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.

 

Illegal's Get Huge Government IRS Checks - forget the tax REFUND part... Caution: Blood Boiler,

page: 6
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy

At least my solution (blame the ones who are cheating the system) is an active "fix". What are you doing to fix the problem? Arguing about subjects of taxes on the internet?


The system cheated them first, so it stands to reason that some of them would feel vindicated in cheating the system back.

And of course the system is cheating you, too, to keep the game going. That's how it works. Maybe its time to find a new system that isn't crammed with so many cheaters at the top?




posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by HandyDandy
 





I still don't understand. Can you explain it better? Or just be a superior _ _ _ _ _?


I suppose that if I can explain that which you are not understanding, and do it better than I have, that would make my understanding of the principles of Constitutional taxation superior to your own understanding, wouldn't it? Of course, I suppose even if I clearly and succinctly explain it, you can still just claim you don't understand, couldn't you?

The Constitution for the United States of America granted Congress the complete and plenary power of taxation. However, they placed two specific rules upon that power of taxation. In regards to direct taxes, Congress must apportion all direct taxes among the several states. Capitation (people) and property (things) are direct taxes. In regards to indirect taxes, (imposts, excises, and tariff's) Congress must make any indirect taxes uniform across the several states.

If the so called "income" tax is a direct tax upon the property of income, then Congress is required by law to apportion such a tax. However, the so called "income" tax is not apportioned so it must necessarily - in order to be lawful - be an indirect tax, and when looking at the code it is fairly clear that their method of imposition is uniform across the several states. Therefore the so called "income" tax must be some specified taxed activity. However, I know of know specified activity that makes most people liable to the tax, and worse, I know the code relies upon a tautological imposition on "taxable income" that is followed by circumlocutions in definition.

Imposing a tax on "taxable income" does not explain how the vast majority of people came to earn "taxable income".

The more I explain this the more difficult it becomes for you to swear under penalty of perjury that to the best of your knowledge all of the above is true and correct. How was it, after all, you became a "taxpayer" to begin with?



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
how clearly no one, yourself included, understands it.


Does that include you too?

If so, why the high horse?
edit on 19-6-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)


That's what no one means. Not understanding the tax code, however, does not make me ignorant of the law, and that is the high horse I ride. Learn the law and join me on your own high horse instead of resenting me for knowing the law.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
Maybe its time to find a new system that isn't crammed with so many cheaters at the top?


I'm all for that. One of the problems is the lack of transparency in our goverment. They vote on laws that we the people have no say on. Yes, we can vote those people out but the laws are still on the books. I hear it is harder to repeal a law than it is to make one.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I never said you said that, I suggested you could keep pretending they were, and said this based upon this:
Nowhere have I "pretended" that illegals were the problem. It is the topic of the thread that illegals benefit. I have stated more than once that US citizens can do the same (by also filing fraudulent returns). I don't care who does it, the problem is fraud.


In the context of you not wanting to discuss the very real problem of the tax code itself, and how clearly no one, yourself included, understands it.
Well, I do sometimes try to stay within the topic of the OP which in this case is the outrage over illegal aliens receiving large refunds.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by frazzle
Maybe its time to find a new system that isn't crammed with so many cheaters at the top?


I'm all for that. One of the problems is the lack of transparency in our goverment. They vote on laws that we the people have no say on. Yes, we can vote those people out but the laws are still on the books. I hear it is harder to repeal a law than it is to make one.


I don't have the exact quote, but sometime back Jesse Ventura said something about mandating that every other congressional session being tasked with ONLY eliminating unconstitutional laws already on the books.

Point is, we keep electing already bought out politicians. Hmmm, following along with Ventura's idea, maybe we could have every other election being only for throwing out politicians.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by HandyDandy
 





I still don't understand. Can you explain it better? Or just be a superior _ _ _ _ _?


I suppose that if I can explain that which you are not understanding, and do it better than I have, that would make my understanding of the principles of Constitutional taxation superior to your own understanding, wouldn't it? Of course, I suppose even if I clearly and succinctly explain it, you can still just claim you don't understand, couldn't you?


Hence why I should never be subject to perjuring myself with a clause stating "to the best of my knowledge". Correct?


The Constitution for the United States of America granted Congress the complete and plenary power of taxation. However, they placed two specific rules upon that power of taxation. In regards to direct taxes, Congress must apportion all direct taxes among the several states. Capitation (people) and property (things) are direct taxes. In regards to indirect taxes, (imposts, excises, and tariff's) Congress must make any indirect taxes uniform across the several states.


Ok. I think.


If the so called "income" tax is a direct tax upon the property of income, then Congress is required by law to apportion such a tax. However, the so called "income" tax is not apportioned so it must necessarily - in order to be lawful - be an indirect tax, and when looking at the code it is fairly clear that their method of imposition is uniform across the several states. Therefore the so called "income" tax must be some specified taxed activity. However, I know of know specified activity that makes most people liable to the tax, and worse, I know the code relies upon a tautological imposition on "taxable income" that is followed by circumlocutions in definition.

Imposing a tax on "taxable income" does not explain how the vast majority of people came to earn "taxable income".


OK? And please explain the direct quote in my tax form that perjures me when I sign it stating that to the best of knowledge I am signing this.

I want to know the exact quote in the tax form that perjures me. Thanks in advance. I am trying to understand.


The more I explain this the more difficult it becomes for you to swear under penalty of perjury that to the best of your knowledge all of the above is true and correct. How was it, after all, you became a "taxpayer" to begin with?


That is why I would like to know the quote from tax form.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Jean Paul: How was it, after all, you became a "taxpayer" to begin with?

Let me guess ~ with a signature on a W2 form with the employer. Those bloody signatures, nobody has proper respect for them.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Learn the law and join me on your own high horse instead of resenting me for knowing the law.



I resent the air of superiority that you exude. Nothing more, nothing less.

Maybe take that ego down a notch and you might find these conversations a little more stimulating/fun.

Just because someone is ignorant of the law does not make you a genius over that person.

Ever do integrals (calculus) in your head and come up with the correct answer? I can. Would I be a dick if I strode on my high horse if we were talking about calculus and put you down for your ignorance? IMO....yes.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





I have stated more than once that US citizens can do the same (by also filing fraudulent returns).


Filing fraudulent tax returns is felony punishable by steep fines and/or imprisonment. Hardly sound advise.




I don't care who does it, the problem is fraud.


Again, I asked you if you would extend that problem of fraud to the tax collectors fraudulently coercing people into believing they're "taxpayers" and then fraudulently claiming it was their own signature on a valid tax return that made them liable? Of course, I didn't exactly phrase the question like that the first time, but if there are "taxpayers" then by logical extension there are "non-taxpayers", but try to convince a zealous IRS agent of that. Any IRS agent that understands what I just said is forced to resign because that is their only option if they intend to honor the oath of office they took to protect and defend the Constitution.

In order to file a tax return, one has to be liable to the tax in question to begin with. If people are filing simply because they believe that they must in order to avoid prosecution, the fraud begins way before some "tax cheat" files a fraudulent tax return.




Well, I do sometimes try to stay within the topic of the OP which in this case is the outrage over illegal aliens receiving large refunds.


"Illegal aliens" - would a Klingon be an illegal alien? - notwithstanding no one can receive a "tax refund" if they are not filing a tax return. Thus, discussing tax return and who is responsible for filing one is fairly within the topic.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by HandyDandy
 





I resent the air of superiority that you exude. Nothing more, nothing less.


"Air of superiority" is a subjective term and in this case belongs to your subjectivity. I suppose "to the best of your knowledge" attempting an objective analysis of the tax code would be too much to ask.




Maybe take that ego down a notch and you might find these conversations a little more stimulating/fun.


You're presuming I don't all ready find these conversations stimulating/fun. Presumption of knowledge is the very definition of arrogance, often conflated with "ego".




Just because someone is ignorant of the law does not make you a genius over that person.


Ignorance of the law is not a lawful defense and in a site that prides itself on denying ignorance, it shouldn't be a valid defense here either.




Ever do integrals (calculus) in your head and come up with the correct answer? I can. Would I be a dick if I strode on my high horse if we were talking about calculus and put you down for your ignorance? IMO....yes.


Everyone is entitled to their opinions.


[on filing for tax returns] This is too difficult for a mathematician. It takes a philosopher.


~Albert Einstein~



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Jean Paul: How was it, after all, you became a "taxpayer" to begin with?

Let me guess ~ with a signature on a W2 form with the employer. Those bloody signatures, nobody has proper respect for them.




You do not sign a "W2 form" what you sign is a Form W4 otherwise known as an Employee Withholding Allowance Certificate. The "W2 form" is what you receive at the beginning of each year listing earnings and deductions from the previous year. Your signature on that Form W4 or Employee Withholding Allowance Certificate is not done so under penalty of perjury...hint, hint.


edit on 19-6-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


[on filing for tax returns] This is too difficult for a mathematician. It takes a philosopher.


~Albert Einstein~



Now THAT made me laugh.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by hp1229
First of all. Do illegals have a Social Security Number? or a Tax ID?


Yes

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Ignorance of the law is not a lawful defense and in a site that prides itself on denying ignorance, it shouldn't be a valid defense here either.


But yet it is ok to claim someone is pretending to be ignorant when they genuinely asked for you to help them deny this ignorance? Talk about ego and presumption?



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

[/quote

You do not sign a "W2 form" what you sign is a Form W4 otherwise known as an Employee Withholding Allowance Certificate. The "W2 form" is what you receive at the beginning of each year listing earnings and deductions from the previous year. Your signature on that Form W4 or Employee Withholding Allowance Certificate is not done so under penalty of perjury...hint, hint.



Caught me. W4. Its been awhile. No, I realize a signature on that form isn't under penalty of perjury and people regularly do claim more or less dependents than they actually have, etc. But with that signature the person is on the hook from then on for potential perjury charges, while without such a signature an employer cannot withhold money from the wages/salary. Correct?



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by HandyDandy
 





Hence why I should never be subject to perjuring myself with a clause stating "to the best of my knowledge". Correct?


Wesley Snipes made an argument "to the best of his knowledge" and wound up convicted for it and serving time.




OK? And please explain the direct quote in my tax form that perjures me when I sign it stating that to the best of knowledge I am signing this.


You're not paying attention. If your knowledge expands to the point that you realize you have no clue as to how it was you became a "taxpayer" and have no clue whether you are a "taxpayer" or not, then by signing under penalty of perjury that all of the above is true and correct to the best of your knowledge would be fraudulent since to the best of your knowledge you have no idea whether it is true and correct or not.




I want to know the exact quote in the tax form that perjures me. Thanks in advance. I am trying to understand.


"Dear Taxpayer". That is the exact quote. If you fully understand that your signature is your own voluntary self assessment of the so called "income" tax and you sign it with that understanding, then you are not perjuring yourself. If you understand that you have no clue whether you are a "tax payer" or not and to the best of your knowledge you've scoured the tax code in an attempt to find out how it was you were made liable and still have no clue as to how you became a "taxpayer" and further understand that your signature is your voluntary self assessment of the tax in question, you are still not perjuring yourself as long as you accept that in spite of your lack of knowledge you have decided to voluntarily self assess your own liability.

However, if you have no desire at all to voluntarily self assess your own liability to a tax you don't understand and have no desire to agree to being a "taxpayer" then it follows that signing under penalty of perjury that all of the above is true and correct to the best of your knowledge is indeed perjury. You've perjured yourself for whatever reasons, fear, expedience, whatever, but you've perjured yourself. Not that any prosecutor would ever bring charges of perjury simply because you "voluntarily" assessed your own liability against your will and lied and said it was done so under full knowledge that you were liable.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Not a single living person, including members of Congress, and the tax collectors at the IRS, or any judge, including the Supreme Court justices understands the tax code. It is a long held principle of law that if a statute is so complex as to make unintelligible to the person of average intelligence that such a statute has no force of law, but people keep filing valid tax returns, signing under penalty of perjury that they do understand the tax code, year after year after year, and very very very few get their blood boiling over that.

Americans' love their taxes and would never ever think of non-acquiescence when it comes to filing. Our Founders who shed their blood on this soil must be spinning in their graves.

Carry on, get all upset about privileges and shrug your shoulders about rights.



This is why the USA needs to completely scrap the tax code for income tax and corporate tax, and replace it with a 20% "across the board" sales tax, on everything bought and sold in the United States.

Zero loopholes. You buy something, you pay. Period. No deductions, no loopholes, no "I can't afford it so I don't have to pay".

EVERYONE needs something. Corporations need stuff to keep running, illegals need food and clothing, The rich would still pay more than the lion's share as they buy a lot more. There would be so few tax dodgers it would be stunning to see the amount of revenue coming in. As revenue comes in and creates surplusses, use the excess to pay off national debt or reduce the percentage being paid until it balances out.

Savings would be stimulated as you wouldn't be taxed until you spent the money.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 





But with that signature the person is on the hook from then on for potential perjury charges, while without such a signature an employer cannot withhold money from the wages/salary. Correct?


No, you have not signed anything under penalty of perjury and have merely signed a contract allowing your employer to act as a fiat tax collector on your behalf. You are not required to sign any such form, which is why it is called an "allowance certificate" because your signature signifies you are "allowing" the withholding.

The Code of Federal Regulations - which is in pursuance of the law - explains it as such:


The employer is required to request a withholding exemption certificate from each employee, but if the employee fails to furnish such certificate, such employee shall be considered as a single person claiming no withholding exemptions.


The employer is not required to obtain a withholding exemption certificate from each employee, merely required to request one and if you refuse this request, the CFR tells that employer precisely what to do in the event of that refusal and it doesn't instruct them to refuse you employment, nor refuse you pay, simply instructs them to claim you as a single person claiming no withholding exemptions.

If you are not a "taxpayer" subject to this applicable revenue law then it follows you need no exemption from it.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Not a single living person, including members of Congress, and the tax collectors at the IRS, or any judge, including the Supreme Court justices understands the tax code. It is a long held principle of law that if a statute is so complex as to make unintelligible to the person of average intelligence that such a statute has no force of law, but people keep filing valid tax returns, signing under penalty of perjury that they do understand the tax code, year after year after year, and very very very few get their blood boiling over that.

Americans' love their taxes and would never ever think of non-acquiescence when it comes to filing. Our Founders who shed their blood on this soil must be spinning in their graves.

Carry on, get all upset about privileges and shrug your shoulders about rights.



Whoa! Stars and garters to you, this should be on the front page of every newspaper in the country.




top topics



 
26
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join