I don't pay the Illegal Income tax as descibed by any and all codes of the Unites States Go, page 9

privacy

Pages: << 6 7 8 9 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 54 times

reply posted on 7-8-2009 @ 02:52 PM by poet1b

reply to post by earthship35

No offense taken, and none meant to be given.

I am a little over a decade older than you, and I remember what this country was like in the seventies, and we had a great deal more freedom then. Starting in the eighties is when they began to seriously work at taking away our liberties primarily through the war on drugs.

That is when they also began to make the push to get rid of family farms. Small businesses do take on an unfair percentage of the tax burden, in fact the largest percentage of the federal tax burden, and small businesses whose business transactions do not cross state and federal borders should not be paying so much money to the federal government.

The money going to banks and insurance companies is even worse. Ten percent is taken off the top of all credit card and ATM charges. That is a big chunk. Then of course there are penalties and interest, and then of course high insurance costs because with loose laws governing business practices, there is a lot more room to create lawsuits. The numbers of lawsuits skyrocketed after de-regulation was enacted.

People always want to blame government, but government is a necessary evil. It is the power and influence of the super rich that has grown out of control through the mass redistribution of wealth that has occurred under de-regulation. It is the power and influence of the super rich that has turned government against us.

reply posted on 7-8-2009 @ 11:09 PM by sharps

I'm British so please forgive any ignorance I display with this post.

I was under the impression that the constitution stated that tax was only to be levied "on the profit from one's labour", not on the income from one's labour. To me this is an eminently sensible and even righteous approach. Why should human beings pay much more tax than corporations who themselves only pay tax on 'the profit' from their activities. I would argue that in a moral world the corporations should pay greater taxes than the workers.

I think it's fine to pay tax on the profit of your labour which is to say after you've paid your rent or mortage, your medical bills/ premiums, your food bill, your utilities, car payments, fuel, clothing used or required when working, and any other everyday expense, just as the corporations do.

It's simple, a corporation recieves revenues/income and after all operating expenses are taken into account they have a much smaller figure as gross profit. This figure is then used for the calculation of taxes. It should be exactly the same for us.

For some time I have been wondering about the possibilites and practicalities of declaring ones self as a corporation and then ensure there is no tax to pay because you have spent your income on living.

reply posted on 8-8-2009 @ 11:36 AM by poet1b

reply to post by sharps

That is something I have always wondered about as well. If the costs of buildings, insurance, and vehicles for a company or corporation are tax deductible, why aren't they for an individual. Why do individuals pay taxes on gross income, while businesses are allowed far greater deductions. If corporations need vehicles to survive, than so do individuals.

reply posted on 9-8-2009 @ 06:30 AM by rnaa

Originally posted by Jeffesq
reply to post by king9072

As a Tax Attorney, the failure to ratify the 16th Amend argument is valid, however is ignored. If I argue this in Court, I face a 25k fine.

I dunno what the 'fine' for filing frivolous suits are, but you are completely wrong about ratification.

See various cases about 16th amendment listed here.

Key point:

(tax protester arguments about the adoption of the 16th Amendment, repeating arguments made in "The Law That Never Was", are by now so stale and so long and thoroughly rejected that the court is justified in imposing sanctions amounting to a fine of $5000 and double the usual costs and damages) Pollard v. CIR (11th Cir 1987) 816 F2d 603. The court in a tax fraud case refused to take judicial notice of what were alleged to be thousands of documents, none of them placed in evidence, which were supposedly filed in unspecified courts elsewhere which substatiated in some unspecified way that the Sixteenth Amendment had not been properly ratified. US v. Sugarman (4th Cir unpub 7/31/86) 21 Fed.R.Evid.Serv 379;

If you are going to pretend to be a Tax Attorney, you better study up on the tax law, especially if you are going to go on web sites as an anonymous poster and try to give comfort to people who are obviously susceptible to manipulation.

Have fun with that.

reply posted on 9-8-2009 @ 06:37 AM by rnaa

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by sharps

That is something I have always wondered about as well. If the costs of buildings, insurance, and vehicles for a company or corporation are tax deductible, why aren't they for an individual. Why do individuals pay taxes on gross income, while businesses are allowed far greater deductions. If corporations need vehicles to survive, than so do individuals.

Don't you have a tax deduction for your home mortgage? Charity donations? Depreciation on income generating equipment? Isn't your personal company allowed a tax deduction on your home office? In what way are you disadvantaged?

Note: I've lived in Australia for many years now. I'm asking those questions, because it used to be the case and US tax provisions may have changed.. In Oz we don't get a tax deduction for home load interest, consider yourself well off.

reply posted on 9-8-2009 @ 11:39 AM by poet1b

reply to post by rnaa

Aah yes, we only gt 10 lashes, while you get 15, we are sooo lucky.

Yes, we get mortgage interest deductions, and property tax, which helps homeowners, but not renters. We get no deductions for transportation, and all the other necessities for survival in a modern economy.

All interest and insurance should be deductible considering that these industries are backed by legal requirements. Not only are we paying for this stuff directly out of our pockets, we are subsidizing it through our taxes, and it is hidden in the costs of all goods and services.

The investment industry has a gun to our heads, and you people are complaining about government?

reply posted on 11-8-2009 @ 08:07 PM by faulconandsnowjob

I've done quite a bit of legal research on the federal income tax. I believe it is unconstitutional, or at least, applied unconstitutionally. I hope to publish my research at some point. In the meantime, people should look up the Supreme Court case Bushaber.

reply posted on 12-8-2009 @ 12:15 AM by rnaa

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob
I've done quite a bit of legal research on the federal income tax. I believe it is unconstitutional, or at least, applied unconstitutionally. I hope to publish my research at some point. In the meantime, people should look up the Supreme Court case Bushaber.

What's to loop up? From Wikipedia:

Holdings
The Sixteenth Amendment removes the requirement that income taxes be apportioned among the states according to population. The Revenue Act of 1913, imposing income taxes that are not apportioned among the states according to each state's population, is not unconstitutional. The Federal income tax statute does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law. The Federal income tax statute does not violate the uniformity clause of Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

And yes, I read the entire SCOTUS finding. So what is your point?

[edit on 12/8/2009 by rnaa]

reply posted on 12-8-2009 @ 01:55 AM by twitchy

reply to post by badmedia

That's one of the best posts I've read in a while man. You have a gift for simplification, something that is sorely needed when trying to muddle through the reality of this scam. You guys should read that one, it's the bare bones and well said at that.
I hate to play the part of the 'southern man' here, but we tried to tell you guys this stuff way back in the late 1850's.

reply posted on 12-8-2009 @ 01:17 PM by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by rnaa

And yes, I read the entire SCOTUS finding. So what is your point?

I think I already said the federal income tax is unconstitutional. It's not like legal research starts & ends w/ reading some entry on wikipedia. lol And why would I be interested in sharing my research when people are that rude?

[edit on 12-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

reply posted on 12-8-2009 @ 08:56 PM by rnaa

Originally posted by faulconandsnowjob

Originally posted by rnaa

And yes, I read the entire SCOTUS finding. So what is your point?

I think I already said the federal income tax is unconstitutional. It's not like legal research starts & ends w/ reading some entry on wikipedia. lol And why would I be interested in sharing my research when people are that rude?

[edit on 12-8-2009 by faulconandsnowjob]

It wasn't meant to be rude. It was a simple question about what your point was about the case. It finds that the federal income tax is constitutional. How does that support your assertion?

I didn't end with the Wikipedia either, that was just a concise, and accurate, summary of the ruling. I also read the actual ruling. And provided a link to that ruling.

So from your post, one must assume that you are basing your assertion on that case. And I'm guessing your 'research' starts and ends with some set of 'income tax is illegal' web sites that support your own personal POV and ignores any analysis that does not. And that those sites probably quote the introductory summary of the petitioners argument and ignores the refutation of that argument.

That's a lot of assuming and guessing, so I asked what your point was in pointing us to the case. Nothing rude about it, just trying to find out where you are coming from, that's all.

Pages: << 6 7 8 9 >> ^^TOP^^