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: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Ed Brown is a long time tax protester. The Supreme Court ruled a long time ago the Congress did have the legal right to tax just about anything if they felt like it.

I do, however, support Mr. Brown's efforts to protest a patently unfair and overly complicated tax system which grants tax breaks for any purpose what soever. If you do away with the loopholes and the other silly taxes we've got to pay concerning property. And why is there 3-5 levels of taxation sometimes? I should pay one govt. one flat tax for everything I purchase and they should dole out the money to the local and state govt's. If I currently owned a home here in Travis, County, Tx. I face school district, county, city(if you lived in one) and state property taxes to support things I don't use or even approve of like a Toll Road that is being run by a foreign corporation. Why do I have to pay higher property taxes than a huge multinational corporation that has created massive and unchecked urban development with little regard for the enviroment or other local businesses?

Every year, my father goes down to the county tax assessor's office and protest the annual increase in the valuation of his property and every year the assessor has always lowered the value assessed on my Dad's property than the figure originally sent out. It goes up but it doesn't go up nearly as much as the county always wants to charge my Dad simply because he get in their face every year. It's virtually a tax increase without have to raise the rate. If you let the bastards do shady crap, they'll stick it to you every time.




posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Belenus

Main Entry: in·come
Pronunciation: 'in-"k&m also 'in-k&m or 'i[ng]-k&m
Function: noun
1 : a coming in : ENTRANCE, INFLUX
2 : a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor; also : the amount of such gain received in a period of time



The bold is very important. Labor is not a gain at all. Its an exchange. You aren't gaining anything in labor, it's an equal trade. If my job is just to do labor, its not income. You can't make a "gain" off of labor, because it's not like a product you are selling.

You can tax say a baseball bat. Say it costs 10 dollars to make the bat. They sell that bat for 16 dollars. They made a profit of 6 dollars. You can tax that 6 dollars. Thats corporate income tax I believe (correct me if Im wrong). If you work 40 hours and build 3 ceilings for your contractor, and make 500 dollars, you made an even trade. You didn't make a profit, you made an equal exchange.

You could apply sales tax to labor work before applying income tax to labor work. The problem is if they had it as sales tax, they would have to tax all things apportioned as the constitution states. Not to mention it would no longer be a federal tax, which is what they want it to be.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
ArMaP you bring up a good point. how come the super wealthy like Bill gates and the Bush family pay income tax if there is a loop hole. One would think that the Bushes, Gates and the rest of the uberich* would exploit the loop hole to increase their wealth.

*Is uberich a word? If not.. well I guess I just coined it.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
Given all THAT, he is a TRUE American by your own definition.


If you don't like using Bernanke's fiat, I suggest you start your own business, invest in pms, learn to barter and don't buy real estate.

As for Ed Brown, he's an idiot who didn't hire a tax attorney, failed to show up in court and abandoned his spouse. I think he should check into a nuthouse and try for an insanity plea, rather trying to psych himself into believing he has a good reason to shoot people over pictures of dead presidents.

I don't buy into this "suicide by cop means freedom" theory either.
Neither did his wife and she chose to plea bargain.

Ed has now been convicted of federal crimes, he's a fugative and a bench warrant has been issued for his arrest.


Elaine's guilty verdicts:
1 count 18 USC 371 CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES
5 counts 26 USC 7201 and 18 USC 2 Tax Evasion, Aiding and Abetting
8 counts 26 USC 7202 and 18 USC 2 Willful Failure to Collect Employment Taxes, Aiding and Abetting
1 count 18 USC 371 Conspiracy to Structure Financial Transactions
2 counts 31 USC 5324(a)(3), 5325, 18 USC 2 Structuring Transactions to Evade Reporting Requirements, Aiding and Abetting

Ed's guilty verdicts:
1 count 18 USC 371 CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES
1 count 18 USC 371 Conspiracy to Structure Financial Transactions
2 counts 31 USC 5324(a)(3), 5325, 18 USC 2 Structuring Transactions to Evade Reporting


[edit on 20-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Big O

Originally posted by BlackOps719

I once heard about some people who, against great odds, decided to defy the powers that be and stood their ground against an oppressive government, and they also hid in the woods with guns (what nutjobs!), they were simple farmers and working men with limited resources who were greatly outnumbered, and they probably had the majority of the people around them saying the same things that you are.

Ever heard of the American Revolution?



Gross over generalization here. The resistance was far more organized than what you described, not just farmers and working men...and the revolution was significantly more complex than just revolting against taxes.

Don't twist history to make it seem to back up what this guy is doing.

-Steve



What here has been overgeneralized? The first Continental Army was not a well trained well formed militia in it's early stages, although some had previous military experience they were mostly by and large average folk. Initially they WERE mostly common men, just like Ed Brown, who were defiant against a tyrranical government who saw fit to tax them illegally and interfere with their lives and limit their basic freedoms. These people made a decision to go against popular opinion, and instead of taking the safe way out, opted to fight for their beliefs and their way of life against a much larger and much more well organized force in the Brittish Army. It seems to me that many Americans theses days would instead prefer to lay down and accept unjust oppression as a reality.

And before you flame me, I do indeed understand that there were certainly more complex reasons and there were many more details and dynamics that were involved in the cause of the American Revolution, but when you break it down it is that simple.

"Give me liberty or give me death" - Patrick Henry

I am a native Virginian born and raised, and our state motto is "Sic Semper Tyrannis"...and if you don't know what that means I suggest you find out.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
htttp/www.fairtax.org

Support the Fair Tax...if you don't know what that is please read here



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Bill Gates doesn't need to find any loop holes. He is so rich that the taxes don't impact his life as much as say a typical middle class worker.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Corporations face the corporate income tax which is different then the federal income tax we get in our labor paychecks. Corporate income tax is constitutionally legal, and bill gates can't get out of that income tax. Income tax on LABOR is what isn't legal. How many super rich people do you see working labor?



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Belenus

Main Entry: in·come
Pronunciation: 'in-"k&m also 'in-k&m or 'i[ng]-k&m
Function: noun
1 : a coming in : ENTRANCE, INFLUX
2 : a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor; also : the amount of such gain received in a period of time



The bold is very important. Labor is not a gain at all. Its an exchange. You aren't gaining anything in labor, it's an equal trade. If my job is just to do labor, its not income. You can't make a "gain" off of labor, because it's not like a product you are selling.

In a capitalist economy you can make a gain off of selling your labor hence in the definition it says that income is:



usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor

The theory behind this is that is that in a capitalist economy a person will sell their labor for more that it is worth. In our current economy labor is seen as having little or no value as a product so the entirety of the amount of money you receive for your labor is seen as profit. Now whether that is a good system or not that is the system.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 06:42 PM
link   
That is incorrect. Why do you think they call it trade school? Because its a trade. Why is it called a trade?

Trade by definition is:
an equal exchange. You cannot price labor. Its value is solely determind by some ones desire for such a thing. A corvette has a set value, regardless of how much some one is will to pay for it. Any physical item sold, has a set value which it costs to produce that physical item. Selling it for anymore then what it costed to produce it is profit, or income.

Labor on the other hand, doesn't have a cost to produce it. Its not a material good, and cannot be deemed to have any profit, which is why its considered a trade or an equal exchange. Note the word equal.

Now for any business that makes profit pays a corporate income tax which IS legal. If you own a construction business it costs you X amount for the materials, and X amount for the payment of labor to your workers. Anything extra is profit which you must pay an income tax on. That is legal.

If some one does not make a profit, they must live off of trading rather then making profits. That is known as a trade. Labor is a trade, not a profit. It doesn't cost you anything to provide it but time and energy, and you cant put a price tag on that.

[edit on 20-1-2007 by grimreaper797]



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I wonder, Regen:

If this was just some ole guy, down on his luck because Sept. 11, 2001 nearly wiped out his industry, with less than a 20k/yr income who got sucked into the credit trap, and owing back taxes because he can't make ends meet anymore- with the IRS chasing him down and taking all his money and his assets, including all belongings- all over a couple mistakes on a tax form-

would it make any difference to you?

Cause I happen to know a guy like that. And it isn't pretty. While you sit up in your comfortable retirement, there are others not as fortunate that have runs in like this with the IRS. And from what I've heard, they're not too understanding. In fact, they'll kill you on the spot if you try to resist, once they decide to raid your home. It's a forced issue.

There comes a point where enough is enough. Due to no fault of our own, we pay into an incredible amount of money that can be used, and should be used, ultimately, in a manner that is beneficial to the people, and not to a priviledged few meddling their noses in securing oil instead of spending it on alternative fuel research.

It's just not that beneficial to the people anymore man. Not to the moral people who know what's ethically right and wrong. Sure it is for those in the loop and comfy. But how can a people allow a governing body to tax them to the point where it hurts, engulf us in a deficit that huge, manufacture evidence for a supposed war, create disatrous inflation from unbacked, phony bills, and on top of that come and kill you if need be when someone says they're not down with finacing that anymore?

I just don't get it. And I don't think you do either. This isn't about Ed's convictions in court. This is about Ed's convictions in principle.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by BennyHill
Mr. Ed Brown deserves a round of applause for taking a stand. The income tax is simply being used as a tool to suppress the masses and fund projects to suppress them even further.


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.

Without a government in place we have nothing but anarchy at the worst or small pockets of people clinging together at best. Without income in the forms of taxes, all that goes away its really that simple.

This guy is like the people who refuse immunizations for thier children. Dependant on us to pay for the freedoms he enjoys :shk:


Actually, the revenue from the income tax does not pay for any of the services that we enjoy. It pays the interest on the federal debt that was fraudulantly forced on us by the crooked bankers at the Federal Reserve.
If tax revenue was actually being used to provide those services, I really suspect there would be fewer people that have a problem paying them.

[edit on 20-1-2007 by BennyHill]



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
That is incorrect. Why do you think they call it trade school? Because its a trade. Why is it called a trade?

Trade by definition is:
an equal exchange. You cannot price labor. Its value is solely determind by some ones desire for such a thing. A corvette has a set value, regardless of how much some one is will to pay for it. Any physical item sold, has a set value which it costs to produce that physical item. Selling it for anymore then what it costed to produce it is profit, or income.

Labor on the other hand, doesn't have a cost to produce it. Its not a material good, and cannot be deemed to have any profit, which is why its considered a trade or an equal exchange. Note the word equal.
[edit on 20-1-2007 by grimreaper797]

you are mixing up the definitions of trade here. It can either be the business or work in which on engages regularly or it is an exchange of property usually without the use of money. merriam-websters definition of trade
As to whether labor has a cost to produce or not well I would have to say that it does. it may not be a monetary cost but it still costs. Labors have to pay in their time used and energy spent as well as many other things. Now in our economy The cost of labor has been deemed to be worthless so like i said all money received for labor is taxable.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   
this guy is awesome wow! i want to join him finally someone getting the balls to keep it real..i wonder what would happen if everyone in the country did thiis? they cant jail / kill us all can they? i think we all should revolt EFF the government. what gives these human beings who poop pee and fart like the rest of us the right to take our hard earned money for stuff that doesnt even benefit the working class?? but yeah ed brown RIGHT ON MAN RIGHT ON!!!!



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   
definition of labor: The amount of human energy that is expended to produce a product.

In this case if you can tell me how much human energy is worth, what units its meassured in, and how you came about this value for human energy, I will be happy to agree that it can create a profit.

Of course that will never happen as their is no way to calculate how much human energy is worth, and thats a rediculous concept to even fathom. In saying that, how are you going to say whether or not they made a profit or a loss? You can't. You say well your still surviving. Yes but I lost many hours of time during that labor and overall I think I lost more then I gained.

Since there is no tool of meassurement to say how much human energy and a persons time is worth, you can never say they made a profit. Value does not determine profit either, as value varies from person to person. What one person considers a gain, another considers it a loss.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

I just don't get it. And I don't think you do either. This isn't about Ed's convictions in court. This is about Ed's convictions in principle.


I get it fine, a crook is a crook is a crook.

Ed schemed and planned for 10 years and thus a jury of his peers say he's guilty. He wasn't part of a disaster. He didn't make a simple error. He wasn't victim of loansharking. He was trying to con the government and get a free ride.

If your friend's story is true and I have my doubts cause it sounds like BS, then he can get free help, work out a deal and get on with his life...instead of running from it. The pioneer spirit means facing up too our responsibilities, believing we will be held accountable for our actions, not playing the fool, and not being a slacker embracing perpetual victimhood.

If Rainmaker the blue collar moron can do it...anyone can!

Never give up!

[edit on 20-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   
In trade you see the word exchange used in just about every single definition that has to do with trading of items or labor in this case. Lets look up exchange.



the act of giving or taking one thing in return for another.


well how does that result in profit? Say I buy all the items necessary to build a house. I don't know how to build a house, but I have 3 corvettes. I go to you, a guy who knows how to build a house and say. I'll give you two corvettes to build my house. You say OK and build my house, I give you the two corvettes. Now how are we going to tax this.

What if the guy across the street watches and goes "What an idiot! He could have gotten all 3 corvettes for all that work, he definately got screwed!" Meanwhile I am saying "Man I gave him two corvettes for that, he definately made a profit off of that!"

Well one guys thinks you got screwed, and another guy thinks you got lucky. One thinks you made a loss, another thinks you made a gain. How do you tax something like that.

Lets replace those two corvettes now. I have 90,000 dollars to spend. I offer you 60,000 to build it. You accept. Some one goes "Wow he only got 60,000 to build that house, he got ripped off, he could have gotten 70,000 for that probably." Meanwhile I am going "Wow what was I thinking, thats not worth 60,000 dollars, its worth maybe 50,000. He just gained 10,000 dollars out of this."

Well one guy thinks you lost 10,000 another thinks you gained 10,000. Meassuring by value rather then raw cost to create a product is simply illogical and not possible.



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
definition of labor: The amount of human energy that is expended to produce a product.

In this case if you can tell me how much human energy is worth, what units its meassured in, and how you came about this value for human energy, I will be happy to agree that it can create a profit.

Of course that will never happen as their is no way to calculate how much human energy is worth, and thats a rediculous concept to even fathom. In saying that, how are you going to say whether or not they made a profit or a loss? You can't. You say well your still surviving. Yes but I lost many hours of time during that labor and overall I think I lost more then I gained.

Since there is no tool of meassurement to say how much human energy and a persons time is worth, you can never say they made a profit. Value does not determine profit either, as value varies from person to person. What one person considers a gain, another considers it a loss.


actually labor is expenditure of physical or mental effort especially when difficult or compulsory
merriam-websters definition of labor labor is not a unit of measure for how much work is done rather it is the work that is done
now you may be right on a moral since (in fact i believe that that you are right) but the law and capitalist economic theory says you are wrong and that not the beliefs of the two of us is what determines who pays taxes and how much they pay, and so what we see as priceless congress sees as worthless.

And as to whether two Corvettes is equal to greater that or less that the value of my labor in building a house well i the corvettes are each worth $30,000 and i built you a house with a value of $50,000 then i made a profit and that is how you can determine the amount of income for my labor. and as for what each of the two guys think, well it doesn't matter what they think it matters what the assessor think the value of the house is and the value of the cars are.

[edit on 1/20/2007 by Belenus]

[edit on 1/20/2007 by Belenus]



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Who determines value then? One person says that house is worth 50,000 and another says 70,000. Value is not a means of determining profit and value is not a set value.

The costs to create a product is a set price. Whether a person thinks a car is worth 10,000 or 200,000 it still costed the company 15,000 to produce it. Now if you can tell me how much it costs to produce human energy tell me. Also tell me the units of which to meassure human energy. So tell me the units human energy comes in, and how much it costs per unit. Then we can determine if some one is making profit. You also have to take into account how much X amount of time is worth, as they are spending time as well as energy.

So if you say 1 hours of work is worth 40 dollars tell me why. And it better not be because of value, because value does not determine profits.

[edit on 20-1-2007 by grimreaper797]



posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   
During the American revolution, an author named Daniel Leonard wrote a series of letters to the citizens of Massachusetts. As an avid loyalist, these letters are hardly brought up anymore in the study of history. Please read along with me in a couple of excerpts from his first and fifth letter, and let me know if the sting of irony hits you as well.


As a result of the 7 years war, geat Britain was in debt, in enacting a few policies to pay down that debt:

"At the conclusion of the late war [7 years war], Great-Britain found, that though she had humbled her enemies, and greatly enlarged larged her own empire, that the national debt amounted to almost one hundred and fifty millions... Heavy taxes and duties were already laid, not only upon the luxuries and conveniences, but even the necessaries of life in Great-Britain and Ireland."


It was/is within the goverment's right to tax the colonies - why would we dream to question it? Parliament is the supreme ruling body in the land:

"At first we did not dream of denying the authority of parliament to tax us, smuch less to legislate for us. We had always confidered ourselves, as a part of the British empire, and the parliament, as the supreme legislature of the whole. Acts of parliament for regulating our internal polity were familiar."

Then some nuts, that must have been affected by a full moon, threw a fit:

"We were happy in our subordination; but in an evil hour, under the influence of some malignant planet, the design was formed of opposing the stamp-act by a denial of the right of parliament to make it."

Letter 1 by Daniel Leonard Dec 12, 1774.

And to end our irony filled letters:

"This doctrine is not new; but the denial of it is. It is beyond a doubt that it was the sense both of the parent country and our ancestors, that they were to remain subject to parliament; it is evident from the charter itself, and this authority has been exercired by parliament, from time to time, almost: ever since the first settlement of the country, and has been expressly acknowledged by our provincial legislatures"

Letter 5 by Daniel Leonard Jan. 9 1775

You can read the letters for yourself at:

oll.libertyfund.org...

After all, these taxes are the law.



... Do any of these comments look familiar?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join