasury have designated as being subject to the income tax.
(The Treasury regulations, decades after the 16th Amendment was ratified, were still stating that some income not exempted by statute is nonetheless "under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government," demonstrating yet again that the 16th Amendment did not remove the jurisdictional limits on Congress’ taxing power.) |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Or you could just operate on the Law of Murphy...if it sounds too good to be true, it is. I will gladly with a collection agent till the cows come home, but I will not with the IRS (unless of course it is a clear cut case of wrongdoing on my part). They are the last people I want on my ass. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJMaytag
[quote]
The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated in their rulings that the 16th amendment DID NOT extend Congress ANY NEW powers of taxation: |
It did not extend, it clarified. As Occrider has said it allowed the Income Tax to become an indirect tax. An income tax is not illegal without the 16th amendment either, it would just have to be appropriated (a considerbaly grueling task).
| quote: |
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. |
Yes, I was simplifying it. Anyone who has filed a tax return knows it is never this simple. However, my point was the constitution (with the 16th amendment) empowers Congress to levy tax on incomes.
The what is "taxable" what is not "taxable" does not matter in his regard, that is left to the treassury dept, congress, and if needed the courts to decide.
| quote: |
"Taxable Income" is by all means taxable, but do you have any "taxable income" is the key question? |
Perhaps this is the key question, but this is another question. Its not the question in which the link you referrered us to (and which both I and Occrider have rebutted) addresses.
| quote: |
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. |
Hence my previous' post comment about using an accountant for expert advice.
| quote: |
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! |
Thats like saying you can't go to a doctor asking him for medical advice on how to stay healthy because he makes a pretty decent amount of money everytime you are sick, and if everyone found out to be healthy he will not have work...
Same argument, doesn't really cut it does it?!
A mechanic is not a professional, an accountant, like a doctor is, they must swear to an oath and are certified by an association for their work. If you still don't think they will give you fair advice because they're only way of professional fulfillment is to make money on a lie, go the academia, go ask the most knowledgeable and educated, those that have done research into Tax law, and those that teach it, go ask the PhDs and the Professors.
| quote: |
Yeah, nobody in the government has ever lied. :rolleyes:
|
I'm sure you've lied too, to many people, repeatedly. Should I therefore not believe anything you ever say to anyone? :conf:
| quote: |
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. |
I didn't say its legally binding, it was just a tax history of the USA...
| quote: |
BTW, if the government had jurisdiction over "every income made in the USA", what would prevent them from taking 100% of your income? |
First you are wrong, the "government" does not have jurisidcition over "every income made in the USA", the Congress does. And what prevent's them from taking 100% of your income is callled "re-election".
| quote: |
What statutue shows that you are required to pay taxes? Where is it in the tax code, Title 26 of the US Code? |
Look, I'm not willing to hunt-down all your answers for you, especially if you won't listen to anything I'll say about the matter. In my last post I addressed that the Congress has the power to impose a tax on incomes. Therefore they have the legal right to do it, whether they are doing it or not, and if you are forced to pay this tax (taxes are by definition involuntary, else they would not be a tax) is another matter, nor have I made a claim one way or the other. I have recommended you pay your taxes however.
The point of the above paragraph is, if you can't concet that the Congress has the power to tax income, there is little point to much further debate.
Where is it that say's you are requried to pay, I'm not sure it does, but as long as the word "tax" is included it means "this is not optional to pay, anyone meeting, a, b, c, etc, criterion must pay this tax".
| quote: |
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? |
They can tell you. Ask a tax accountant and he will tell you for instance. But to my knowledge the IRS welcomes questions regarding whether you need to pay a tax or not and have hotlines for such things. I recall having an IRS employee who gave me free advice explaining to me why I did NOT have to file a tax return.
| quote: |
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? |
That is only one possible explination. The reality is we don't know why the IRS walked away, there could be a dozen other possible explination, and even a multitude of explinations that was the government's real reason for walking away.
Reading that newspaper article you quoted on the subject does however make pretty clear that 1040 might have been misfiled.
However to my general knowledge, you are not required to fill out form 1040, but you are required to fill out a tax return if you have income (and meet criteria, a, b, c, etc). Form 1040 is simply the STANDARD form to report your income and deductions, however there are alternate methods to do this, and I think the INS would even have to accept a mailed in home-made paper entry. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJMaytag
Yup, they are... and their percentage would be MUCH higher if they weren't avoiding them and moving offshore. |
I agree
| quote: |
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). |
90%? That's a bit far fetched, but like I've said, I do think that defense/offense spending should be greatly cut and Lord knows I was against the Iraqi invasion.
| quote: |
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. |
Of course that's not a coincidence. Is the N.Y. Mets being founded in 1962 and also winning their first game in 1962 a coincidence? I guess you really wouldn't care if we went back to the way things were during the industrial revolution? Those were some great times.
| quote: |
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?
|
Umm, how about that Social Security has nearly eliminated the poverty rate of senior citizens?
| quote: |
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. |
I'm a bigger critic of Bush administration policies than anyone, particularly on the environment, so don't try to claim I'm advocating how the EPA is currently being destroyed. At the same time, do you seriously think that it would be better to have no regulations at all and that EPA standards do not curb more pollution than would exist without any regulation. This is the fallacy of your argument: THE SPECIAL INTERESTS DETERRING REGULATION ARE REPRESENTING THE COMPANIES BEING REGULATED!!! Wihthout the EPA pollution levels would be even worse than they are and the problems you're describing are getting worse as a result of the current administration stripping the EPA's abilities. So that almost seems like an argument for more EPA enforcement, rather than eliminating it.
| quote: |
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). |
No doubt that there are huge problems with the VA. Illinois is one of the worst, which is why people like Senator Obama is putting great effort into reforming the VA and has acheived significant progress so far.
| quote: |
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). |
Again, just like with pollution, special interests trying to curb regulation represent the companies being regulated. I'm real sure that food companies would still inform their customers of what their products contain on the labelling if they weren't required to by law. How about if something causes serious birth defects or cancer down the line? Well, the companies will be boycotted and change their policies a decade or 2 down the line when people actually see the effects? Not all, but many companies will cut corners and hide things if it means it will cut costs and increase profits.
[/QUOTE]
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!
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, we'd be much better not having any national intelligence at all, that would really improve things. That would have been really comforting after 9/11 to have had no intelligence in place and have people ask "who did this?" and just have the government shrug. 9/11 would have happened earlier with the Millenium bombing plot that was foiled by those useless agencies. I think that's a bit of a stretch to say that the FBI's #1 concern is spying on people on TA.
| quote: |
I think I addressed highways as being paid for out of excise taxes, as they always have been. |
True, though those excise taxes would be stretched a lot more without any additional revenue in place after you stop paying income taxes.
| quote: |
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: |
You're completely wrong here, unless you believe that Germany, France, England, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, and on and on aren't democracies. Democracy is not an economic system, something is democratic if the majority of citizens want government to take an action.
| quote: |
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). |
Yep, it would be far better to live with absolutely no government programs at all. Poor kids should get no education at all if their parents can't afford it because it would lead us toward socialism to do anything about it as a nation.
With all due respect, I agree with a lot of your criticisms, but that's why I'm against who's in charge right now. As far as Democrats, I'll agree they're nowhere near perfect either. I think a lot of special interest problems could be dealt with by having real campaign finance reform and publicly funded elections, which is currently being fought for in a number of states through referendum initiatives. I think reforms and making progress is better than going back to the 19th Century. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
blah blah blah Hitler quotes blah balh blah posting Hitler and Marx quotes in reference to me blah blah
second paragraph that goes blah blah blah I was a communist because I thought more should be done to insure the poor blah blah :rolleyes: |
Different thread so leave it there and don't bring it here or up again please. Thank you.
My original comment stays intact for THIS thread.
Interesting about the use of a pre-Reserve Act year though.
Non-Hitler quotes:
Such is the Pavlovian device: repeat mechanically your assumptions and suggestions, diminish the opportunity of communicating dissent and opposition. This is the simple formula for political conditioning of the masses. This is also the actual ideal of some of our public relation machines, who thus hope to manipulate the public into buying a special soap or voting for a special party.
During the Second World War the Nazis showed that they too were very much aware of this conditioning power of the word. I saw their strategy at work in Holland. The radio constantly spread political suggestions and propaganda, and people were obliged to listen because the simple act of turning off one's radio was in itself suspicious. I remember one day during the occupation when I was taking a bicycle trp with some friends. We stopped off to rest at a cafe that, we later realized, was a true Nazi nest. When the radio, which had been on ever since we arrived, announced a speech by Hitler, everyone stood up in awe, and it was a must to take in the verbal conditioning by the Fuhrer. My friends and I had to stand up too, and were forced to listen to that raucous voice crackling in our ears and to summon all our resistance against that long, boring, repetitive attack on our eardrums and minds.
Joost A. M. Meerloo, M.D
The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
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. |
Some people like living in the cave they are in and refuse to see the outside world beyond the shadows on the wall.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJMaytag
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! |
+1
DJMaytag I guess the Code is going to have to be opened on them. Show them the one where it lists what income is. But also show them where the United States is as well. Follow me? |
|
|
| smokeape |
Bottom line, I'm paying my taxes and ain't gonna incur the expense of a constitutional lawyer to argue about whether or not I should pay them at all when I'm behind bars, which seems the case here in the original thread. Note the constitutional lawyers are not behind bars, but have deep pockets and will argue until you run out of money for attorney fees. They are not bound by your freedom as a condition of those fees.
:p
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| DJMaytag |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
However, my point was the constitution (with the 16th amendment) empowers Congress to levy tax on incomes. |
I don't dispute that it does allow for an indirect tax on incomes, but the 16th Amendment did NOT expand Congress’ taxing jurisdiction to all Americans. The Supreme Court and the Secretary of the Treasury say it did not. The Federal government still has limits on what their jurisdiction is to tax. Some examples:
If I'm selling a product to people in another country, the profits from those sales are the "sources" that are considered to be taxable income, as the government does have the jurisdiction to regulate interstate commerce (international commerce) and does so via taxes. Tariffs would/could be placed on the product as a direct tax for the government to collect, and the profit "source" would be imposed as an indirect income tax. In this case, it is not the interstate sales that are being taxed (gross receipts), but the net profit from those sales (ie income - deductions = taxable income). The source rules in section 861 specifically state that when determining taxable income, foreign source income is NOT exempt.
If someone comes into the US to work, it is NOT a right for them to work here, but a privilidge. Thus, as a non-resident alien, the government has the jurisdiction to impose an indirect income tax on whatever they earn while they're here. Going back to my original post, this can be shown by the validity of the 1040NR form, which has been properly submitted as a required form for non-resident alien, and has the proper statutes backing it up. The source rules in section 861 specifically state that when determining taxable income, non-resident alien income is NOT exempt.
If I'm selling a product to people WITHIN the United States, it's a completely different story. Excise taxes could be collected as direct taxes if the product is something like gasoline, tobacco, or alcohol. But the net profits would not be considered as a "source" from which an indirect income tax could be imposed upon. The government does not have jurisdiction to regulate intrastate commerce.
Citizens of the US working exclusively within the United States however, have the right to work here, and the Constitution never granted the government the right to tax what people earned. That was one of the major points of the whole revolutionary war, to avoid the taxes King George was imposing on the colonies! Why in the world would our founders go through all that effort, to simply allow the exact same thing to happen with our new government?
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Perhaps this is the key question, but this is another question. Its not the question in which the link you referrered us to (and which both I and Occrider have rebutted) addresses. |
Occrider was rebutting in favor of MY argument. Sorry to inform you that he's agreeing with me. His post was pretty much a verbatim quote from http://taxableincome.net/articles/sourcerelevant.html
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Hence my previous' post comment about using an accountant for expert advice. |
Why? The tax code has the definitions included in it (in plain English), so one can simply look up what the word means. You may think you know what a word in the code means in plain English, but the definition listed may well show something completely diferent (in plain English).
From section 3 ("English vs. Legalese") on http://taxableincome.net/report/taxinc1.html:
| quote: | | 26 USC § 5841 states that "[t]he Secretary [of the Treasury] shall maintain a central registry of all firearms in the United States which are not in the possession or under the control of the United States." The law has a far more limited application than this section by itself would seem to imply. In 26 USC § 5845(a) it is made clear that the term "firearm" in these sections does not include the majority of rifles and handguns (while the term "firearm" in basic English obviously would), but does include poison gas, silencers and land mines. The average citizen reading the law will naturally tend to assume that he already knows what the words in the law mean, and may have difficulty accepting that the legal meaning of the words used in the law may bear little or no resemblance to the meaning that those words have in common English. For example, reading the phrase "all firearms" in Section 5841 in a way that excludes most rifles and handguns is contrary to instinctive reading comprehension. (But any lawyer reviewing Sections 5841 and 5845 would confirm that such a reading would be absolutely correct.) Reading one section of the law without being aware of the legal definitions of the words being used can give an entirely incorrect impression about the application of the law. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Thats like saying you can't go to a doctor asking him for medical advice on how to stay healthy because he makes a pretty decent amount of money everytime you are sick, and if everyone found out to be healthy he will not have work...
Same argument, doesn't really cut it does it?! |
Yes it does, because they cannot prevent many sicknesses, and certain diseases that are preventable are not avoided by many (lung cancer would be an obvious one that could be prevented but those that smoke take that risk).
Accidents happen as well, so there will ALWAYS be a need for doctors. There is NO way for there to be almost no need for doctors. If the truth about income taxes comes out, there WILL be almost no need to acountants
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
A mechanic is not a professional, an accountant, like a doctor is, |
No? Them mechanics sure do alot of testing and certification to be still considered amateurs then... next time you get your car fixed, tell your mechanic that he is not a professional. I'm sure his response will be one you won't like.
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
they must swear to an oath and are certified by an association for their work. If you still don't think they will give you fair advice because they're only way of professional fulfillment is to make money on a lie, go the academia, go ask the most knowledgeable and educated, those that have done research into Tax law, and those that teach it, go ask the PhDs and the Professors. |
See my rebuttal above, but also see http://taxableincome.net/articles/fraud.html for the reasoning as to why tax professionals wouldn't tell you what I'm telling you - the main reason is that they don't know! They've been taught a certain viewpoint of how to fill out tax forms for people and know certain parts of the law. They're also operating under the same false assumptions that you are, and those false assumptions make it hard for most humans to change their viewpoints.
| quote: |
In any field of thought, it is very easy for false assumptions to be self-perpetuating. For example, for years scientists searched for a substance responsible for the phenomenon called "heat." For years doctors tried to perfect blood-letting. Suggestions that the "experts" in any field are missing something fundamental are usually greeted with ridicule by those "experts." The idea that little creatures too small to see ("germs") were making people sick was considered absurd. The idea that the earth is a sphere revolving around the sun was ridiculed. Traveling faster than the speed of sound was long considered a physical impossibility.
These obstacles to human understanding are due in large part to the fact that only very rarely does an individual begin to study a certain subject without preconceived assumptions (whether incorrect or correct). The same is true of tax professionals today. The possibility is very slim that anyone in America over the past half century received training to become a tax professional without being told that most income is taxable. Instead, they started with a false assumption (which they had before they had the slightest idea of what the law actually said), and then perhaps studied details in the law about deductions, exemptions, etc.
When an assumption is strong enough, an enormous amount of direct evidence contradicting that assumption can be dismissed by an individual. Perhaps the individual simply assumes that the evidence was somehow misunderstood. Or perhaps the individual simply ignores whatever does not match the preconceived ideas. The human mind is very resourceful when it comes to manipulating the physical evidence to match a preconceived conclusion. A scientist might simply throw out some result which contradicts the bulk of his findings, and assume it was the result of some error in the experiment. |
I think the entire report on http://www.taxableincome.net/ would be a good read for you since you seem to be inclined enough to engage in this debate. While you're at it, see http://www.861.info/ and http://www.861evidence.info/ too.
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
First you are wrong, the "government" does not have jurisidcition over "every income made in the USA", the Congress does. And what prevent's them from taking 100% of your income is callled "re-election". |
As I've tried to educate you on (and have failed, not that I had any hopes of doing so), Congress does have to power to tax incomes, but they absolutely DO NOT have the power to tax "every income in the USA", as you said. Occrider's post clearly showed that 16th Amendment did not extend the government's taxing power. Prior to the 16th Amendment, the incomes of US citizens earning an income solely within the United States was not taxable. Seeing as how the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated what they have about the government's taxing jurisdiction not changing with the 16th Amendment, I can't see how anyone can believe that that jurisdiction did indeed change and grant power to tax everyone's income.
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Look, I'm not willing to hunt-down all your answers for you, |
Are you scared of what you might find? What you won't find is what should scare you. The answer to this question has been researched by many, and no answer has been found. The question has been asked point blank to Mark Everson, the IRS commissioner, and he completely dodged the question. Thousands of letters have been sent to Congress and to the IRS asking where it is in the tax code that makes one liable to file and pay your taxes. What has been the response? SILENCE!
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
In my last post I addressed that the Congress has the power to impose a tax on incomes. |
For the last time, yes they do have that power. Does it extend to everyone with an income? No.
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
I have recommended you pay your taxes however. |
To prove a point, I recommend that you pay your moonshine distillery taxes.
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
The point of the above paragraph is, if you can't concet that the Congress has the power to tax income, there is little point to much further debate. |
I have repeatedly stated as such in the reply, as well as prior to this, but the fact of the matter is that Congress's power does not extend to US Citizens earning an income exclusively within the US.
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Where is it that say's you are requried to pay, I'm not sure it does, but as long as the word "tax" is included it means "this is not optional to pay, anyone meeting, a, b, c, etc, criterion must pay this tax". |
If you are liable to pay a tax, then yes, you MUST pay that tax. Am I liable to pay a tax for the work that I do? (I'm an electrician, BTW) NO! Why? I work exclusive in the US, I'm a citizen (as opposed to being a non-resident alien), and I do no engage in any foreign commerce.
Am I liable to pay state taxes? Yup (and I do). Am I liable to pay Social Security taxes? As far as I know (and I do, begrudgingly)
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
They can tell you. Ask a tax accountant and he will tell you for instance. But to my knowledge the IRS welcomes questions regarding whether you need to pay a tax or not and have hotlines for such things. I recall having an IRS employee who gave me free advice explaining to me why I did NOT have to file a tax return. |
OK, call them up and ask them what statute makes you liable to pay YOUR taxes? Ask them specificaly for the statute in Title 26 of the US Code. If they cannot cite which one it is, they are dodging your question (out of ignorance though - this whole fraud is a conspiracy of ignorance, not of purposeful deception, as only a select few really know what's going on).
While you're at it, ask them what statute requires you to fill out a 1040 form (or any of it's variations like 1040A, 1040EZ, etc). Odds are VERY good that you won't get a straight answer from them. Odds are VERY good that a reference to the 16th Amendment will be made and probably something in the instructions of the 1040 booklet (the latter would actually be the truth, as the instruction telling you to sign it and mail it in is what makes you liable for anything you've put down!)
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
That is only one possible explination. The reality is we don't know why the IRS walked away, there could be a dozen other possible explination, and even a multitude of explinations that was the government's real reason for walking away. |
How cut and dry of a case was it though? Man is on probation, terms of probation were violated (the same conduct that got him on probation in the first place!), man is threatened with jail time if he doesn't comply. Sounds like a case a child could win as a lawyer, but they dropped it. It just doesn't make sense, unless you consider the fact that the evidence he was about to present would have won his case and set a nasty precedent in the courts.
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Reading that newspaper article you quoted on the subject does however make pretty clear that 1040 might have been misfiled. |
The OMB forms have to be properly submitted with the correct documentation, as well as listing the associated statutes on the form. Since there are no statutues making it a requirement to fill out a 1040 form, they had to use the alternative form.
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
However to my general knowledge, you are not required to fill out form 1040, but you are required to fill out a tax return if you have income (and meet criteria, a, b, c, etc). Form 1040 is simply the STANDARD form to report your income and deductions, however there are alternate methods to do this, and I think the INS would even have to accept a mailed in home-made paper entry. |
Having income does not mean you have to fill out a tax return. As I've said before, where is the statute that says this? What income is taxable and under what conditions? I think I've answered these questions already above. |
|
|
| DJMaytag |
I'm cutting out some of the arguments we got into to focus on the topic at hand. I know we can (and I think have) debate until the end of time about social programs and my Libertarian nature of wanting to cut those programs. The legitamacy of the income is what I want to focus on here.
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
90%? That's a bit far fetched, but like I've said, I do think that defense/offense spending should be greatly cut and Lord knows I was against the Iraqi invasion. |
It costs a TON to upkeep and staff all our bases in other countries. If the story about Bin Laden is true about resenting our presence in Saudi Arabia (a whole 'nother topic entirely), then it cost us two landmarks and thousands of live on 9/11 as well.
Most of the military spending from the 80's build up until now has been on offensive weapons and systems. While I do agree that some military R&D is needed, if we're not fighting anyone on foreign soil, most of those weapons are not needed.
Maybe 90% was going too far, but 70% is realistic is we're limiting the military to solely protecting our borders.
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
Of course that's not a coincidence. |
I'm no expert on the Fed, but from what little I have read, the income taxes were implemented to pay for the interest on the borrowing that was done thru the Fed. If this is true, then it is no coincidence that the two were created at the same time.
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
True, though those excise taxes would be stretched a lot more without any additional revenue in place after you stop paying income taxes. |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
Yep, it would be far better to live with absolutely no government programs at all. Poor kids should get no education at all if their parents can't afford it because it would lead us toward socialism to do anything about it as a nation. |
Once people wake up to the truth about paying income taxes that they're no liable for, then people across the board will have more money available to them to use for private education, should that be the route they take. FYI, public education is largely paid for out of STATE taxes (taxes I do pay, BTW), so public education will NOT dissapear once the great awakening occurs and the Federal government cuts the Dept of Education.
I had to snip your comment about "those were some great times" in regard to pre-Industrial revolution times, but I will address an aspect of it here. Are we better educated now than we were then? It seems as if our students are progressively getting worse and we're falling into the bottom of the heap of industrialized nations on proficiency scores.
I have to say something on this, as public education was particularly traumatic for me, having had ADD through it (and not knowing until after college), learning math and sciences at a faster rate than almost everyone else (and getting bored with the lack of challenges), learning english and writing at a slower pace (and getting frustrated with not learning and being able to perform like everyone else, something that affected my self esteem for quite a while after "graduating"), and the social aspect of being there (I wasn't particularly outgoing or involved in things, leading to it being a pretty bleak experience and something I dreaded for the entire time I was there, something that has also negatively effected me, likely up until this day). I know of some Libertarians who advocate getting rid of federally and/or mandated public education for just this reason, as I am one of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands that went thru this trauma (as well as made the experience worse for those around me, making it harder for others to learn due to my disruptive attitudes and behaviors while there).
Needless to say, my kids will be homeschooled in a nurturing enviroment, and can be taught the skills they need to get on this world, instead of being taught how to conform and be good cogs in the wheel of the corporate world.
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
With all due respect, I agree with a lot of your criticisms, but that's why I'm against who's in charge right now. As far as Democrats, I'll agree they're nowhere near perfect either. I think a lot of special interest problems could be dealt with by having real campaign finance reform and publicly funded elections, which is currently being fought for in a number of states through referendum initiatives. I think reforms and making progress is better than going back to the 19th Century. |
I think it is possible to go back to the 19th century, while still making progress. For one, you would never have to worry about being against your president like you do now, as a president operating without the funds like he has been given now can't really do too much to screw things up royally. No wars, no tanking the economy, no supression of the Bill Of Rights, none of that.
I know that we both see it from our own perspective on this one, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here. The only problem is that if the message gets out there about what I believe about our income tax system, your ideals about the proper way to do things and have all sorts of social programs are going to come under fire. They may not dissapear (many could - and SHOULD - be reverted back to the control of the individual states). |
|
|
| DJMaytag |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
DJMaytag I guess the Code is going to have to be opened on them. Show them the one where it lists what income is. But also show them where the United States is as well. Follow me? |
No, they're going to have to do the research on it like I did. I can only hope to post stuff here and provide the spark like someone did for me to start questioning what's really going on.
I can't say I follow you about "where the United States is as well". That's an argument that leads directly into being classified as a non-resident alien. Non-resident aliens do have to pay federal income taxes. I don't buy that theory, nor do I buy the one about not being liable for income taxes because the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified. That goes against my argument as well, as the 16th Amendment didn't change a damn thing as far as taxes that I would have anything to do with. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
DJMaytag, I don't have time to respond to your post indepth, but where exactly in the constitution is it a "right" for a US citizen to be able to work?
Why is a non-resident any different then a US citizen in this regard? |
|
|
| DJMaytag |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
DJMaytag, I don't have time to respond to your post indepth, but where exactly in the constitution is it a "right" for a US citizen to be able to work?
Why is a non-resident any different then a US citizen in this regard? |
Maybe this might ring a bell:
| quote: | | We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. |
If from the Declaration of Independence. Does it need to be in the Constitution to say you have a right to work? How about a right to have children? Own property? A right to eat? sleep? breathe? think? I don't think that unalienable rights need to be spelled out in the Constitution.
A non-resident is not a citizen of the US, and is here temporarily on a visa of some sort. They have the unalienable right to work in their country, but have made to choice to work in ours while they're here (if they're even able to do so, as some visas don't allow you to be employed while you're here!)
A non-resident alien can simply avoid the income tax by either not working while they're here, or simply not travelling/visiting here. It's just like a direct tax, it can be avoided by not engaging in that activity that's taxed, such as things like alcohol or tobacco. You don't want to pay a tax for booze or smokes? Then don't drink or smoke, simple enough.
Obviously another alternative to avoiding this income tax would be to become a citizen. Then they'd be a US Citizen just like anyone else. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJMaytag
Maybe this might ring a bell: |
It does, and your argument would be that since taxes make you sad they should be outlawed?:conf
| quote: |
If from the Declaration of Independence. Does it need to be in the Constitution to say you have a right to work? |
Umm yes. In the bill of rights preferably too.
| quote: |
How about a right to have children? Own property? A right to eat? sleep? breathe? think? I don't think that unalienable rights need to be spelled out in the Constitution. |
The government taxes children, property, food, and air (via EPA), and books and informaiton services. If these are all "rights" where is the moral or legal argument against taxation of these things?
| quote: |
A non-resident alien can simply avoid the income tax by either not working while they're here, or simply not travelling/visiting here. |
Guess what? So can a US citizen.
| quote: |
It's just like a direct tax, it can be avoided by not engaging in that activity that's taxed, such as things like alcohol or tobacco. You don't want to pay a tax for booze or smokes? Then don't drink or smoke, simple enough. |
But income tax is an indirect tax, not a direct tax, if it was a direct tax that would be a problem, hence the 16th amendment.
Its like say you don't want to pay property tax, don't own property. But one way or another, you will always pay property tax whether directly or indirectly.
| quote: |
Obviously another alternative to avoiding this income tax would be to become a citizen. Then they'd be a US Citizen just like anyone else. |
:rolleyes:
I don't get it, you agree to the fact that Congress has the constitutional ability to tax incomes yet then go on to argue why Congress has no constitutional ability to do so.
So which is it, can Congress tax incomes or not?
I'm just trying to get some agreemenet here at the macro level before diving into the micro. |
|
|
|
|
