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.

 

Let's stop paying income taxes!

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   
There is no law that requires you to pay, None of the money contributes to anything you think it does, it's unconstitutional.

Frankly this should be common knowledge for most of you, but I just don't know anymore.


I agree with Ron Paul ad I think we should dismantle the Federal Reserve bank, which would allow our REAL government to print money that is actually backed by something.

Your take?




posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
I agree. But apparently if you stop paying, the big bad men will come to your door and yank you away, unconstitutional or not.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by someguy420
 


I stop paying taxes everytime im in Iraq. I dont pay any type of tax until I come back to the states. However I also don't get a tax return when gone for the whole year but still its nice not to pay taxes on my meager salary.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by someguy420Let's stop paying income taxes!


You first.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by someguy420
 


Short answer, it is constitutional for the gov't of the united States. There is an amendment that allows for the collection of income tax. That is law.

I'm a small gov't proponent. I think that many of the taxes imposed are not legal under the constitution. Yet under the constitution it is legal for the fed gov't to collect income tax.

There are many points of that, that could be argued. Such as, only employees of the gov't are obligated to pay federal income tax.

That gets into too many if's, and's or but's, for this thread.


I do wholly agree about having an audit of the Fed Res. I think it would reveal that the Fed has been doing illegal things for decades. I also think that it would cause huge harm to the economy of America, when it is revealed the Fed is a crook.

Personally I am willing to face the pain of that. I know it will be bad. I want this country to be closer to 'fixed.'

[edit on 16-1-2010 by sporkmonster]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 




You first.


It is projected that for the 2009 tax period, 71 million persons will have paid no individual income tax. Of those, at least 20 million will have also generated no payroll tax, meaning that even their employers won't be paying taxes on their employment.

Source: taxpolicycenter.org


[edit on 16-1-2010 by LordBucket]



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 05:31 AM
link   
It may not be a law, but you agreed to take the fall when you signed your 1040 AGREEING to take it upon yourself to pay them, or face penalty.

I don't see how they could track you down if you were never in the system to begin with?

So yeah, quit your job, get a new one, and don't fill out a 1040 when you start. I'm sure that will go over well.

Not trying to be grim about it, but I can't see that happening. Especially when people think they have to pay something, they don't want to see you get off scott free.

Shame. I think if you regained the rights to your strawman through the UCC then you would get them back anyways to pay off debts owed.. not too sure though.



posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ohh_pleasee
 




you agreed to take the fall when you signed your 1040 AGREEING
to take it upon yourself to pay them, or face penalty.


Look at section 7 of page 1 of IRS form W-4 (PDF). This is the document submitted when you start any new employment.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   
United States Constitution 16th Amendment:
"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."

On top of this the United States Internal Revenue Code is considered statutory tax law.

There's your laws for the taxman Americans, it all seems pretty straightforward to me.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by sporkmonster
reply to post by someguy420
 


Short answer, it is constitutional for the gov't of the united States. There is an amendment that allows for the collection of income tax. That is law.

I'm a small gov't proponent. I think that many of the taxes imposed are not legal under the constitution. Yet under the constitution it is legal for the fed gov't to collect income tax.

There are many points of that, that could be argued. Such as, only employees of the gov't are obligated to pay federal income tax.

That gets into too many if's, and's or but's, for this thread.


I do wholly agree about having an audit of the Fed Res. I think it would reveal that the Fed has been doing illegal things for decades. I also think that it would cause huge harm to the economy of America, when it is revealed the Fed is a crook.

Personally I am willing to face the pain of that. I know it will be bad. I want this country to be closer to 'fixed.'

[edit on 16-1-2010 by sporkmonster]


If you are referring to the 16th Amendment, you have made a mistake of fact and misinterpretation of law. The 16th Amendment does not "allow" Congress to lay taxes on income and it certainly doesn't authorize any tax collector to collect income tax. The Congress all ready had the authority to tax income since the inception of the United States. Indeed, in order to fund the Civil War an income tax was passed at this time to pay the debt. It was repealed a few years later and then in 1894 Congress attempted to pass another income tax but this particular tax was struck down as being unconstitutional.

It was the SCOTUS ruling of Pollack v. Farmers & Loan Trust Co. that declared the entire income portion of the revenue law of 1894 as unconstitutional because it was viewed as a direct tax without any apportionment as Constitutionally required of all direct taxes. Congress, in response to this, but not as any repudiation of the Pollack Court, passed the 16th Amendment to flex their own muscles and make clear they had the complete and plenary power of taxation.

It was in two seminal rulings, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., that SCOTUS explained the meaning and purpose of the 16th Amendment. It was challenged by both Brushaber and Stanton as being unconstitutional because much like you they interpreted that Amendment to be an act of expanding Congressional power that was contrary to the original Constitution. Chief Justice White explained in both rulings that it was not an unconstitutional act and that Congress did not at all expand their scope of taxation nor did they impose any new burden of taxation upon the people.

Chief Justice White further explained that the 16th Amendment did not authorize a non apportioned direct tax as such an act would most assuredly be unconstitutional. What Congress did do, as the Chief Justice explained was prohibit any future court from ever viewing a non apportioned tax on income as a direct tax again, instead forcing the courts and thus We the People in understanding that a non apportioned tax on income was an indirect tax not subject to the rule of apportionment, but rather the rule of uniformity.

It is then imperative to understand the difference between direct taxes and indirect taxes and how they are laid and what the subject of the tax is. If the so called "Personal Income Tax" is not a direct tax on income, and is instead an indirect tax, where income is not the subject but, as Chief Justice White explained, merely used as a measurement to gauge how much tax is owed, then what exactly is the subject of the tax? That is the question.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   
I quit paying in 2003 when the government put me out of work with there regulations.

Now i just live on my disability checks that ain't taxable.

By the way the taxpayers shell out the money for the disability checks plus i get free medical.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
My income hasn't changed in years. My filing status hasn't changed in years. Other than what's stolen from my checks directly I never have that extra to pay them in April.

This year, though nothing has changed, I owe an obscene amount of money on top of what they've taken already.

I bring home about 30K. They've taken over 20% this year and I can't figure out what has changed.

20% gross is what's supposed to be savings. Now I have to write a check to the fed that effectively empties my savings.

Any wonder why I hate the fed with a white hot fire?

I'm effectively being "kept down" at gunpoint.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Stop paying and they will place a levy on your bank accounts. Any checks you write after levy is filed will bounce resulting in hundreds in bounced check fees. Bank will let you even write a check for cash, make your house payments knowing the levy was placed on your account. You will get a letter in mail a few days later of the levy and all of the bounced checks


They usually file it the 1st or 2nd of month so you will have your paycheck in there



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
i have no bank account, no valid driver's license, bad credit, live in an RV, no health insurance, no job, no income to be taxed - so in a way i guess i quit paying taxes right? matter of fact, when i was on the grid i filed taxes (about 2 years ago) when the first "stimulus" checks were to be issued. not only did i not recieve my stimulus but they also said i OWED them $240!!!! since then i have been trying to stay off the grid....



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Here's one for you... I don't want to give them an interest free loan. I always set my withholdings so that the minimum is taken out in federal taxes, then I pay them when I file. I've done it for years. Apparently, that's not good enough for them. About two weeks ago I received a notice from the IRS that they have ordered my employer to change my withholding to "Single, 0 Dependents" and I am not allowed to change it. I am married with four kids and am the sole source of income.

They have take away any say I have in paying my taxes and will now suck $1,000's out of my yearly pay forcing me to "lend" them the money I use to support my family.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join