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.

 

New Hampshire man, Ed Brown, refuses to pay federal taxes - willing to fight for it.

page: 12
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Ok, so I did a little reading earlier today and as it turns out the 16trh Amendment doesn't really set up the federal income tax as we know it. It simply removes the restrictions originally set on taxation.

It used to be that all taxes were based off the percentage of the population of a given state compared to the population of the country as a whole. I believe it was also compared to the amount of taxes taken throughtout the whole country.

Tax law is freakin confusing as hell.

From what I gather, Congress has always had the power to tax us and to create new taxes, it was the 16th amendment that removed the restrictions placed on said taxation.

Originally the taxation of income was taken to mean income from property, like a farm or plantation. It eventually no longer made sense to tax people's income based solely on income from property at which time the income was taken to mean any income what so ever. This change was set up by at least two different court cases. So the precedent is now that they can tax any and all income regardless of any restrictions.

However, that doesn't negate the fact that I worked hard for my money, and since my money is no longer on a gold standard there is no reason the Federal Government should be taking any of my money.

I also have always found it extremely suspicious that they feel the need to take my money before I can even cash my check.




posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Well what it really comes down to flux is this.

Property is a direct tax because its a tax on ownership. Sales tax is an indirect tax because its a tax on an item rather then the ownership.

labor is an activity, thus it was considered an INDIRECT tax. Now the 1895 case ruled that income made from property is a direct tax because its the tax on the ownership, so it must be apportioned. Income from labor is an indirect tax because its a tax on the activity.

What they suggest is that the 16th amendment means they can tax any sort of income without apportioning. Well thats what they would like you to believe. The supreme court ruled no new taxing power was given from the 16th amendment, correct? Yes that is correct.

So they didn't actually get any change in taxing power like they suggest. So how did they do it? Well they just say Income from labor is a direct tax. Its not. But if they consider it a direct tax, they can apply it to the 16th amendment. If it were an indirect tax, as it should be, and the supreme court ruled it to be, they would not be able to apply it to the 16th amendment.

thats why we are being cheated.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   
the 16th amendment "Created no new powers of taxation" Plain and simple...

Until the constitution is amended, the 16th amendment cannot and does not allow for the individual income tax. Any other argument is frivolous and disregards the very foundation of this country!!!!!

This country formed when we broke away from England due to illegitimate taxation... DO YOU REALLY THINK THE FOUNDING FATHERS PUT ILLEGITIMATE TAXATION BACK INTO THE CONSTITUTION?!?!?!?!?!


Of course they didnt!!!

Now what really sucks is all the retards, and / or govt disinfo artists that have made a home on this forum trying to argue otherwise!!!!!!



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
I show you a government report. Yes its from the reagan administration. The point of that document was to show it WAS paying for interest on the National debt.


You didn't show me anything, just made an opinion. Where is this link?


Originally posted by grimreaper797
If the income tax is really paying for services now, what taxes are paying for the interest that the Reagan administration found the income tax was paying for back in 1984?


I never said that Federal income tax does not pay for debt interest, but it's not enough to pay all the interest plus military, health, education, etc.

This article covers it all rather well and better than I can:


A Refutation of Republican Economic Talking Points

Tax cuts without a proportionate cut in spending creates a revenue shortfall. To fund this shortfall, the government borrows money by selling Treasury bonds. According to supply side economics, the revenue shortfall will eventually be eliminated by the increased revenue from an expanding economy created by the upper class spending more of their money.

The problem with this theory is US GDP has never grown fast enough to start paying-off Republican created debt.

Bush II started with 5.6 total outstanding debt and increased total outstanding debt to 7.7 trillion. This is a 6.5% annual increase. He has never balanced a budget.

For 25 years the Republicans have held the presidency for 17 of the last 25 years. They have never balanced a budget and have increased total debt outstanding 11.69% in each year they have held the White House.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


In any event, you have renewed all my reasons why I never wanted to follow my father's footsteps and be a banking comptroller




[edit on 22-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   
I didn't say it covers interest and those programs. I said it just covers interest, you say it covers the programs. Aren't we both grabbing at straws here? Whether the money goes to interest of the programs, we still owe the same amount of money in interest and we are still "paying" for it in the sense we still have to borrow X amount of dollars.

The Reagan Admin report I posted which said the income tax goes to paying off interest on the national debt is what i referred to. Who knows, maybe now they are borrowing money to pay for the interest and using the income tax to pay for the programs. EITHER way, we are still borrowing X amount to pay for the whole thing, whether you put the income tax money here or there, we are still paying for the interest.

Lets put it this way, If we couldn't borrow money we could A. cut ALL those programs that you say the income tax pays for or B. abolish the federal reserve and we no longer OWE them any interest and can start using taxes to pay for the programs like we are expected to. Understand what I am trying to say?



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
I never said that Federal income tax does not pay for debt interest, but it's not enough to pay all the interest plus military, health, education, etc.


Guess you don't pay property tax bills.

If you did you would know that local tax pays for 65%-70% of schools, federal is very little. 65%-70% of the property tax bill in Michigan goes to schools, it is in black and white right on all our tax statement break down.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by Realtruth]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   
www.civil-liberties.com...



Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class.




The statute provides that the tax should not apply to enumerated organizations or corporations, such as labor, agricultural or horticultural organizations, mutual savings banks, etc., and the argument is that as the Amendment authorized a tax on incomes 'from whatever source derived,' by implication it excluded the power to make these exemption .


Im not fighting the fact they can tax certian incomes, I, along with others, are saying you cannot tax labor, as CLEARLY stated above by the Supreme Court in the case:
"FRANK R. BRUSHABER, Appt.,
v,
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY"

In saying, so I would like to know what right they have to apply income tax to people in labor.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I can't seem to find a link, but I just saw on the news that there are about 2 dozen militia members who are going to arrive at Ed Brown's home and help him. Also, they also had part of an audio interview and Ed Brown mentioned that the reason he was being charged was because he sued the Feds last year. He also mentioned that as a response to this, he will sue the Feds again.

There are probably others showing up to support him besides the 2 dozen militia members too. When I first heard that he thought this was going on because he sued the Feds last year, I didn't think there was any truth to it, but upon thinking about it again, there might be something. After all, hasn't he been evading his taxes for 10 years? So if he just tried suing the Feds last year and just got charged, then what are the chances that the timing randomly happens to be so close together? I can't see how he's going to be able to sue anybody locked up in his house though.


Also, here's an interesting quote I found from Ed Brown. I think he'd be able to fit right in on ATS.




"This situation is exploding so fast in this nation and internationally that the Illuminati around the world are becoming very aware," Brown said, referring to a rumored secret society that he believes has infiltrated the highest levels of the world's governments.
Concord Moniter

[edit on 22-1-2007 by AlienS]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Understand what I am trying to say?


I see what your getting at, but to say Federal income tax only pays for interest on national debt is wrong and tax alone doesn't cover all of the federal budget. I didn't see your link or report either, when I looked thru the thread.

Where do your tax dollar go? Notes and Sources

I don't see us paying down the national debt ever. We are past the point of no return... so fasten your seat belts.

The downward debt spiral means World War 3 or bust


2005 Financial Report of the United States Government (pdf) treas.gov

The current financial reporting model does not clearly and transparently show the wide range of responsibilities, programs, and activities that may either obligate the federal government to future spending or create an expectation for such spending. Thus, it provides a potentially unrealistic and misleading picture of the federal government’s overall performance, financial condition, and future fiscal outlook. The federal government’s gross debt* in the consolidated financial statements was about $8 trillion as of September 30, 2005. This number excludes such items as the gap between the present value of future promised and funded Social Security and Medicare benefits, veterans’ health care, and a range of other liabilities (e.g., federal employee and veteran benefits payable), commitments, and contingencies that the federal government has pledged to support. Including these items, the federal government’s fiscal exposures now total more than $46 trillion, up from about $20 trillion in 2000. This translates into a burden of about $156,000 per American or approximately $375,000 per full-time worker, up from $72,000 and $165,000 respectively, in 2000. These amounts do not include future costs resulting from Hurricane Katrina or the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Continuing on this unsustainable path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately our national security.

*The federal government’s gross debt consists of debt held by the public and intragovernmental debt holdings.

As for abolishing the Federal Reserve, I don't see DC killing the cash cow or pushing the button for global economic collapse. Rock and a hard place...

[edit on 22-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth
Guess you don't pay property tax bills..


I was talking about FEDERAL income tax and what it is used for.

Read the info above...

[edit on 22-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   
O no, we definately aren't paying the national debt, I never said that. I said the interest on it is all. The interest alone pretty much is enough to practically wipe out our income tax revenue, granted the interest rates are 9%.

Let me get the report then, as I dont have it favorited, Ill edit it in this post when I find it.


www.uhuh.com...
The Grace Commission wass set up to investigate the use of taxes such as the income tax under President Reagan.


With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.


[edit on 22-1-2007 by grimreaper797]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
I said the interest on it is all. The interest alone pretty much is enough to practically wipe out our income tax revenue, granted the interest rates are 9%.


...and I am saying we aren't able to pay all the "interest on the national debt and the rest of the fed budget" with just federal tax revenues, so we must borrow more, which creates more debt, which creates more borrowing, etc, etc, etc...perpetual debt.

Your report says the same thing, we waste all the revenues on interest obligations then have to borrow the rest. Could also say we pay the fed budget first and then have to borrow more to meet interest obligations, cause it all the same pile and the order is irrelevant.

25 years ago wasn't looking anywhere near this fiscal nightmare of today, and I wouldn't be surprised if they sold off all the gold reserves leaving Fort Knox filled with promissary notes.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:12 PM
link   
and in response I said It doesnt matter if you say "the income tax is paying for interest on debt" or "income tax is paying for national defense" we still are borrowing X amount of money.

I am just stating that this report found the income tax was going to the interest. If it wasn't we would be borrowing that money to pay for the interest.

Now tell me how you are going to explain this one to the people:
We put the fed reserve bank in charge of creating money. We are now borrowing that money from them, and they are charging interest on it. Now even though we could make it and have NO interest charged on it, we have them do it, which causes us to borrow MORE money to pay it off.
So if we were making the money, there would be no interest to pay. But instead we have them doing it, so now we have the interest to pay, AND the debt to pay.

Can you imagine the reaction you would get from people if you told them you were borrowing money to pay off interest on the borrowed money, and if congress would just abolish the federal reserve bank, there would be no more interest charging? Imagine how people would feel.


edit: we are basically saying the same thing. Im not sure what we are arguing over haha.

[edit on 22-1-2007 by grimreaper797]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Can you imagine the reaction you would get from people if you told them you were borrowing money to pay off interest on the borrowed money, and if congress would just abolish the federal reserve bank, there would be no more interest charging? Imagine how people would feel.


I'll let you call up Beijing then and say we are going into default and collapse the dollar. Tell me ahead of time so I can get a head start out of here.

I think our argueing is probably due to my lack of verbal skills



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Regen, its a sad fact, but we are going to collapse either way. So we can either do it by our own hand and get a preemptive start on rebuilding it. Or we can let china do it unexpected and let chaos insue.



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Regen, its a sad fact, but we are going to collapse either way. So we can either do it by our own hand and get a preemptive start on rebuilding it. Or we can let china do it unexpected and let chaos insue.


The reality is the elite don't see a profit in saving the average Joe consumer, and they will scuttle the US ship first. Then off they go to pillage another region, until war breaks out and they have to fight.

Predatory Capitalism, Corruption and Militarism: What Lies Ahead in An Age of Neocon Rule?

[edit on 23-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   
The true legal answer is given here:

evans-legal.com...



"[T]he contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

This statement was confirmed and explained by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), in which the court stated that "by the previous ruling [in Brushaber] it was 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 in the category of direct taxation...."

Therefore, the power to tax incomes without apportionment is not a new kind of power, but just a different classification of the "previous complete and plenary power of income taxation," taking it out of the category of direct taxation and placing it back in the category of indirect taxation "to which it inherently belonged."

(As noted above, some circuit courts refer to the income tax as a "direct non-apportioned tax" despite the explanations in the Brushaber and Stanton decisions. Regardless of the confusion in terminology, the courts are unanimous that the income tax is constitutional under the 16th Amendment.)


Some people are persisting in the delusion that the law is like some kind of computer program, and that by sufficient technical manipulations---like James T Kirk confusing the android ruler Laandru---you can weasel your way out of the obvious intended purpose with sufficiently clever sophistry.

Things do not work that way. Courts are fortunately staffed by intelligent worldly people who easily detect the superfically hidden self-interested motives underlying legalistic arguments, and they do not usually permit some bizzare obviously unintentional loophole contrary to usual public policy and legislative practice.

No court would hold that slavery, no matter what it is called, is legal after the 13th amendment was ratified, and similarly the income tax, as currently constituted, is constitutional under the 16h Amendment.

That was the point of the Amendment, and it has been upheld completely by all US courts. There is no valid legal argument.

The guy just doesn't want to pay HIS taxes because he doesn't want to.





[edit on 22-1-2007 by mbkennel]



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Alan Greenspan wrote an article in RAND stating that the federal reserve was private and a scam... then he got bought by the ``elite`` and became chairman of it... Yoo corruption.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
It is monkeys like Ed Brown who bring about the illusion that you do not have to pay taxes, yet the ability to "live free" remains. Taxes must be collected in order to maintain a standing military. Talking about a severe case of paranoia like Mr. Brown is exhbiting, gives me cause to diagnosis this a severe case of paranoid schizophrenic xenophobia, something almost unheard and nonpresent in modern society.

I will say this to Mr. Brown: Pay your taxes, get a life and grow up. People like this are fooling themselves and have no idea what it is about.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
What exactly are your taxes used for?

For defence to preserve your right to complain about having to pay taxes
For medicare and other social programs
The roads you are going to use to get tot he guys house to support him etc etc etc etc.


Actually a vast sum of our income tax goes to paying the interest on the national debt owed to the federal reserve banks.

The income tax was created shortly after the 1913 federal reserve act.

Why do you suppose congress passes a deficit budget every year?




top topics



 
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join