Owe the IRS? You're Not Going Anywhere (can't leave the country if you owe taxes).

reply to post by Xcathdra


The administration is correctly arguing policy because the bonehead Plaintiff's who just had to shoot their wad before the mandate was implemented are arguing an ex-ante (before the fact) case. I call the Plaintiff's boneheads because if the SCOTUS upholds the legislation, then getting back up to the SCOTUS under ex-post (after the fact) arguments will be harder than if they had just waited. I cannot help but be suspicious of that.

Congress, in my opinion truly screwed up in naming the IRS as the collector of fines. The Court has asked the right questions, such as how can it be a revenue scheme if the fine has the intended result, meaning if everyone obeys the mandate no revenue will be raised thus it is not a tax. This alone may be enough to have at least the mandate struck down.

Why I believe Congress screwed up on this is that there are plenty of people who all ready believe the so called "Personal Income Tax" is unconstitutional and if this is upheld then this will surely encourage more and more people to simply stop filing. If and when the IRS goes after them this will give them the demonstrable harm and injury that would need to be shown in an ex-post argument.

Ex-ante arguments generally involve policy, not "law".

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

 

So to all of you who think income tax should be abolished where should the government get money from?

The so called "Personal Income Tax" was created in 1913. The federal government was created in 1789. Are you under the impression that for the first 124 years the federal government operated on a volunteer basis and no revenue was collected?

First off personal income tax wasnt created in 1913 that was the Federal Reserve... you know the privately owned bank that LENDS america its own money with an INTEREST rate attached to it..

In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 (3% of all incomes over US $800) ($20,693 in 2011 dollars).[12][verification needed] This tax was repealed and replaced by another income tax in 1862

In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The United States Supreme Court in its ruling Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. stated that the amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prevented the courts from taking the power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belongs. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945

so smile as you pay your taxes to those criminals in washington... it use to be the mob would come to your store and shake you down.. .now they pay the IRS to do it

Considering America is the world super power the number of Americans who have a passport, according to the most recent statistics issued by the State Department in January of 2012, is 117,014,020. Given the country’s population of 311,591,917, that means about 38% of the American population has a passport. This means nearly 2 out of 3 Americans can’t even fly to Canada, let alone travel to anywhere else in the world. So the tax situation will effect a small minority , still not good ...........Draconian is the word I would use.

reply to post by Doalrite

First off personal income tax wasnt created in 1913 that was the Federal Reserve... you know the privately owned bank that LENDS america its own money with an INTEREST rate attached to it..

Revenue Act of 1913.

The United States Revenue Act of 1913 also known as the Tariff Act, Underwood Tariff, Underwood Tariff Act, or Underwood-Simmons Act (ch. 16, 38 Stat. 114, October 3, 1913), re-imposed the federal income tax following the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment and lowered basic tariff rates from 40% to 25%, well below the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909. It was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson on October 3, 1913, and was sponsored by Alabama Representative Oscar Underwood.

In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system.

Income tax was always within Congress' purview. Congress had always had the power to lay and collect taxes on income from what ever source derived without apportionment and without regard to a census of enumeration. This power Congress all ready had was the power to tax indirectly on income. The Sixteenth Amendment did not grant Congress any new power of taxation, nor did it place any new burden on the people.

Congress passed the Sixteenth Amendment in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Pollack v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co., which struck down as unconstitutional the entire income portion of the Revenue Act of 1894 because the Justices sitting on the bench viewed that revenue act a direct tax on income, and since it was not apportioned ruled it was unconstitutional. Congress crafted the 16th Amendment in reply.

The Sixteenth Amendment was challenged, and in Brushaber v. Union Pacific, the Supreme Court disagreed and argued:

the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes.

In other words, the Sixteenth Amendment made clear that any non-apportioned tax on income must be viewed as an indirect tax and not a direct tax. Later that same year, in Stanton v. Baltic Mining, the Supreme Court put it this way:

by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th 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

I have linked the actual case law for you because you are clearly misinterpreting what you've read in Wikipedia. What makes the 16th Amendment Constitutional is that it did not alter or abolish the Constitution preceding it and the rules of taxation. Pollack ruled the 1894 tax a direct tax but unconstitutional because it was not apportioned, Congress flexed their muscles and demanded the courts start viewing any income tax that has not been apportioned as an indirect tax. All indirect taxes must be uniform across the sever states. Clearly this is how the current income tax is collected, and it is indeed uniform across the several states.

An indirect tax on income means some taxed activity is involved and it is income that is used to measure the tax. If one is liable to the tax, then they have engaged in some specified activity. What specified taxed activity are you involved in that would make you subject to and liable for this tax?

That's all well and good, but the question - the real question - is "why the bloody hell do they need so much money"? They have their hands in everyone's pockets, except those who have the most. Only one explanation for that.

So, what do we do about it? We could ask them to play fair, but I can't see that going in our favor. We could refuse to pay, but much like the Census folks, I can see them coming in armed to shake you upside-down until your pockets are empty. Or then you simply scale back your lives to the point of having nothing they would be interested in. When there's nothing for them to take, they simply have to walk away. Even they understand that there's no point in killing the cow for a glass of milk.

By buying into the materialism of Western society, you give them the tools of their greed. Why should 30% of your work time go to their coffers? Why should you pay sales tax? Your money has already been taxed. When you think about every single transaction being taxed, you have to comprehend the volume of money that they collect. Where does it all go? Don't tell me it's for roads, Social Security, unemployment, and so forth. We all know those don't even work. That's a fraction of what they collect through untold measures and what the government generates itself both legally and illegally (think: drugs), there is simply no way they have run up such a deficit. It's just not possible! There would have to be an inexcusable degree of fiscal irresponsibility, much like a lottery winner who has made no financial plan but just went on a mindless spending spree.

Why is that the taxpayers' responsibility? Government is to large and to secretive for the common man to be held responsible for their actions. Demand justice and then see if they deserve bailing out.

Drop your income to the barest minimum for a few years. Starve the fat cow.

reply to post by CosmicEgg

So, what do we do about it?

How was it you determined your liability to begin with? How was it you came to understand you were subject to the applicable revenue laws? What part of the tax code did you read to make this determination before signing under penalty of perjury that you were a "taxpayer"?

Taxpayer defined:

(14) Taxpayer The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

Taxpayer inexplicably defined again:

(b) Taxpayer Notwithstanding section 7701 (a)(14), the term “taxpayer” means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.

Drop your income to the barest minimum for a few years. Starve the fat cow.

Or, flourish and prosper and keep all your earnings and let the beast come after you if they dare. If they do, keep it simple and straight forward, and assure them that there is nothing at all about this five volume set of tautology you understand but that you do understand the law and that under the law if an act of legislation is valid it is because a person of average intelligence or better can understand it.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Yes, well, I think there are plenty of wealthy people in prison because they didn't pay their taxes (just google that and you'll see). The tax authorities of whatever country determine who pays what. Not everyone can or will be wealthy. Not everyone is in hot pursuit of money. For those of us with a different fate, this way works better and has immediate results. We need results now, not in some imaginary future where new tax laws apply - even retroactively, if they so choose.

What we need is to get government and all its fingers out of our pies. We need to control government, not the other way around. Government of, by, and for the people.

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Yes, well, I think there are plenty of wealthy people in prison because they didn't pay their taxes (just google that and you'll see). The tax authorities of whatever country determine who pays what. Not everyone can or will be wealthy. Not everyone is in hot pursuit of money. For those of us with a different fate, this way works better and has immediate results. We need results now, not in some imaginary future where new tax laws apply - even retroactively, if they so choose.

What we need is to get government and all its fingers out of our pies. We need to control government, not the other way around. Government of, by, and for the people.

You ignored the question and instead went and assessed other peoples liability. When you say there are people in jail because they did not pay their taxes you are saying that they were liable and therefore owed a tax, and of course, under those conditions you are right. However, I asked you how it was you came to determine your own liability.

If you don't know how it is you became liable, or even if you are liable, you can just Google it to discover the truth. The income tax is in the United States Code and it is Title 26. Of course, this is not your concern, is it? You speak of others in jail instead. You advocate people reducing their wealth as a manner of tax protestation instead of actually coming to understand the law. You speak of fate instead of personal accountability and above all, you insist on clinging to ignorance in regards to tax law. You should know better in a site like this where its members are encouraged to deny ignorance.

I often wonder if tax is an outmoded concept - given the focus on a free market economy and laissez faire economic policy.

It really strikes me as a bit of a paradox that a government that espouses a capitalist ethic, can at the same time enforce taxation.

Ultimately, if everything was stripped out...the welfare state, etc (I'm not saying it should be), we'd only really be paying for their administration of a few large scale service contracts - carried out by private companies.

I'm not keen on tax, but then again I am a well paid, white female entrepreneur....my views may be different if I fulfilled another role in society.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Do me a huge favor and parse "deny ignorance" for me. Go on. Show me it's not poor English.

In the meantime, I do not live in the US and have not for over half my life already. Although I may need to file a tax return annually, I am not liable for tax payments to the US. I own nothing there and I have nothing to do with the country itself anymore. What I'm advocating is exactly what I've been doing here, in Europe, for the past five years.

As for others, their choices are their own. I advocate something entirely different from you, but that doesn't make yours the intelligent option because you advocate "education". If taxation is wrong, it's wrong - regardless of what the law says. No one is being represented there anymore. The infrastructure of the US is failing. National debt is at its highest ever, and you think that justice will be had in the hands of the legal system?

And when I point out the States in my citations up there, I don't just mean the States. Europe is no better.

I, personally, could not give a rat's ass about the systems we have in place now. I want them torn down so that we can build a new, fair, honest, transparent, benevolent system for our entire civilization, not just one country or even one continent. Human beings deserve a lot better than we have now. Playing the same game with the same rules will only push us deeper in the mire we're sinking in now. We need a fast, non-violent, universally executable method to take down our overgrown governments.

reply to post by CosmicEgg

Show me it's not poor English.

I completely agree it is poor English and absurdly ambiguous in its declaration. Indeed, it excuses those who are ignorant when they deny it.

However, those of us not ignorant have come to understand what the owners of this site, in spite of their sloppy language, mean by this. Indeed, I recently read an excellent post by a moderator pointing out that "denying ignorance" does not mean declare another ignorant and leave it at that, but are instead encouraged to instruct. This is what I have been attempting to do in this thread.

In the meantime, since you do not live in the United States, it was rather disingenuous of you to dismiss my attempts to instruct, which the O.P. had asked me a question regarding this.

The fastest, non-violent, universally executable method of bringing down rogue governments is through non-acquiescence.

Nothing wrong with this at all. If you, as an American citizen, OWE your SHARE to the country, then PAY it and then you will be allowed to go wherever you wish.

It is certainly plausible to believe that at this very moment, their are MANY DEVILS in this country who are leaving their positions and abandoning ship who are looking to LEAVING the country without having to PAY their taxes...

NOW, if Obama would make it so that our tax money ITSELF would NOT be allowed to LEAVE THE COUNTRY... now THAT would be even BETTER!!!!!!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Exactly. That's exactly why the US was founded, to believe popular historical accounts anyway. I am an American citizen so I feel free to comment where I like. I have vast experience living on two continents. My input was not in any way disingenuous. If I voted and made other choices on behalf of my fellow countrymen, that would be very much so, but simply posting my views as a fellow national - because I would like to come back someday - is entirely within the bounds of propriety.

You see, I am a firm believer that we should all find our happiness in life. Happiness has nothing to do with money, for me. Nothing whatsoever. Therefore, paying taxes is neither here nor there to me. It simply is. If we had a system that had no coinage, I would be even happier, but again that's neither here nor there. But if government is going to tax and behave as they have for so long now, they must see both sides of that coin. People should not surrender huge percents of their earned income just so that it can be squandered by the State. That does no one any good. Now we have a system that is bleeding the public dry. It must stop. It must.

I would ask now why you feel it is wrong to divest in order to make a point to the authorities? Is materialism so dear to you? If so, fine for you. Please do go on making money and reveling in your "worth", but for some of us that simply is not an option for quite a number of reasons. It's not a matter of knowing the laws and using them to prove whatever position. Can you understand that?

This bill has already passed the senate. Please contact your representatives in congress and instruct them to vote no for senate bill 1813 before it is too late.
If you do not act now soon some ignorant socialist congressman will introduce a law to take away your drivers license for some frivolous reason. They may revoke your drivers license if you do not pay your student loan. Seriously it will happen if this bill becomes law.
Also instruct your representatives to vote no for any bill that limits freedom for Americans.
Everyone knows the problem with the deficit is spending. You could take away everyone's passport and driving license and you still would not be able to fix the deficit.

Most importantly any snitch or whistle blower can call the IRS to report some bull# and then the IRS can put a lien on everything you own before you even know it. Then in addition they will also suspend your passport. This amendment needs to be defeated now.

These soviet style tactics of limiting peoples freedom is going to backfire. As was in the other repressive societies the wealthy and middle class people will just leave the USA permanently and start paying their taxes to another country that does not have soviet style repression. As you should know this is already
happening. Many wealthy and middle class people are already leaving the USA.

This bill is causing stress and strife in the country and polarizing the American people. This is never a good situation.

It is not uncommon for small business owners to have tax disputes with the IRS in excess of the $50,000. With the exorbitant IRS penalties and interest a dispute of $5000 can easily turn into a dispute of more than $50,000 very rapidly. Many American mall business owners with tax disputes need their passport in
order to do their international work to pay their taxes. This amendment to senate bill 1813 giving power to the IRS to revoke your passport takes away an Americans right to fight disputes with the IRS. This amendment needs to be defeated now.

This amendment to give power to the IRS to revoke your passport will damage the already weak travel industry. This amendment affects all people, people will be scared to travel, they will be worried that the IRS will suddenly send a letter in the mail, put a lien on your assets and revoke your passport. The IRS does not give notice of tax liens. The IRS will not give you notice of the revocation of your passport, it will just happen without you knowing it. You could be stranded somewhere and not able to return to the USA. Small businesses could also lose business when their employees are not able to travel.

Please instruct your representatives to focus on the problem of spending and stop these repressive tactics that accomplish nothing but the polarization of the people.

Seriously soon some ignorant socialist congressman will attempt to take away the drivers licenses of the American people for some frivolous reason that will accomplish nothing and further erode American values and pride. I assume they will soon revoke all the driving licenses of Americans that cannot afford to pay their student loans. I am sure this will happen.
There is an ever growing erosion of American pride and an ever increasing embarrassment of being American. Bills and laws that limit American freedom and erode American pride are making the USA the laughing stock of the world.

When I see attachments to bills like the one giving the IRS power to suspend or revoke an Americans right to travel it makes me sick. It makes me feel embarrassed to be an American. Please try to stop the politicians from destroying our country.

Also Instruct your representatives to initiate a bill that makes the ability to travel a right and not just a privilege so the politicians will never be able to do this repressive act in the future. I don't want the government of my country to be able to limit travel and control Americans like other repressive governments. I want to be free and proud of my country the USA.
Also please instruct your congressman to talk to other congressman to stop this bill from becoming law. The links to contact your representatives.
writerep.house.gov... www.senate.gov...

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


Where should the government get money from? Are you serious? Let those Aholes do something besides dress up in $1000 dollars suits doing nothing, and do SOMETHING productive. Another thing they could do to generate money is to get it from these sorry assed, corrupt corporations that they bail out and give massive tax breaks to. Those idiots don't give a damn about any infrastructure. Let them start producing American flags in D.C. instead of friggin China! That ought to generate a little cash flow. Your name betrays you.

I guess I'm not leaving anytime soon...

The IRS already has more power than pretty much any court or office. I think penalties, interest, liens, levies, and wage garnishments are enough of a deterrent. Seems to me like there is more going on with this bill than just deterring tax evasion. This sounds like the perfect tool to suppress a population who would likely start rebelling against the financial system.

$50,000? I would have to say with the amount set that high I really do not see a problem. Now if some man could no go visit family out of state because he owed a few hundred or even a few grand then I would see a problem but $50,000. If some one owned me 50G I would not let them leave either.

reply to post by Droidinvoid

Considering America is the world super power the number of Americans who have a passport, according to the most recent statistics issued by the State Department in January of 2012, is 117,014,020. Given the country’s population of 311,591,917, that means about 38% of the American population has a passport. This means nearly 2 out of 3 Americans can’t even fly to Canada, let alone travel to anywhere else in the world.

Oooops.....

You left out the part where nearly 2 out of 4 Americans DO NOT PAY income taxes because they are not required to based on govt benefits, etc..... Seems to me that some of that 38%/50% of passport holders are living pretty lavishly on the rest of us if they get out and travel but don't pay into like the rest of us do....

Plus, passports weren't even required for Canada, Mexico, Caribbean until just a couple of years ago so it's a bit early to comment on the ramifications of those yet

(below not directed to reply to above)

And I claim zero, use a CPA and I still owe, and owe, and owe...