|
America: From Freedom to Fascism (MUST SEE) (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
There are a variety of issues that have gone to court related to income tax which have been ruled on in various ways, but no court has ever ruled that:
1. Income tax is unconstitutional,
2. income tax doesn't apply to wages, or
3. you don't have to file a tax return and pay that tax.
Many of this cases, such as the ones in that video, have been misappropriated by tax protesters in an attempt to use them to show something beyond what the ruling actually states. However, this does not lend their arguments any more strength. |
Edit: After doing some research i stand corrected. It's annoying how much disinformation your people's country can produce on either side of an argument, its too much of a hassle to get unbiased information. Although i do think that the lack of straightforwardness shown in the video by the IRS and others is astounding. Of course some of the topic that the video just brushes on are relevant too, there are a lot of bills being passed in the USA that amount to bush being a dictator. Oh well, its not like the bulk of the population knows/cares about it. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
I'm only 7 min. in and I'm already seeing a problem...
From Wikipedia...
| quote: |
Constitutional arguments
Main article: Tax protester constitutional arguments
Some tax protesters, conspiracy theory proponents, and others opposed to income taxes in general cite what they contend is evidence that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (removing any apportionment requirement for income taxes) was never "properly ratified" or that it was properly ratified but does not permit the taxation of individual income, or particular forms of individual income. One argument is based on the contention that the legislatures of various states passed bills of ratification with different capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas) (see, e.g., United States v. Thomas[1]). Another argument made by some tax protesters is that because Congress did not pass an official proclamation recognizing Ohio's year 1803 admission to statehood until 1953 (see Ohio Constitution), Ohio was not a state until 1953 and therefore the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified (see Ivey v. United States[2] and Knoblauch v. Commissioner[3] in the referenced article). These arguments have been universally rejected by the courts.
|
>>Tax protester agruments<<
Now being that this is being rejected by the courts (not just a court) are we to assume that they are somehow in the pockets of the banks as well?
With Russo being a tax protester himself, I think I can guess the general gist without having to go through almost 2 hours...sorry Z. ;)
Not that I enjoy paying taxes, don't get me wrong, but the easy way around it would be to just own a business which the tax system is geared for... |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | | Originally posted by venomX Oh well, its not like the bulk of the population knows/cares about it. |
Thats their choice I guess but I still find it astonishing that no one seems too care, I pay stupid amounts of tax every year on just about damn near everything.
Like, really stupid amounts of tax, big money. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
Edit: After doing some research i stand corrected. It's annoying how much disinformation your people's country can produce on either side of an argument, its too much of a hassle to get unbiased information. Although i do think that the lack of straightforwardness shown in the video by the IRS and others is astounding. Of course some of the topic that the video just brushes on are relevant too, there are a lot of bills being passed in the USA that amount to bush being a dictator. Oh well, its not like the bulk of the population knows/cares about it. |
No shame in that, I had to do my research at one point as well. You're absolutely right that the video nevertheless raises some valid concerns, my point was only that it would be better if they didn't try to tow that line as well. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
Right, the law has nothing to do with the constitution in this country.
EDIT: I was being sarcastic in case you didn't pick up on it. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
I'm only 7 min. in and I'm already seeing a problem...
From Wikipedia...
>>Tax protester agruments<<
Now being that this is being rejected by the courts (not just a court) are we to assume that they are somehow in the pockets of the banks as well?
With Russo being a tax protester himself, I think I can guess the general gist without having to go through almost 2 hours...sorry Z. ;)
Not that I enjoy paying taxes, don't get me wrong, but the easy way around it would be to just own a business which the tax system is geared for... |
Alright, it's kind of hard for you to evaluate the arguments presented without even watching it. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Right, the law has nothing to do with the constitution in this country.
EDIT: I was being sarcastic in case you didn't pick up on it. |
Well there's no valid constitutional argument against income tax anyway. Read the same link if you have any doubts about that.
Really, you're only doing yourself a disservice by clinging to such a ridiculous idea. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Alright, it's kind of hard for you to evaluate the arguments presented without even watching it. |
If the whole thing is about the rationalizing of a tax protester, no thanks...I'll save those two hours and just watch Battlestar Galactica... :disbelief |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Well there's no valid constitutional argument against income tax anyway. Read the same link if you have any doubts about that.
Really, you're only doing yourself a disservice by clinging to such a ridiculous idea. |
Quoted from the link you originally provided:
| quote: | The federal income tax is unconstitutional because it is a "direct tax" that must be apportioned among the states in accordance with the census.
False.
The 16th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1913, clearly states that "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." |
That's the problem, it wasn't properly ratified. Ratification of an amendmant requires atleast 3/4 of the states approval which, to my knowledge, wasn't the case. Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
If the whole thing is about the rationalizing of a tax protester, no thanks...I'll save those two hours and just watch Battlestar Galactica... :disbelief |
Yeah and if anyone refuses to pay taxes, I will be showing up at your door....... lol
laz aka G-Man |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
That's the problem, it wasn't properly ratified. Ratification of an amendmant requires atleast 3/4 of the states approval which, to my knowledge, wasn't the case. Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification. |
You should have kept reading...
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#ratification
You're awfully quick to accept tax protestors' claims without verification, but it seems you actually go out of your way to avoid seeing evidence to the contrary. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
Yeah and if anyone refuses to pay taxes, I will be showing up at your door....... lol
laz aka G-Man |
You sell bud? :p |
|
|
|
|
