reply to post by AliceBlackman
Direct Income Tax Civil disobedience massive enough to make any difference for any cause , I think would only occur if a majority of citizens believed
they had nothing left to lose. If they had nothing left to lose, they probably wouldn’t be paying Income tax.
The so called "Personal Income Tax" is not a direct tax. This may seem to be off topic, but since this thread is about fools protesting wars that
should not be waged, and since those wars are primarily funded by the "income" tax, there is a relation between the two.
How do we reign in an out of control government? Do we lie down in traffic and wait to become Wiley Coyote's or do we employ a strategy with much
more bite to it? I am obviously recommending the latter.
It is important to understand that the "income" tax is not a direct tax because ignorance of the law is no excuse, and people who believe this
odious tax - that is funding the adventures of American thug politicians - is a tax they actually have a liability to pay...well, they very well may,
or they very well may not...it just depends upon the activities they are engaged in, because what should be understood is that the income tax is not
on income directly, but rather indirectly and imposed upon some sort of activity, where then income is used to measure how much is owed. The evidence
that it is indeed an indirect tax and not a direct tax is that if functions - under the principles of Constitutional taxation - as an indirect tax,
not just facially but in its application as well.
An indirect tax is required by Constitution to be uniform across the several states and this is how the so called "Personal Income Tax" is written
That little lecture on the principles of Constitutional taxation was to support my contention that better than protest that winds up becoming the
horrible effect of a society that is increasingly out of control, be the cause that will affect positive change. The question, regarding the
"income" tax and its relationship to the war machine, should be am I liable for the tax? The answer to that question has no meaning if I do not
know the answer. Being told the answer doesn't mean I know the answer. The actual answer lies in the legislation itself. Those who want to know if
they are liable for the tax or not need only look to the code to find out. Not that they will understand much about it, because in the end, no one
Not any member of Congress today understands the tax code, maybe the Supreme Court, but that remains to be seen, the President doesn't understand it,
judges do not, and for their own peace of mind you can bet your sweet patatootie that "tax attorneys" don't understand the tax code. It is not in
their best financial interest to understand the tax code. If they understood the tax code, then if you were not liable for this so called "income"
tax, they would tell you that you were not liable and any defense that need be mounted in your defense would be based upon that simple fact...that you
are not liable for the tax. Instead they will tell you - some of them emphatically so - that you most assuredly are liable for the tax, that
everybody who earns income is liable.
Find out for yourself, look at the tax code and find where a tax has been imposed on income, or the act of earning income. Look hard, and take as
long as you need. When you can not find any clear, concise language written into that code that makes clear what the subject of the tax in question
is, then you will realize why no one understands the tax code, and the problem isn't in the way it is written. The tax code is a testament to the
brilliance of the language and mystical incantations the priest class lawyer set. The tax code is perfectly legal and Constitutional facially,
meaning as it is written. It is in the application that it all becomes problematic.
There are "tax protestors" who proudly wear the mantle and make heroic stands against that most frightful administrative agency the Internal Revenue
Service. Everyone fears the IRS, even other acronymistic alphabet agencies fear the IRS. Who would dare go up against the IRS? Well, there have
been heroic "tax protestors" who have, and metaphorically speaking they went in the middle of traffic and lied down and expected everyone to see
their heroic actions as so noble as to affect the necessary change to correct the problem. As noble as these sacrificial lambs were and remain, they
accomplish nothing but the perverse pleasure sacrifice brings greedy gods, and the priest class that worship them. The "tax protestors", in
willingly wearing this mantle, would, and continue to do so, make fallacious arguments, show gross ignorance of the law, rely upon legislation and
case law they clearly haven't read or don't understand, on and on and on, these hapless "tax protestors" offer themselves up as fodder for the
The "tax protestors" mistake is they believe they understand the tax code, and are shocked or will cry fascism, or tyranny when their fallacious
arguments fail them. Understanding the tax code is the trap. It is the rabbit hole, and I heartily recommend not going down the rabbit hole. Do not
fight this battle inside enemy lines. Do not declare war on the IRS. Do not pick a fight with the government, just keep honing your political
strategy and using your inherent unalienable rights, and authority as one of the holders of the original political power, and if they pick this fight
with you, let them invade your space, where you have a stronger defense in which to deal with the usurpers.
What is that defense? I keep telling you...anyone who cares to listen...that defense is that you don't understand the tax code. Why don't you?
Well, for starters, when was the last time you bothered to read the tax code? Even if you have made that effort, how far did you get? Fun read was
it? Understood it completely, didja? How was it you were made liable? Am I wrong about this not being a direct tax, but instead an indirect tax?
If so, can you point to credible and understandable language within the code that supports the argument that it is a direct tax?
The blatant tautology, and circumlocution of language in most of the tax code is astoundingly complex. Where tautology is always true, it is used as
a device to hide the being "truthful". This language is so complex and so twisted and tangled that to expect a person of average intelligence to
actually understand it is not lawful, and not even legal. The idea that a person should have to hire a "specialist", either a tax accountant, or
worse a tax attorney, who claims to "understand" the code only demonstrates how absurdly complex this tax code is. Ah! Ignorantia juris non
excusat, you may thing to yourself...ignorance of the law is no excuse. Ignorance is not a lawful defense. However, not understanding tautological
and circumlocutory language, is not the same as ignorance.
If you know the law, and then have read the tax code well enough to understand that it is incomprehensible, then it is fairly easy to reveal the
frauds who pretend to understand the code. The skilled ones employ virtually every fallacious argument in existence, and particularly enjoy the ad
hominem, quickly framing you as a "tax protestor" not because the tax protestor is seen as heroic, but because the tax protestor is seen as a fool,
and the term is used as a pejorative. Questioning how you were made liable for the tax to begin with is not protest, it is a common sense question to
a charge being leveled against you.
I have spent much time in a this post - in a thread about "hippie" protestors as sacrificial lambs - yammering on about tax codes and subject of
taxes, and the question of liability for many reasons.
First, it must be understood that if we all collectively are fed up with the unlawful nature of our government and expect to correct this problem we
have to ask ourselves what is the most effective strategy to accomplish this. As you have seen, some applaud the actions of the "hippie" protestors
and seem to be satisfied that their actions, even with its tragic consequences, was more than enough - strategy wise - to put an end to the military
industrial complex....well, slow down there JPZ, no one is saying that their sacrifice and protest was going to topple this evil regime we call the
military industrial complex, all we are saying is that their actions will draw more attention to the cause. However you want to frame it, I
respectfully submit that this strategy of placing yourself in harms way simply to draw attention to your cause is among the least effective strategies
to accomplish the goals of that cause. If the cause is to draw attention to your self, there are better ways than inviting your own death or injury
through stupidity. If the cause is to put an end to the military industrial complex, there are much better strategies.
One of those strategies would be to starve the beast. You can sit around and wait for Congress to somehow mystically become an institution filled
with ethical and lawful legislators who will starve this beast for you, or you can take matters into your own hands again do what is necessary on your
end. I am not, however, suggesting you engage in civil disobedience. If the dictates of your own conscience demands you do, then I support your
decision to engage in civil disobedience, (although I would advise you do not throw yourself under the bus in doing so), but this is not what I am
urging in this thread.
What I am saying is that - to the best of my knowledge - the vast majority of people filing valid tax returns year after year, were never actually
made liable for that tax by any statute, and in the end it was their own admission to liability - sworn to under penalty of perjury - that they were
liable. If most people have not been made liable for any "income" tax then they are not subject to the applicable revenue laws and if they are not
subject to those laws then there is, of course, no requirement to file any valid tax return, and be rest assured your signature swearing under penalty
of perjury that all the above is true and correct is what makes that return valid, and no obligation to pay any tax. The question is; has the tax
code made you liable for any tax? If you believe it has, what is the subject of that tax? If you conclude you do not owe that tax, then why would
you pay the tax?
The second reason I have taken the time to delve into the "income" tax problem is that this thread ultimately seems to be about the unlawful wars
being waged by an illegitimate governing body we call the military industrial complex. Whomever these usurpers are, their system is overwhelmingly
complex, and if justice is ever to prevail, the we as individuals have an obligation to begin simplifying the process. We are not sacrificial lambs
who throw ourselves on the floor and beg for the mercy of the gods, we are individuals who each hold a part of the inherent political power, and when
our government is acting unlawfully it is our obligation to put a halt to it. Not protest it, but to stop it.
For this reason it is a good idea to examine the complexity we face, so that we can avoid becoming fodder, and take our opportunities where they exist
- and they do exist - to simplify the system. You can't just throw yourself under a bus and expect complexity to simplify itself, and you can't
expect your sacrifice to inspire a nation to do the same. People would rather acquiesce than be slaughtered, and if those are your options,
acquiescence comes with its own honor. Non-acquiescence, however, does not mean you have to sacrifice yourself. Why pay a tax you don't owe? Why
apply for a license to do what is a right to do? Why agree to go along with a system that is clearly failing?
All close systems tend towards entropy. Look around and see the self evident entropic world around us. Do you want to affect change for the better?
Do what you can to move us towards an open system. Freedom is an open system. Tyranny is a closed system. Feed the beast of tyranny, but don't be
surprised at the size of the monstrosity later. Starve the beast and keep it under better control. Feeding the beast, is expedient. Starving the
beast for the purpose of controlling it is not so expedient, and takes the courage of conviction, and patience and much wisdom. However, if you are
not willing to maintain control of that beast, why do you insist on having it?