7000 Citizens Violently Threatened By The State Of Indiana

page: 24
38
<< 21  22  23   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





The income tax law is taxing income.


Is it your assertion that income is the subject of the tax? Show me where a tax has been imposed upon income.




Income is an increase in assets.


Income defined:


The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments.


Money defined:


1. A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquefiable account.

2. The official currency, coins, and negotiable paper notes issued by a government.

3. Assets and property considered in terms of monetary value; wealth.


Income has not been statutorily defined, so we must turn to the ordinary meaning of income, which is money, and money is assets, or property.




The income tax law does not need to list every possible source of income, because the 16th Amendment says that The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived....


The 16th Amendment does not say that income has been made the subject of any tax...




You are being flippantly derisive of those words, but they are the Constitutional provision that is applicable. Income is income, from whatever source derived.


Show me where income has been made the subject of a tax.




To the best of my knowledge, wages and professional activities are a source of income.


And when the source is being considered this is your first clue that the tax is not a tax upon income but upon some specified activity.




Washing dishes in a restaurant, for example, is a source of income for some people.


And as a source of income, it is not the income that is being taxed, or the source wouldn't be considered at all.




The act of landscaping, is a source of income for some people.


Same answer as above.




What has not be named as taxed events is defined by the words in the Constitution: from whatever source derived.


Income is not an event, it is property, or as you put it, an increase in assets. "From whatever source derived" is certainly not an event. Who do you think you're kidding?



[edit on 8-9-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]




posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





Because that was the part of the paragraph that lied about my argument. The other sentence was not a lie.


Which is the same as saying that; well I had to leave out that other part because if I posted that part with what I quoted, then I would look pretty stupid calling you a liar.




Do you feel guilty about lying even when you are telling the truth? The simple solution to that is to avoid telling lies, then you don't have to worry about remembering what lies you are telling and getting caught out.


Right. Tell me, are you still beating your wife? Do you still molest children? Loaded questions, are loaded questions, rnaa, and if you hope to trip someone up with a loaded question, you have to be a tad bit brighter than you've been.

It has been you who has been exposed as the liar, and you who can't seem to remember what was said, even in the same post. When it suits your purposes, income is an increase in assets, and assets in this context are valuable items that are owned, which is property, but then when it suits your purposes, the income tax is not a direct tax on income, but is an indirect tax on the activity, which you claim is "from whatever source derived", which is heretofore a new and undiscovered activity that you have mysteriously declared an activity, but when that doesn't work for you, then indirect and direct have no meaning any longer. Seriously, who besides maybe yourself, do you really think you're fooling?



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




Where exactly in the Constitution does it grant the courts the power of judicial review? That would be the same judicial review that was being used in the matter of Brushaber and Stanton.


You can't be seriously asking that question.



Article III Section 2

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.


Brushaber does not support your argument, and I've already explained why, ad infinitum. We'll try once more though:



As construed by the Supreme Court in the Brushaber case, the power of Congress to tax income derives from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, of the original Constitution rather than from the Sixteenth Amendment; the latter simply eliminated the requirement that an income tax, to the extent that it is a direct tax, must be apportioned among the states.


That Extract is from Boris I. Bittker, Martin J. McMahon, Jr. & Lawrence A. Zelenak, Federal Income Taxation of Individuals, ch. 1, paragr. 1.01[1][a], Research Institute of America (2d ed. 2005), as retrieved from 2002 WL 1454829 (W. G. & L.). as quoted at Wikipedia: Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad

This is the same point I've been trying to get you to understand from the beginning.

Furthermore, your appeal to Stanton has also been shot down by the courts, specifically in Parker v Commissioner of the IRS.



(excerpt from Wikipedia: Tax Protester Sixteenth Amendment Arguments)

In Parker v. Commissioner, tax protester Alton M. Parker, Sr.,[41] challenged the levying of tax upon individual income, based on language in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,[42] to the effect that the Sixteenth 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 [. . . .]"[43] The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected Parker's argument, and stated that Parker's proposition is "only partially correct, and in its critical aspect, is incorrect.[44] The Court of Appeals re-affirmed that the Congress has the power to impose the income tax, and stated that the Sixteenth Amendment "merely eliminates the requirement that the direct income tax be apportioned among the states."[45] The court ruled that Parker had raised a "frivolous" appeal.[46]

Tax protesters argue that in light of this language, the income tax is unconstitutional in that it is a direct tax and that the tax should be apportioned (divided equally amongst the population of the various states).[6][47]

The above quoted language in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. is not a holding of law in the case. (Compare Ratio decidendi, Precedent, Stare decisis and Obiter dictum for a fuller explanation.)

The quoted language regarding the "complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning" is a reference to the power granted to Congress by the original text of Article I of the U.S. Constitution. The reference to "being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it [the income tax] belonged" is a reference to the effect of the 1895 Court decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.,[48] where taxes on income from property (such as interest income and dividend income) — which, like taxes on income from labor, had always been considered indirect taxes (and therefore not subject to the apportionment rule) — were, beginning in 1895, treated as direct taxes. The Sixteenth Amendment overruled the effect of Pollock,[49] making the source of the income irrelevant with respect to the apportionment rule, and thereby placing taxes on income from property back into the category of indirect taxes such as income from labor (the Sixteenth Amendment expressly stating that Congress has power to impose income taxes regardless of the source of the income, without apportionment among the states, and without regard to any census or enumeration).


Emphasis mine.

The 16th Amendment allows Congress to tax income derived from any source in the same manner. Wage income is treated in the same way as rental income. Income is income no matter what its source.



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




Income has not been statutorily defined, so we must turn to the ordinary meaning of income, which is money, and money is assets, or property.


I agree with having to use the ordinary meaning of income, but your derivation is incorrect and a central fallacy in your argument I suspect.

Even your definition defines income as "money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments."

'received over time' - an increase in assets, not an asset.

Ordinary meaning from Merriam Webster:


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


A 'coming in' sounds mightily like an event doesn't it?

A 'gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money, sounds a lot like an increase in assets, not the asset itself.

So, income is an increase in assets or property, not assets or property. Money is the measure of the income not the income.

An analogy if you don't mind. Acceleration is not the velocity of a vehicle, acceleration is the change in velocity of the vehicle. Likewise, income is not the value of personal property, income is the change in value of personal property.



Show me where income has been made the subject of a tax.


Are you denying that Congress has the power to impose a tax on income? Are you denying that Congress has indeed passed a law to do just that?



And when the source is being considered this is your first clue that the tax is not a tax upon income but upon some specified activity.


And when it is income this is your first clue that the source is irrelevant.



Income is not an event, it is property, or as you put it, an increase in assets. "From whatever source derived" is certainly not an event. Who do you think you're kidding?


I am not kidding anyone, who do you think you are fooling with your obfuscation. Does Congress have "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived" or not? Have they passed a law to do so or not?

Yes, income is an increase in assets. It is the increase that is what is being taxed. That is why it is considered an indirect tax, if it were the asset itself being taxed it would be a direct tax. Your insistence that an indirect tax can only be defined by an event, and that an exchange of labor or service does not classify as an acceptable event is spurious and wrong in fact and in law. It is indirect because it what is being taxed is something indirectly related to the underlying asset.

Income from wage labor is indirect because it is not the labor being taxed, but the income from the labor, which is indirectly related to the labor itself.

Until Pollack, income from property was considered an indirect tax for exactly the same reason, it wasn't the property being taxed, but the income from the property therefore it was an indirect tax on the property.

Pollack found that tax on income from property was essentially the same thing as a tax on the underlying asset and so must be considered a direct tax. Again, this is the anomaly that the 16th fixed, and it is the only thing that 16 did.



[edit on 8/9/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 





Which is the same as saying that; well I had to leave out that other part because if I posted that part with what I quoted, then I would look pretty stupid calling you a liar.


Let me get this straight.

You made two assertions one of which is a lie and one of which is not a lie.

I am stupid for pointing out the statement that is a lie, and silently agreeing with your statement that is true.

I assume, that in your world telling a lie and a truth in the same paragraph somehow makes both statements true? Or is it just that somehow one truth is enough to cancel out the lie, so everything balances out to neutral?

What planet are you from again?



posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Maybe you are a visual kind of guy. Here are some Venn diagrams to illustrate the situation.

" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>


The above diagram shows the situation before Pollack. Indirect taxes and Direct taxes were separate, and Income tax was considered 100% an indirect tax.




" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>


The above diagram shows the situation after Pollack. Some income taxes have been declared to be a direct tax. If Congress wants to tax that part of income that falls on the direct side, it needs to apportion it.




" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>


This last diagram shows the current situation. The Indirect taxes and Direct Taxes bubbles overlap to the extent that they describe Income tax. I choose to interpret this as a third class of taxation, you choose to deny this description. It doesn't matter, the net result is that once again all income taxes can be treated in exactly the same way.

The 16th amendment didn't make tax on property income an indirect tax, it allowed Congress to treat property income the same way it has always treated non-property income.


stargod520

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Lightrule
 


could you please provide a sample letter? I have been studying on the so-called laws and would like to withdraw myself as a united states citizen.Also where can I do some legal research on this topic


Notice to employer to withdraw from taking taxes sample letter

edit on by stargod520 because: forgot to add what sample letter


rnaa

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


I'm responding to myself, to correct myself, dig?



Yes, income is an increase in assets. It is the increase that is what is being taxed. That is why it is considered an indirect tax, if it were the asset itself being taxed it would be a direct tax. Your insistence that an indirect tax can only be defined by an event, and that an exchange of labor or service does not classify as an acceptable event is spurious and wrong in fact and in law. It is indirect because it what is being taxed is something indirectly related to the underlying asset.


My reasoning here for what makes an indirect tax indirect does not appear to be accurate. The consensus definition of an indirect tax seems to be a tax that is collected by someone on behalf of another. Thus a sales transaction tax is indirect because the tax is collected by the vendor, but is actually paid by the buyer.

This is not always the case, however. An excise tax on some manufactured good would normally be passed on to the buyer in the same way as a sales tax, however, the manufacture may chose to pay some (or all) of the tax by way of a manufacturers discount in order to even out demand.

This is the 'world friendly' version of an indirect tax, however. The term Indirect Tax has a very different meaning in U.S. Constitutional law. In U.S. Constitutional law, a direct tax is a tax on property or capitation. All other taxes are Indirect Taxes which then include duties, excises, and the like.

An income tax is an excise tax, except (according to Pollack) where it is taxing income from property. Excise tax has two different meanings in the US as well, a Constitutional meaning, and a statutory meaning. A statutory excise is a tax that is called an excise tax in the law that imposes it. Examples include taxes on tobacco, alcohol, gas guzzlers, or carbon.

In the Constitutional sense, an excise is indeed, as Jean Paul Zodeaux would have us believe, an event tax.

However, where Jean Paul is completely and fatally wrong, is when he denies that there is an 'event' for earned wages that can be taxed. This assertion is what I referred to as 'wrong in fact and in law'. The event is 'realization of income' and is specifically listed in the U.S. Tax Code as part of the definition of "Gross Income" (specifically, item 1 Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items; ). By the way, the definition is specifically and redundantly claimed to be non-exhaustive, which means that just because something isn't specifically listed in the schedule, it doesn't mean that that something is not part of 'Gross Income' - the Constitution says 'from whatever source derived' and that is exhaustive.

See also: Excise Tax in the United States

See also: Internal Revenue Code section 61

See also: TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61






edit on 8/9/2010 by rnaa because: corrected grammar


mnemeth1

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
You guys are still in here debating legalized looting?


daddio

posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Well Jean Paul, I am reading the Phil Hart book "Constitutional Income, do you have any" and it is quite well written about the 16th Amendment and what it "didn't" do and the whole scam. And second, I will never go to court as they are not courts of law but courts of equity. I send leters like the one below. Done deal.



NOTICE

To the IRS,

I ask for answers to the following to be made under penalty of Perjury:

1) the law requiring Americans to pay income tax

2) their regulatory authority and delegated authority to address me

3) the law which made the IRS part of the Constitution

4) the agent’s oath of office, and

5) produce the contract with both signatures on it

Until I receive answers to these question above, I demand that you immediately cease and desist the proceedings under the color-of-law against the Sovereign in the party,



It is so much fun.


mryanbrown

posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Read the State's constitution. There's always generally a clause stating that there shall be no imprisonment for debt except in cases of fraud.


Lightrule

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I will never go to court as they are not courts of law but courts of equity. I send leters like the one below. Done deal.

5) produce the contract with both signatures on it

It is so much fun.


Yeah it is pretty fun using that letter I would have to agree there. Haha. It is number 5 that really makes them see red... No contract = fraud, they know this which is why when done correctly you don't hear a peep from any tax collectors ever again. This is the argument that stops them every time and people still don't understand...

-Lightrule


notsofast

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


yeah man, sorry, but that was a very misleading title. you make it sound as if they were threatened with beatings, or some other form of actual violence. arrest is just arrest, until it crosses the line. now, had they snatched up that 77 year old woman by her hair, kicked her walker out from under her, tased her, thrown her in the back of a cop car, then i'd sday violent. violence is not: "come pay your delinquent taxes or you could be incarcerated" jail is what happens when you don't pay taxes. unless you're a celebrity.


Oreyeon

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Demoncreeper
Hi.

This title is misleading.
They weren't "violently" threatened.


Warrants were issued for 7,000 taxpayers, and many of them showed up at the same time, eager to set up payments on overdue state taxes to avoid arrest.


Source

Hey, here's an idea.
Pay your damn taxes.



Pay your damn taxes? I'm not even going to comment to create an argument. I'm just going to say sad, and Baaaaaaaaahhh....


SirTFiedSkeptic

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Onboard2

Originally posted by rakkasansct
So are you advocating for a monarchy? Or what form of govt do you think we should have?


Yeah, monarchy over dumb, mob rule.


queenisabel.com...

A good example of a just monarch. She was a liberal before it was popular, advocating human rights and the rights of women. She was grieved that the Natives were mistreated by some of her explorers in the New World, and punished them appropriately. The Church considers her a holy woman and a good example to mothers (she had 5 children).


RKWWWW

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Ultimately taxes are collected at the point of a gun.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master."

--- G. Washington ---


SeventhSeal

posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Simple solution:

pay your taxes.

That pretty much sums up this situation.


LibertyPatriot

posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Jurisdiction CANNOT be granted by consent where none exists.


This is a harmful lie.


It is a fact. You thrive on distortion and manipulation, but that does not alter the facts or the law.


There is a reason that police officers ask people for permission to enter into a home, or a car, or a back pack or purse to inspect it, and that is because they have no jurisdiction to do so without that permission, and you asserting this lie is harmful to anyone who would be foolish enough to believe you.


Yes, there is (just not the one you cited)! It is so the unwary will give permission!

Do you intentionally conflate "permission" with "jurisdiction," or do you just not know the difference?

More falsehoods from a serial deceiver. Police officers with lawful authority may search a person, conveyance or place without any grant by you of permission.

When you say "yes," you have granted them permission, not jurisdiction!


In my understanding, a law enforcement officer's jurisdiction is also determined by the laws governing law enforcement, not just the laws the officer is or may be authorized to enforce. To my knowledge, legal jurisdiction for a search and seizure has to be authorized by an actual crime witnessed by a law enforcement officer, a specific lawfully authorized reasonable suspicion of a crime without a warrant, or due process demonstration of probable cause to obtain a warrant for securing specific evidence or person(s) of an alleged crime, or a person consenting or waiving consent to be searched or their property be searched [ ie., when you grant permission by saying "yes" or NOT saying "I do not consent" ], or a person confessing to a crime. Any ambiguity or negligence of due process, whether intended or accidental, within the law, by law enforcement officers, or during enforcement of the law, can, and often does, result in no lawful jurisdiction of authority being enforceable.

Law enforcement officers can use deception and the illusion of authority and evidence, and are not obliged to explain the law or process or any rights other than your Miranda rights if being arrested, and they can use everything a detainee or suspect says as evidence against them whether or not it's relevant, and they are not accountable that a suspect truly understands the law or their rights or the legal authority and limitations of law enforcement. These are clear and convincing enough for me to deny my consent to a police officer's alleged lawful authority to question me or search me or my property without a warrant. Ofcourse I'm not stupid enough to disobey an officer's lawful command or ignore an officer enforcing a traffic stop on me, and I will comply with detainment or arrest, but I will never [again] voluntarily infringe my own rights or consent to waiving any of my rights, no matter how threatening or intimidating a law enforcement officer is, or how inconvenienced I might be. As a person and a citizen, I have the right not to consent to searches without a warrant, I have a right to know what law I allegedly violated, I have a right not to answer any questions other than identifying myself, I have a right to ask if I'm being detained or charged and why or if I'm free to go, and I have a right to only speak with an attorney should I be arrested and charged with a crime. Once I didn't really understand or believe these are my rights, and that was one of the worst mistakes I've made in my life.



Pervius

posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
The "healthcare" bill that Congress passed gives the IRS authority to fine people annually if they don't buy the mandatory Federal Tax...errr....healthcare.

$750 annual fine from the IRS. File taxes jointly with your wife and have 2 kids? $750 x 4= $3,000 annual tax/fine

If you claimed 10 exemptions on your W-4....10 x $750= $7500 fine.

It's in the "healthcare" bill they passed. It's about to get a whole lot worse in 2014 when that new fine kicks in. Those people in Indiana have it easy right now.





new topics
top topics
active topics
 
38
<< 21  22  23   >>

log in

join