It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is Federal Income Tax?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K


I don't want to sound closed-minded, but you lost me with this part. David Icke is the guy who writes about lizard-like aliens controlling the world?


David Ice isn't "The guy who only talks about reptilian other beings."
Icke litterally talks about hundreds of different subjects. Reptilian other beings is simply one subject. It's like saying Icke is the guy who talks only about the Federal Reserve Scam. Or Icke is the guy who talks only about the KKK. Or Icke is the guy who talks only about the JFK assassination.

As Icke says in the beginning of his books, skip the parts that one's belief system rejects. And read the parts that one's belief system is intrested in.



Originally posted by koji_K
I know there are some arguments to be made against the failure of the free-banking era, but can you offer me anything that I could respectfully offer as a source in, say, a discussion with a constitutional theorist or banking law historian? (You mention he cites sources, so I suppose I will look through his books next time I'm in the bookstore.)


You got it.
Icke lists all his sources, which you can easily look up and check in the bookstore or in the library periodicals section.



Originally posted by koji_K
Further, I'm not sure what you mean about printing the money. Yes, the Fed controls the money supply, through the purchase and sale of treasury bonds.


The Federal Reserve? Or the Federal Goverment?


Originally posted by koji_K
The treasury is the only government agency authorized to actually print money, although I have no doubt the government can authorize national banks to do so if it pleased, like some private banks do in the UK. The lesson of the free banking era I was trying to convey was the danger in letting just anyone print their own money. Such money becomes valueless without safeguards, which the states proved unwilling to implement.

-koji K.

[edit on 17-5-2005 by koji_K]


A "national bank" is not part of the Federal Goverment. A national bank is privatly owned. Icke also talks about how a simular scam happened in the UK. But it's more complicated than what happened in America.
There never was a "free banking era". It comes down to 3 things:

1. It doesn't matter if "everyone" prints money. As long as the money is actually backed by precious metals. Like Gold. Or even silver. But most money has been taken off the gold standard. Off the precious metals standard. And yep, Icke goes into this also. And the ulterior motives behind it.

2. On a higher level, only goverments should print their own money. Not private banks. Cuz then private powermen end up having 100% direct control over the "elected" goverment. There's a super famous quote by one of the Rothschilds. It goes something like:

"Give me control over a country's money, and I could care less what the laws are, who gets elected. I'll have total control over that country."

3. On an even higher level, it doesn't matter. Cuz Goverment and private are controlled by secret societies.

3b. On a still higher level secret societies run other secret societies.




posted on May, 17 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K

Originally posted by n01ukn0w
I think the correct question should have been, where in the Internal Revenue Code is anyone made liable to pay income taxes. Just because somebody says you are liable, doen't mean you are liable. Where in the Code is the income tax imposed and makes Americans, Citizens or anyone for that matter liable to pay? A statute must be explicit in stating that YOU are liable and must pay the specified tax. If you can find a statute that imposes an income tax, makes you liable, and states that you must pay that tax, you will have done something absolutely amazing! Why? Because the statue does not exist. Don't take my word for it. Look it up yourself.

US Code of Laws Title 26


You'll find it here, the very first statute in the code (26 USC (A)(1)(a)(i)):

frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...:+26USC1

You are generally correct, if someone says you are liable, it doesn't mean you are liable. However, that does not apply if that someone is the legislative branch of government, your democratically elected leaders who make the rules. The US Code is the most fundamental set of laws the United States has after the Constitution, and it is formulated by the two houses of congress. Remember, the legislature makes the rules, the executive enforces them, and the judicial branch interprets them. This is American government in a nutshell.

-koji K.



You obviously haven't studied law. Any tax imposed must state liability to apply. Congress can impose taxes all day long, but as long as no one is "liable" the tax is moot and no one has to pay. If no statute makes one "liable", then it is just words and has no effect. Take for instance section 5701(a) that imposes Tabacco taxes, 5703 (a) and (b) makes persons "liable" to pay the tax imposed by section 5701. Although you have found the statute that imposes a tax, you have found nothing that makes anyone "liable" to pay the so called income taxes. Good try though.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by n01ukn0w

You obviously haven't studied law. Any tax imposed must state liability to apply. Congress can impose taxes all day long, but as long as no one is "liable" the tax is moot and no one has to pay. If no statute makes one "liable", then it is just words and has no effect. Take for instance section 5701(a) that imposes Tabacco taxes, 5703 (a) and (b) makes persons "liable" to pay the tax imposed by section 5701. Although you have found the statute that imposes a tax, you have found nothing that makes anyone "liable" to pay the so called income taxes. Good try though.




You could be right, I haven't taken any tax law classes yet, but I've done a little independent research here and I can't find anything. I also find it hard to believe that the federal judiciary missed what you can spot.

Actually I'm a third year law student. I've got Mertens Law of Fed Income Tax in front of me, and I can't find anything remotely resembling what you're talking about. I'd like to see your source for your claim as to the nessecary construction of tax statutes. A hornbook would probably be the quickest way to prove my error, I'm sure my library will have whatever you cite. Otherwise just give me the relevant statute. Don't worry about using lexis or westlaw either, if you were going to, I can access both (for the next month at least!)

By the way, you do realize Subchapter A is called "Determination of Tax Liability," right?

-koji K.


[edit on 17-5-2005 by koji_K]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   
koji_K I understand your hesitation about what I said. It is a touchy subject for which there are no clear answers. You know titles/lables of subchapters can not have any effect of law, they only help catagorize laws that are passed. For the life of me I can't remember the Supreme Court ruling on that one. Anyways I'm not trying to convince anyone, only that IF the laws were written equally there would be a liability clause for the income(aka employment) tax, just like the tobacco tax has a similar clause.



[edit on 17-5-2005 by n01ukn0w]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
You state that congress cannot redefine the word "income". This is true, however, the Supreme Court, as supreme interpreter of the wording of the Constitution, can.


They can only in the sense that the executive branch will gladly enforce such favorable reinterpretations. But the reality is that the Supreme court does not have the final say, juries do. If it were widely acknowledge that the taxation of wages was unconstitutional, juries would not convict those who refuse to pay. The SCOTUS would be forced to re-examine it at that point.

As it is, a good number of income tax trials end in hung juries for the very reason I just stated, and end up being retried. With a significant educational campaign, those juries might instead begin to rule "not guilty" rather than being hung.



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by n01ukn0w
koji_K I understand your hesitation about what I said. It is a touchy subject for which there are no clear answers. You know titles/lables of subchapters can not have any effect of law, they only help catagorize laws that are passed. For the life of me I can't remember the Supreme Court ruling on that one. Anyways I'm not trying to convince anyone, only that IF the laws were written equally there would be a liability clause for the income(aka employment) tax, just like the tobacco tax has a similar clause.



[edit on 17-5-2005 by n01ukn0w]


Indeed, but as we both know, the laws are not written equally. Some law comes in the form of statute, some from caselaw, some from treaty, and some from regulatory code. The structure varies greatly, yet the laws still bind, whatever form they come in.

While title headings cannot form part of the substantive law, they serve to direct ones attention to the relevent section of the statute, as you say. A section titled "Liability" is where one is to look for designations of liability. And as we can plainly see, such can be found in the I.R.C. It seems that what you are stating is required is merely a form of construction that certain statutes had, but others did not. You are giving a significance to form which I do not think it has. The most basic form of examining a statute is to look at the "plain language" of said statute. The plain language of the I.R.C. clearly designates who must pay taxes.

-koji K.

[edit on 18-5-2005 by koji_K]

[edit on 18-5-2005 by koji_K]



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join