Questions for Tax Protesters

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Hello all,

I believe I have mentioned to others here that I was a tax lawyer. I recently met a client who was a tax protester. His new wife wants him to get his tax situation sorted out. He seems reluctant to become a law-abiding tax payer and might not wish to follow through. There are many tax protesters out there and I figure at least some of them would like to get their situation sorted out for various reason and I am thinking I can dedicate a portion of my practice towards "rehabilitating" tax protesters.

My question for tax protesters are:

1. Have you ever thought about looking into settling your tax bill? What are the pros in your mind of getting things squared away with the IRS? What are the cons?

2. Do you worry about the IRS coming after you? If not, would your attitude change if the IRS started ramping up its enforcement of the tax laws?

3. Do you fear that by attempting to comply with the law you are "coming out into the light" and exposing yourself to the IRS? Do you feel it is safer to go on not paying taxes and not filing returns?

Thanks for your help.




posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   
the biggest tax protesters are corporations, and as we have seen, they dont have to worry about it. They can even get tax money for bailouts when they do stupid things, and still not get ask why they dont pay taxes. Look at GE. 14.2 billion, paid 0 in US taxes, but still got 3.2 billion back in rebates. Now thats just not right. And yet, they are among the money whining about tax rate to high on corporations and the rich ( who also never pay much if any in taxes due to loop holes and shelters)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
I was curious to why commercials for tax penalties show that they are willing to take so much less then owed?

Example... Thanks for calling you are said to owe $20,000.00, you now owe, $2,000.00 why would something that is supposed to be frowned upon give such leniency for those who will not, or cannot pay? Why would the IRS be so willing to take a cut?

Peace, NRE.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
You're asking people to admit to breaking the law on a public internet.forum? I doubt you'll get much response to your questions.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 





1. Have you ever thought about looking into settling your tax bill? What are the pros in your mind of getting things squared away with the IRS? What are the cons?


I have everything squared away with the IRS and have never failed to file my taxes.



2. Do you worry about the IRS coming after you? If not, would your attitude change if the IRS started ramping up its enforcement of the tax laws?


With nearly 80,000 pages of tax codes it would be a cold day in hell before they got around to me. Of course, simplifying the tax code would eliminate the need for ramping up any enforcement.



3. Do you fear that by attempting to comply with the law you are "coming out into the light" and exposing yourself to the IRS? Do you feel it is safer to go on not paying taxes and not filing returns?


I comply with the law because it is the law. I'm not going to go to jail or have everything I've ever made taken from me because I disagree with the law. What I will do is support anyone who is willing to simplify the law, make the law fair across the board rather than playing class warfare politics like "take it all from the rich" or "tax the poor double because the bottom bracket pays nothing." This would all require a lot of reforms in the tax code, the way our government spends, how entitlements work, and the elimination of social and corporate welfare. ESPECIALLY corporate welfare(they are bigger freeloaders than the "poor" in this country).

The fact of the matter is, tax protesters exist because the tax structure is BUNK. It is unfair and only serves those who lobby the most and have the resources and people to work it out in their favor. It is time to end it.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   
You are clearly someone in the government - posting here to test the waters.

Want to know what people will do? Push them just a little too far and see how much water is behind the dam.

Or let off the pressure. It's up to you.


Everyone knows that income tax is immoral, unjustifiable, criminal, abusive, and should be illegal. No free person should be compelled by force to submit their labor to anyone or anything else. "Justifications" for taxation, when examined, are just as fraudulent as the tax itself.

We know it. It won't continue forever. I keep paying "my" taxes (your extortion) to stay out of jail. But the burden on the masses is nearing a tipping point. One way or another, time will run out on your little ponzi scheme.
edit on 26-3-2011 by 30_seconds because: grammar



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Since you have come to us(me) with a seemingly genuine inquisitve and non combative stance, I will offer you my perspective for your own 'enlightnment' and for my own amusement. (quotes due to my perhaps nieve assumption that i am capable of enlightening you, and if i could, that you would be capable of being 'enlightened, as both are unknowns')

Firstly, I would not define myself narrowly as a 'tax protester'. My opposition to taxation is not a single instance of moral discrimination, springing up randomly, but is instead a logical and integral extension of my first, most basic and fundamental philisophical principals. If truth really does exist, and is measured by man in relation to reality only, and nothing else, then first principals that are shown, or revealed and accepted to be true, are invoiable. One of these first principals that i have discovered (i say one as this principal is just the logical extension of more basic metaphyical rules that i wont get into here) is the 'Non Aggression Principal'(NAP).

We all understand the NAP fundamentally, as were were all brought up with it and taught its simple wisdom from infantcy. The NAP states that you should not hit others, to respect their ownership of their bodies. The NAP states that your toys are you own, and that which you produce belongs to you, and no others. Thus the NAP also includes stealing, as taking from another that which is justly theirs violates their self ownership, and by extension the ownership of their bodies.

Dont hit, dont streal, whats yours is yours and whats mine is mine. Simple stuff, acknowledged by most sane people as good rules to live by. Im sure most reading this now live by those very rules. They dont attack their neighbors, they dont steal cars, and they expect their lawnmower to be in the spot the left it, and would be morally outraged if someone violated their property by stealing that lawnmower, as it rightly belonged to them.

Sorry for the preamble, but its key - taxation is a *gross* violation of the NAP, which to many of us, is inviolable.

Since I own my body, and the consequences of its actions, I am the rightful owner of everything that it produces. If I am a farmer, and I lay claim to a patch of uninhabited land, and through my skill and input, i produce wheat that would not have existed without my expenditure of time and skill, i, and only i, are the rightful owner of that wheat, or anything else i produce via my willful existense.

If I own what I produce, if mine is whats mine, then any attempt to take it from my rightful possession *must* use force and thus violate the NAP. If I produce wheat, and another lays claim to it, they must rely on force to make me relinquish what is rightfully mine. If the only rightful claim to my surplus is that I produced it, any claims to the contrary must be unjust.

So kindergarten morality, applied evenly to all situations and without exceptions, must exclude taxation, as taxation is just another word for the violent extortion of funds, or theft. TAXATION = THEFT, as, fundamentally, theft is taking what is not yours without consent.

You do not have my consent to steal half of my income, no matter how glorious and virtuous you claim your intentions may be. I will pay, of course, as I see clearly the gun pointed at my neck in the case that I refuse to fund another evil war, another pointless debt program, another counterproductive wealth distribution scheme. I will pay the taxman just as I would pay the mafia thug who comes for protection money, not prentending in some way that I want to pay him for 'the greater good', but realizing that this is nothing more than a shakedown. And at least the mafia makes no claim to virtue, like your tax collection rackets do.

I dont care what you do with my stolen money. It could be the most noble and virtuous cause imagined, and i still wouldnt care, as nobility and virtue are destroyed in the very act of stealing from me. I care not that the mafia may spend some of my extorted funds to pay for a guys funeral who they just wacked, just as i care not that some homeless fellow might get a bowl of soup out of my stolen funds. If I wanted to pay for such things, i would do so of my own free will.

That you claim a 'social contract' that i never signed is meaningless to me. I simply do not consent to your claim over what is rightfully mine - that which would never have existed if not for my input. Its MINE, not yours, and the reason you need an IRS packing heat is because you know youre a gang of thieves in stolen suits who no one would give a cent to, if not for the threat of life ending consequences for non compliance.

TAXATION = THEFT. When you understand this basic reality, you might understand why there are so many who are refusing to pay you.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
I was curious to why commercials for tax penalties show that they are willing to take so much less then owed?

Example... Thanks for calling you are said to owe $20,000.00, you now owe, $2,000.00 why would something that is supposed to be frowned upon give such leniency for those who will not, or cannot pay? Why would the IRS be so willing to take a cut?

Peace, NRE.


Simple, because the IRS knows it has no legal ground to prosecute anyone for failing to pay taxes as the IRS is a wing of The IMF, BIS and World Bank and not owned, operated and controlled fully by The US Federal Govt. If it knew it was a legitimate organization then it could hold out for the full amount because they do not want to get sued as that will open up and expose the con known as The IRS.
edit on 26-3-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NoRegretsEver
 


There are two main reasons why the IRS may settle for less than they are owed. First, sometimes it is not always certain what the taxpayer owes the IRS. Like any legal action, there may be an ambiguity in the law or the facts of the case might not be so clear. The IRS (and taxpayers) may choose to avoid the risks and costs of litigation by settling the case out of court.

Second, the IRS knows it cannot get blood from a stone. It would much rather take what it can and settle a debt for a few dimes or even less than a penny on the dollar, then waste time shaking down somebody who has nothing. I have personally settled tax debts well over $20,000 for $100. Of course, these tax debts I settled belonged to pro bono clients that were literally living in homeless shelters. People with modes incomes who are not destitute may often settle debts for 20-50 cents on the dollar.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


I am not going to say that tax protesters' logic is spot on or correct in this thread. Their opinions may be the most intellectually sound opinions that have ever been formulated in the history of mankind.

However, the law is what the courts say it is. The government will throw a tax protester in jail or seize his assets because a judge ordered it so. Judges that sit on the tax court and other federal courts do not agree with tax protesters. Judges believe that for the most part, the tax laws are constitutionally valid and the federal government has the right to enforce them.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


I am not going to say that tax protesters' logic is spot on or correct in this thread. Their opinions may be the most intellectually sound opinions that have ever been formulated in the history of mankind.

However, the law is what the courts say it is. The government will throw a tax protester in jail or seize his assets because a judge ordered it so. Judges that sit on the tax court and other federal courts do not agree with tax protesters. Judges believe that for the most part, the tax laws are constitutionally valid and the federal government has the right to enforce them.


That you can accept our sound reasoning is cause for optomism. But your position, if to be respected by thinkers, must necessarily be either/or. If you are to retain your intergrity (and I say this as one whos broken my integrity many a time, but acknowleged this failure) you simply must decide which side is correct, and in doing so, align yourself with that which is just. If you do not, and conciously accept two contradictary and opposing ideas as simultaniously valid, you have lost not only your word, but whatever you might call your soul. Since you can see the reason, and admittedly agree with it in principal, and yet this principal conflicts with your other premises, you must decide between the two. That, or risk becomming that which you implicitly despise. (implicit in the premise of your post, that being a need to make sense of it all) A hypocrit. A theif, a liar.

You plead with us to validate your previous assumtion - that the law alone dictates that which is just and right. But an intelligent person such as yourself must know that words written on paper by flawed men cannot always be just, just as the minds who conceive these contradictary rules must themselves be flawed. Just that it is law, does not make it right. Slavery was law at one point, just as witch burning was. We know without asking that these things are evil, period, regardless of the ignorant sanction they unjustly received at the time.

So as a thinking, intelligent person, who clearly seems to value what is right as opposed to what is wrong, i ask you - would you, personally, gun in hand, force me to pay, out of my own pocket, for that which i morally oppose with every fiber of my existence? Would you, personally, raise the gun to my neck, and stand over me while I write a personal check to the military industrial complex, to be used by evil men for things I feel nateous about when i consider? Would you force me, with your own will set against mine, to hand over what I have rightfully earned, to a third party, whose intentions may, and are probabaly not, virtuous?

Would you pull the trigger if I resisted?

If you answer yes to any of these questions, i withdraw immediately, as I will not pretend that this is a civilized debate, just as I wouldnt give the kidnapper the pretense that I might actually consent to being kidnapped. But if you answer no, no I shouldnt be forced by infinite violence to support unforgivable evil, then you might just be one of the few people who actually values what is right, in a meaningful way, and not just when it serves them.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
IRS enforcement and follow through on penalization/prison is the most absurd example of this governments complete failure.

By that I mean they wouldn't come close to breaking even. Every investigation, conviction and sentence cost much more than the delinquent owes.

The fear and control are why the gov does it. It has nothing to do with revenue.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 6 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


I am not making any arguments as to what the law should be. Whether the laws are fair, just, logical, or practical is not the issue here. There is not a reasonable person alive of any political persuasion that agrees with all the laws.

As an attorney, I have to deal with the way the law is. Sometimes the law is right, sometimes the law is unfair or leads to absurd results. Either way, the law operates as it does whether or not I think it is fair or correct. It is my job as an attorney to help my clients stay out of trouble by helping them to obey the law with all its imperfections.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


You didnt ask us if the law was indeed the law, you asked us why we felt compelled to resist said law.

/salute for defending your clients from the predations of the state.





new topics
top topics
 
2

log in

join