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.

 

The scam known as Income Taxes

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Do you own a business? If taxes are ~30% of your salary then how are you only paying $800 max?




posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by J0HNSmith
Well first of all I'd like to say for some people like myself taxes are the best thing since sliced cheese! In fact I look forward to tax time at the end of the year, I wish it came 2-3 times a year for that matter. I think we pay in about $600-$800 a year max and some how always come out with a $3000-$5000 return. Now I know this isn't the case for everyone but hey the grass is definitely greener on my side of the fence.


How in the heck do you manage that!?!? You must be writing off some incredible losses in order for that to happen. This has never lead to an audit? Sorry, but it seems a little difficult to believe.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 09:10 AM
link   
You know I will like to know too. We pay, lets say more much more than that and still end up owning at the end of the year.
I even stop working for a year and still we end up owning taxes and our deductions are high.
I don't get it.

[edit on 15-7-2004 by marg6043]



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
: I even stop working for a year and still we end up owning taxes and our deductions are high.
I don't get it.

[edit on 15-7-2004 by marg6043]


It's probably your deductions! Another fine ploy to suck up your money. You can claim many deductions when you complete your W-4 and they will withhold less and less money based on those deductions. However, at the end of the tax year, when you file, you may not be eligible for the same number of deductions as your withholding and therefore have to pay some of the deductions back.

Also, as far as itemized deuctions, you usually are only awarded a very small percent of those deductions... as evidenced in those fancy worksheets that clearly bastardize the math.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I don't know about you guys, I live in Canada, not the US.

However, I don't know anyone who has a big problem with taxes. My mother gets a return, my father gets a return (they're divorced), my sister gets a return, my brother in law gets a return, most of my friend's parents get returns, you just have to pay your taxes through the year, keep a steady record of your spendings and abide by the law. I guess it must suck for a lot of people in the US.

Can't you just go use the 'Freedom Of Information Act', or something else to access your W-4 form and then declare it null and void without previously notifying your employer? After that, you should be able to legally declare exempt, and if they check, you should appear fine.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I'm self-employed, and if you think you get hit bad, those that are self employed also get to pay their entire social security. If you work for a company that had you sign a W-4, they are paying half of that for you.

Got 3 words for you:

National Sales Tax!

15% (even 20%) except on non-luxury food items, electricity, and water/sewer. Collect it at the retail level, which is already setup to collect sales taxes anyway.

You should be taxed on what you consume rather than what you produce. This way, those that are wasteful pay extra to be such. Those that are frugel and conserve don't get penalized for it.

If you can afford that $1,000,000 house, you can either afford it for $1,150,000, or you need to be looking at a smaller house. If you want that $40,000 SUV, be prepared to pay twice as much tax on it as if you brought the one for $20,000. Yep, that is on top of whatever taxes and title fees are on there now. If you are like me and think it's very superficial for someone to spend $2,000 on a stupid piece useless bric-brac that's just going to sit in some little used corner of a rich persons house collecting dust, consider that to purchase that item for $2,300 is making that person pay $300 in federal taxes.

It's a shame it will never happen. *heavy sigh*



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
I'm self-employed, and if you think you get hit bad, those that are self employed also get to pay their entire social security. If you work for a company that had you sign a W-4, they are paying half of that for you.



I didn't know they paid half of SS. I pay more in SS than any other tax taken out of my check.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Your company contributes 50% of your FICA taxes.

For Viendin... Our tax code has literally exploded into a several thousand page document! Only those people with an inordinate amount of money can afford the CPAs and Lawyers necessary to decipher the damned thing and take advantage of the loop holes. It is heavily biased toward the higher-income earners while the middle-class and lower-class get stuck paying the king's ransom of the bill.

[edit on 15-7-2004 by kozmo]



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 09:51 AM
link   
That's right Kozmo, and there is a multi-billion dollar industry that does nothing but feed off of the intentional complexity of the tax code. Pretty sad when you have to pay someone to tell you have much money you owe.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I read that the reason individuals pay taxes is because they are 1) in the social security system, and 2) receive mail directly to your house, which is a priviledge of the US corporation, not a right in the constitution.

Case: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. AUSTIN GARY COOPER, Case No. 89-109-CR-HOEVLER[edit on 14-7-2004 by Jamuhn]


Mr. Cooper was convicted in 1990 for federal income tax evasion for willfully attempting to evade or defeat the payment of federal income taxes. The only reason these two items were mentioned were to illustrate to Mr Cooper that he has no problem enjoying the benefits of US citizenship, he just wants someone else to pay his way.

More recently 2003 he has been found guilty of promoting a program called "Expatriation/Repatriation Application." The promotion encourages people to recind their US citizenship, thus no longer subjecting themselves to its laws or jurisdiction. The forms also ask for a reurn of all federal income taxes and FICA to be returned.


The Denver United States Court called Mr. Cooper's program frivolous and without merit, and directed Mr Cooper to close up shop. At the time the injunction was issued, Mr. Cooper swore under oath to stop the practice. However, a year later the Court found that Mr. Cooper was still operating. The Court imposed a $1,000.00 a day penalty for every day he continued to operate, to be increased to $5,000.00 a day after 11 days in violation. Once the penalty reaches $50,000.00 and Mr. Cooper is still in violation, he will be incarcerated.


So this is not a guy I would put alot of faith in to tell me whether taxes are legal or not.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by MOOR45
Relax I am currently travelling and can not reply the way I want to so I will find some. And if you look yourself they are many cases that people have fought and won.


No stress on my part. I am genuinely interested in the cases you mentioned (sanitation workers/cops, I think you said) and would like you to back up your statements with links to the actual cases.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   

The IRS mentions individual as a natural person correct. But the term contadicts itself because the legal term of person can mean a coporation.

No, that's incorrect. There is a distinction between the terms person and natural person.


Most courts will uphold them if you do not know what you are talking about.

??


Secretary Knox fails to mention that it is not about how many states voted on the issue but if it was ratified with THE CONGRESS ASSEMBLED.

That's an interesting claim. Can you provide the supporting information? In the big picture it is only of intellectual merit, because assuming the worst (that Congress wasn't technically assembled), Congress could simply assemble tomorrow and ratify it. I think a key point was


Originally posted by Bleys
these two items were mentioned were to illustrate to Mr Cooper that he has no problem enjoying the benefits of US citizenship, he just wants someone else to pay his way.

In the long run people in general will have to pay for the benefits of citizenship. But there seems to be a lot of precedent that both corroborates the validity of the 16th amendment and confirms that people who try to dodge taxes through such proclamations will be punished. Loopholes are of obvious interest to taxpayers... but I am curious as to why, if they really exist, there aren't consulting services available for avoiding the payment of income tax. By comparison, there are such services (directly or indirectly) for corporations seeking loopholes.

For other decisions upholding the validity of the 16th Amendment, see United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 273; Pollard v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 603 (11th Cir. 1987); United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1991); Sochia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 1994), reh. den. 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 22014; United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 888; United State v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2nd Cir. 1988); Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 239-41 (7th Cir. 1989); Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 707 (11th Cir. 1985); United States v. Buckner, 830 F.2d 102 (1987); United States v. Dube, 820 F.2d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 1986); Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70-71 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 833 (7th Cir. 1980); Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200 (1984), cert. den. 474 U.S. 830 (1985); United States v. Matheson, (9th Cir. 1986); Lysiak v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 311, 312 (7th Cir. 1987); Quijano v. United States, 93 F.3d 26, 30 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994).
evans-legal.com...



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by HeirToBokassa
Loopholes are of obvious interest to taxpayers... but I am curious as to why, if they really exist, there aren't consulting services available for avoiding the payment of income tax. By comparison, there are such services (directly or indirectly) for corporations seeking loopholes.


Think of this way, the tax code is thousands of pages specifying what is taxable and what is deductible. 99% of those pages deal directly with the self-employed, partnerships, corporations and small business. Only a very small portion of the Code actually applies to individuals, like you and me.

Most of us have income and a few deductions. There's simply nothing to "play with".

But businesses have inventory, cost of goods, depreciation, dividend, etc. You can play with these items legally, i.e. accelerating your depreciation, change in accounting methods, etc. This is one of the reasons the Code has become so large. Congress decides businesses are taking advantage or receiving too much of benefit from a loophole and they try to close it by adding to the code.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
How in the heck do you manage that!?!? You must be writing off some incredible losses in order for that to happen. This has never lead to an audit? Sorry, but it seems a little difficult to believe.


easy, earned income credit x3, child tax credit x3. Plus about 1/3+ of my income is non-taxable housing allowance. If that doesn't put me in the highest return bracket than I'll toss in a schedule C for business income and loss (there's always a larger loss lol) If by the grace of God I get an audit I would be more than happy. There's a ton more things that I could claim that I don't out of pure laziness. I would more than likely come out with another check from the IRS if I got audited and they'd be the ones doing all the work LOL. It's not difficult to believe at all, it's just a point of finding out what you need to bring your net income down to the point where you qualify as being poor and they ship you out a nice fat happy check. The best part is it's not illegal, just stay informed on what you can buy/trade/sell or even donate and use it to your advantage.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys
Only a very small portion of the Code actually applies to individuals, like you and me.

Most of us have income and a few deductions. There's simply nothing to "play with".

Right, good point, but my thinking was that if, as Moor claims, there are loopholes to avoid income tax, and if people in general could take advantage of that loophole but are too ignorant, that an enterprising individual would naturally fill that gap in the market by offering the service ("give me this much money and you won't pay income tax"). It wouldn't matter that, as there is very little text in the Code applying to individuals, there would be little work for the consultant to actually do to earn his pay. The point is that someone would charge, and the market price for this service would be quite good. If Moor isn't a millionaire already, I would advise him to use his special insight (if he really has one) to make himself rich. Eventually, as this supposed secret got out, the market price would diminish, but not before the early consultants got rich.

Or, if Moor prefers fame to money, he could tell the public about the loophole. Find some taxpayer's organization to finance a series of ads.

Or, if Moor is selfless, he could use his special insight which he has advertised here and challenge the 16th Amendment in court himself. If I read his previous posts correctly, he said that the courts have upheld the 16th Amendment up to now simply because the challengers were ignorant. But he has implied that he is not ignorant in this context.

That this hasn't happened yet makes me very skeptical.



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 06:25 PM
link   


quote: Originally posted by Jamuhn
I read that the reason individuals pay taxes is because they are 1) in the social security system, and 2) receive mail directly to your house, which is a priviledge of the US corporation, not a right in the constitution.

Case: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. AUSTIN GARY COOPER, Case No. 89-109-CR-HOEVLER[edit on 14-7-2004 by Jamuhn]

Mr. Cooper was convicted in 1990 for federal income tax evasion for willfully attempting to evade or defeat the payment of federal income taxes. The only reason these two items were mentioned were to illustrate to Mr Cooper that he has no problem enjoying the benefits of US citizenship, he just wants someone else to pay his way.


Sorry, but maybe I don't understand your reasoning. My point as well was that since he enjoys these benefits he is liable to pay taxes. But that if he doesn't he won't have to.


He pays Social Security, he uses the U.S. Postal Service, therefore, Mr. Cooper is a citizen of the UNITED STATES.


This case was about citizenship

Where exactly did you get your information? I'm very curious.

I also heard about a guy who stayed on his property after evading taxes, but the cops couldn't touch him because it was after all his property outright. And not the TRADE-NAME's property that is owned by the US corporation, but the actual physical person. I'll see if I can find it.

[edit on 15-7-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jul, 15 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Sorry, but maybe I don't understand your reasoning. My point as well was that since he enjoys these benefits he is liable to pay taxes. But that if he doesn't he won't have to.


and


He pays Social Security, he uses the U.S. Postal Service, therefore, Mr. Cooper is a citizen of the UNITED STATES.

This case was about citizenship

Where exactly did you get your information? I'm very curious.


1. My info.: United States District Court, Denver CO. Cases: 2003 WL 23138760 (D. Colo.) and 2004 WL 928190 (D. Colo.). Both decisions note that Mr. Cooper was convicted in 1990 for willfully attempting to evade taxes. Check them out for yourself.

2. Since I have shown you mine, now it's your turn to show me yours.

You claim that the Cooper case you reference dealt with the issue of citizenship. I have doubts, not about you necessarily, but whoever gave you this information. And like you said, I'm curious...



I also heard about a guy who stayed on his property after evading taxes, but the cops couldn't touch him because it was after all his property outright. And not the TRADE-NAME's property that is owned by the US corporation, but the actual physical person. I'll see if I can find it.
[edit on 15-7-2004 by Jamuhn]


Now this could very well be true depending on the state you live in. Some states have statutes that prevent anyone, even the feds from taking your personal residence under any circumstance. However, the Feds will keep a lien on the property until the Statute of limitations runs out. If I remember the terminology and the provision, I'll send it to you U2U.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 02:42 AM
link   


1. My info.: United States District Court, Denver CO. Cases: 2003 WL 23138760 (D. Colo.) and 2004 WL 928190 (D. Colo.). Both decisions note that Mr. Cooper was convicted in 1990 for willfully attempting to evade taxes. Check them out for yourself.


Oh, thats why we have different information. I'm talking about the 1990 case itself. I think this happened in the 5th district of Florida and then the 11th District Court of Appeals. Here is some online information, although what I read was in a book:
www.freedomcommittee.com/5522/ 5522/freedom/AdmiraltyCourtsV1-01.pdf

home.earthlink.net...



The case United States of America v. Austin Gary Cooper, 89-109-Cr-Hoeveler (DCSFl) 1990; the 11th Circuit Tribunal of Appeals case United States of America v. Austin Gary Cooper, 90-5597; President Clinton; Chief Justice Rehnquist; the Chief Justices of several of the States; the Governors of several of the States; and, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue concur that the payment of Social Security, use of the Postal Service make you a citizen of the U.S. The door out has been delightfully opened.


famguardian.org/CDs/IRSCD/ Articles/More%20Tax%20Info.doc

But the reason he was found guilty of tax fraud is because he was still technically a US citizen for using those services.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Oh, thats why we have different information. I'm talking about the 1990 case itself. I think this happened in the 5th district of Florida and then the 11th District Court of Appeals.


and


But the reason he was found guilty of tax fraud is because he was still technically a US citizen for using those services.


I note that none of the sites you gave me to look at have the entire case on-line. Really convenient don't you think?

The court cases I cited talk specifically about Mr. Cooper's 1990 conviction. The case you have exerpts from was for tax evasion, he just attempted to use citizenship arguments to get out of it. From the case:


13. Mr. Cooper was convicted in 1990 under IRC 7201 for willfully attempting to evade or defeat the payment of federal income taxes...Cooper's position was similar to the one defendants espouse in their abusive tax program, chiefly that an individual cna renounce his citizenship and become exempt from federal taxes.


As I posted earlier, the court completely rejected his arguments that he could expat. himself from taxes. But more importantly, I want to address the FICA/postal delivery issue since this seems to be where you are resting your entire argument. It appears that the sites you referenced are using the the questions regarding FICA and postal delivery out of context. These questions appear to be rhetorical and not substantive. You see the difference that would make, yes? It's like saying "you inhale, yes and you also exhale, correct" then you are obviously breathing. It was an attempt to illustrate to Mr. Cooper how frivolous his arguments were. And just so you know, Cooper served two years in prison for the 1990 conviction.

Based on the limited information you've given me - I find nothing to indicate the Court would have let him off the hook even if he had never received mail delivery or participated in FICA. This is what leads me to conclude that the questions were noxious and not points of law.

If you ever do find the entire 1990 case, I would love to read it. But I hope that you won't rely on the sites you posted and insist they give you these cases in their entirety. It never ceases to amaze me how many of the morons who peddle this scams, selectively pick and choose wording from cases and use it out of context to support their claims.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Guys here is the deal - All Citizens are issued a Social Security Number - most of you have probably figured this out by now but - There is no such thing as a "Social Security" Benefits Fund - It is all B.S.!!! Social Security is just a way of tracking you for your entire life. There it is on Every Tax Form - Job Application - Bank Account Application - Credit Card Application. They Engineered the System - They take their cut BEFORE the money even gets to you!!! So next time you get some Telemarketer trying to sell you on ANOTHER Credit Card & they ask you for your "Social Security" Number - tell them to Bugger Off - that you thought that you lived in a Democracy NOT an Orwellian Fascist Police State!!!! If the FBI ever wanted to investigate you all they would have to do is type in your Social Security Number/Personal Identification Number into thier Computer Databases & Poof - there is your whole life at their fingertips!!!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join