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.
Direct Tax:
A tax, such as property tax, levied directly on the taxpayer.
Indirect Tax:
A tax, such as a sales tax or value-added tax, that is levied on goods or services rather than individuals and is ultimately paid by consumers in the form of higher prices.
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.
...settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed [240 U.S. 103, 113] in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment... "
Originally posted by grimreaper797
A tax conspiracy? Well yes of course. When does it date back to? Well that would depend on how you look at it. It would be good to start with two simple definitions.
www.answers.com...
Direct Tax:
A tax, such as property tax, levied directly on the taxpayer.
I removed income tax from that definition because we will find it simply doesn't fit.
Same Source
Indirect Tax:
A tax, such as a sales tax or value-added tax, that is levied on goods or services rather than individuals and is ultimately paid by consumers in the form of higher prices.
Now if we look at thoe they seem pretty clear right? One is a direct tax from person A to government. Indirect tax is a tax from person A to Company B to government. Examine the definitions more closely though. Look at indirect taxes. Levied on services. An individual who provides a service is a person whos pay should be considered an Indirect tax. Your job is nothing more then a service to the company or person paying you to do that service. That service is thus an indirect tax, and that should be your income tax. That income, from the service you provided, is indirectly taxed since it was a service. So then why would they consider income tax a direct tax? Further more why are they taxing the individual directly for the service if the tax should be that of an indirect tax?
Whats your point? Well I was just about to get to that. Its time we bring up the 16th amendment.
www.law.cornell.edu...
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.
Well this was subject to a great deal of controversy. In short just what does this act mean? Well In the Supreme Court ruling "Stanton VS Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)" we get a better idea of how the Supreme Court decided what it meant.
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...
...settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed [240 U.S. 103, 113] in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment... "
It makes it perfectly clear here that such Income taxes were meant to be Indirect taxes. So why did they make the 16th amendment? Well as you can see it was to prohibit the complete power of taxation possessed by congress from moving income tax from indirect to direct taxation. In a sense, it was to avoid income tax to become direct taxes.
In short, the 16th amendment is talking in terms of indirect taxes. For an indirect tax, no apportionment is required, and no census is either. It is not changing the direct taxing laws. It is not changing indirect tax laws. It is stating that congress may lay and collect income taxes which are indirect taxes. this was to prevent congress from making income taxes direct.
So now we see why the 16th amendment was formed. Now that leaves the main question, why am I being directly Taxed on income taxes? Well guess what, the truth is your not suppose to be. The person who is RECEIVING the good or service your job provides them is the person who is suppose to be paying an income tax. They are suppose to pay you your wages + the indirect tax. So when your working as a construction worker, the company who is paying you should be paying you your wages + whatever the income tax for that service is.
So how come you are being charged income tax? Unless your paying for a service or good, rather then being paid for one(job), you shouldn't encounter income tax. I cannot see any other conclusion then that you are being robbed by the IRS. The income tax should not be a tax that you pay everytime you get your paycheck. You are not paying for a good or service, you are providing one. As the definition said, Indirect tax is ultimately paid by THE CUSTOMER. Why is it being paid by you, the provider of the service then?
That is what you must ask yourself.
[edit on 30-6-2006 by grimreaper797]
So now we see why the 16th amendment was formed. Now that leaves the main question, why am I being directly Taxed on income taxes? Well guess what, the truth is your not suppose to be. The person who is RECEIVING the good or service your job provides them is the person who is suppose to be paying an income tax. They are suppose to pay you your wages + the indirect tax. So when your working as a construction worker, the company who is paying you should be paying you your wages + whatever the income tax for that service is.
Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
The only reason paper fiat curreny has any value is because the Gov't demands that it's taxes be repaid alla military script. The fact that the gov't continually is trying to take it away from you is what makes it SCARCE therefore giving it value.
During the crusades in England the king issued Tally sticks, wooden sticks with notches in them that were split in half. The king had one half of the stick and the people had to repay their taxes in the other half. The 2 pieces would line up to form the original piece of wood. This prevent counterfieting cause of the knots in the wood.
But to make a long story short: You really can get out of paying income tax but it is at least a 2 year learning curve and you need to understand the redefining of language in relation to any act or bill the gov't passed. The gov't continually teaches you one meaning of a word in public school and it means something completely different in law. Legaleze.
A law dictionary (Blacks Law is good) Get the oldest copy you can find and discover a words true meaning.
Traffic is an interesting word.
In Canada the gov't redefines accident as "intentional collision" in the numerous provincial motor vehicle acts.
It is just a matter of finding the real meaning of words in law and using them to your advantage when in front of the judge.