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.

 

The Tax Conspiracy: Are You Being Screwed?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
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]




posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Im going to bump this, I hope some one has an opinion about this.

Your being taxed for your own work. Your being taxed just to provide a service to some one else. How is that legal?Its not.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Actually the American legal system is based on English Anglo-Saxon common law.
Queen Victoria outlawed the taxing of any mans wages forever and all time. Only commercial activities can be taxed.
Your insurance and or a bank loan is the commercial activity that you are engaged in to allow the gov't to tax you for your house & car.
You must discover in What capacity you are acting when working to find out how to get out of taxes. If your recieve any benefits from the gov't like pensions, insurance, unemployment then you defalt to acting in the capacity of a gov't officer which then has to remunerate their militarty script back to the gov't for the priviledge of holding that gov't office. Yes delivering pizza's is a gov't priviledge if you get any benefits.
That's is what them stinking creeps, lawyers do. They continually redefine laguange in order to allow big corporations & gov't to manipulate the original intention of laws passed by honest leaders to corrupt advantages.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
I know that the feds are not supposed to tax us AT ALL !!!!
It was put in place to provide extra funds for WWII...yup thas WWII !!!
Then taken off after the war, of course it never was.

Are we being screwed ???
HELL YES !

[edit on 4-7-2006 by imbalanced]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
There are 10's of thousands of Canadians and at least 1 million americans who have figured out how to beat the system legally and get away without paying taxes.
You have to research this for yourself cause the IRS, & CCRA will harrass you, threaten you and even drag you in front of a judge. You have to know your stuff inside and out before you attempt this otherwise you'll screw up and get massive fines & possible jail time.
Remember your lawyer has sworn an oath to the Bar Association first, the crown/gov't second, himself third and then finally you.
You rank #4 on the list. It is best to study law yourself cause lawyers can't break their oaths or they get disbarred and can no longer practice law. Then they would have to get their hands dirty and actually contribute to society instead of being the parasitic leaches they are.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I posted a link to a video about this TAX issue a while ago, but it seems it doens't realy triggered a debate, which imho is just...absurd.

here's the thread about it, well worth watching.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
come on someone please refute what I said. Please, I feel like arguing.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   

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]





Very good.

This is bad due to the big government payroll.

Companies doing government contracts as well.

The government is going to be taxing itself to a large degree.

Link to the movie



[edit on 1/26/2007 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   
you know
this is a perfectly legitimate legally
how would we replace the system?
wouldn't replacing the system merely lead to a displacement of taxation (by which i mean the taxes simply shift to a different area)?
how would we fund our infrastructure without an income tax?



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 07:47 AM
link   
What did we do before income tax?

I recall stories like I finally started working and they passed
the income tax law or whatever it was that required reporting
income and the laying of the individual tax.

I mean, when was this tax started, 1920 or 1927 ?
Thats 127 years from 1800.

The states supported themselves the federal government supported
it self, what happened?




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.


It doesn't even work for wages any more, interest income would have to
be paid by the payer.

The government know what cheats the business men are and figured its
easier to go after the individual.



[edit on 2/15/2007 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 08:11 AM
link   

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.


Its a new business, oil Barons like Author Vining Davis still support
hundreds of people and hes gone years ago.
His tax return was two feet high.
Just guessing but I heard stories.

People that put up a fight never inspire the majority who would rather
not fight and others that would weasel their way out of taxes by
some means.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I would love for someone to sit down and figure out just how much money $1 makes the government, since every time it changes hands in a legal transaction it is taxed. Think about that.

Pretty much that dollar all goes to the government eventually.

I just got a statement from my employer showing me my total compensation for this year (includes all benefits, everything). It was $38K.

Guess how much actual money I get to see net in that same year?

$15K.....and that is spent on my expenses.

When it is all said and done, the average worker gets very very little for their efforts.



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Exactly, GR. The income tax is a scam. This is exactly why Ed Brown is refusing to pay it, and why he is in a standoff with the feds.

video.google.com...:en-US
fficial&hs=hJ4&sa=N&resnum=0&q=freedom%20to%20fascis m&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wv

I highly suggest watching the above vid. (Freedom to Fascism)



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   
And lets not forget Joe Banister. Ex IRS Agent that quit and now does not pay taxes. He has an excellent pdf document on his site stating exactly how he came about to his information and decisions to quit and also how he got the court to rule with him and how he no longer pays taxes. Its 50 pages long but a very very excellent read for all.

Joe Banisters website



posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   
let's not forget Joe Bannister who preaches not filing your taxes yet readily admits that he does actually file his own taxes.


read about him here:

www.quatlosers.com...



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   
After reading all of the links from the link you provided crakuer, i didnt find any information where joe states he files his own taxes nor did i find any links of joes filed forms. I did find that Otto and quatlose are selling their own books. I will be purchasing all of the books from both sites and informing myself if their methods that they say do work. btw otto skinner does bring up valid arguments against bannister and conklin. Thanks for the link.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   
quatloos is a site the uncovers scams and frauds, mainly in the financial arena.

Someone else started a thread about Joe a while back and in the links he provided, which included news sources, they mentioned that Joe files his taxes. It's the Capone rule of thumb. Don't go to jail for something stupid like tax fraud. Joe files them because he knows he has to as it is the law. If he truly believed the crap he claims, he'd be among the tax protesting crowd.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Well im probably gonna get duped outta my money again, but Otto Skinner (a link from the link you provided) claims he has not paid taxes in over 19yrs and has the books with the info to show how he does it. Quatlose likes this guy so maybe hes truthful and right. Time and books will tell.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I've been using quatloos for years for source info. I actually had a client call me once about a deal he was getting involved in and when he started talking about it I googled the guy he was dealing with. Not only did I find his arrest record, I found some nice stuff on the guy via quatloos as well.

I first came across the site when I started reading about that nesara scam after 9/11. I'd take their word over the IRS agent any day of the week.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join