It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Tax Protestor Faq

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:03 PM
It seems I'm Faqing Off again, reading a new FAQ that I'd never seen before. It is called the Tax Protestor FAQ, and the basis of it it is to debunk all the claims that makes the American Tax System completely unconstitutional with the facts and the legal basis for all the claims.

Here's an excerpt:

The income tax cannot apply to wages, because that would be a “direct tax” that must be apportioned in accordance with the Constitution.

False. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that wages or income from labor cannot be taxed, or that a tax on wages or income from labor is a “direct” tax. And it has been the consistent opinion of the Supreme Court beginning with Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), and continuing with Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880), Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895), and Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), that the phrase “direct tax” only applies to a tax on the value of property.

“This review [of the history of Congressional impositions of “direct taxes”] shows that personal property, contracts, occupations, and the like, have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of direct tax.” Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533, 543 (1869).

The income tax that was contested in the Springer decision in 1880 was a tax on “the annual gains, profits, or income of every person residing in the United States, or any citizen of the United States residing abroad, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interests, dividends, salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation, carried on in the United States or

elsewhere, or from any other source whatever....” Act of June 30, 1864, ch. 173, Sec. 116, 18 Stat. 223, 281. The statute therefore taxed all forms of earned income, specifically including references to both “salaries” and incomes from “employment.” The constitutionality of the statute was challenged by a lawyer with income from his legal practice (i.e., his labor), and the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the tax, holding that it was a “duty or excise” that did not need to be apportioned. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880). The income tax that was challenged in the Pollock decision was similar, and the majority opinion first struck down the tax on incomes from property (i.e., rents, interests, and dividends), but then went on to state that, if only the tax on interest, rents, dividends, and other income from property were ruled unconstitutional, “this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way a tax on capital would remain in substance a tax on occupations and labor.” Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 637 (1895).

The majority opinion therefore held that the entire tax act was unconstitutional, believing that Congress would invalidate the entire tax act rather than tax only “occupations and labor.” (The minority opinion in Pollock believed that the entire tax was constitutional, and so did not need to distinguish between income from property and income from employment.)

So enjoy:

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:27 PM
reply to post by EvilSadamClone

To Tax anyman, Without first asking him what he is prepared to let his labour manifest in society is to take a mans soul and set it to whatever evils you may conjur up, without his permission.
And yet, His labours, the very hours of his life may go to sending arms to Israel, in turn they are used against civilians, they are used to kill children.
They are used to foment and create egregious acts of "Foreign Policy", against other nation states.
In many cases, the people paying into this system do not want the sweat of their brow, to be used as a tool of intimidation and murder, to be used to invent "Better" ways to kill other human beings.
All against his will, and yet it is.
That breaks a fundamental law of the universe, "Though shalt hurt no other", and, denies you the determination of your own "Free will", it is also potentially earning you a massive karmic debt, because, you are responsible for providing the money to create these situations, and, to murder other people, how hurtful is it to have YOUR money be used to kill innocent civilians, and,Children?.

And yet people say, it is the government that is doing it, so it is ok, though, you would whip out a pistol if you were being robbed in your own homes.
Truth is, you are, a FAQ does not make it "Right", Manmade "Laws" do not make it "Right".
I haven't paid "tax", ("Legalised" theft of your labour) in 22 years, and personally, I have very great issues with ever paying it.

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:29 PM
That faq is not about making it right, or taking the moral high ground, just that those people are wrong and backing it up with the facts of why they're wrong.

I really wish people would learn to read an article before making assumptions about it.

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:37 PM
reply to post by EvilSadamClone

But your points and the points of the article you provide are irrelevant to the overall question of should the government be taxing/stealing... We all know they CAN do it, and they could pull up a million and 1 "legal" reasons why they can but ultimately it's because they have the bigger guns!

I couldn't care less what they say in that document to be honest, it's all legal mumbo jumbo! The system is rigged in their favor because they make the damn rules!

I am not even in the US, I'm in the UK but I refuse to be stolen from also!
edit on 12-7-2012 by mee30 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:44 PM
reply to post by mee30

No, you're making a strawman because the point is that there are some people who believe that the tax system is unconstitutional and the FAQ addresses why. Stop trying to derail my thread and make a thread of your own.

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:52 PM

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
That faq is not about making it right, or taking the moral high ground, just that those people are wrong and backing it up with the facts of why they're wrong.

I really wish people would learn to read an article before making assumptions about it.

I did read it, I don't care what people use to justify "wrongness", it is still "wrong", Any person that has the temerity to tell the IRS where to go stick the paperwork, or, the inland revenue, should be applauded.
Telling people, that are maybe feeling pangs of conscience, that whatever their feelings about the tax system, and, how it treats them, whatever applications of "Law" they try to use, is wrong, and is explained by this FAQ, is laughable and absurdity in it's most in-gracious form.
The TAX system has metastisised into a full blown cancer on the body of humanity, everything should be done to remove oneself from the indignant and indifferent oversight into your working life the IRS/IR maintains as a "Right" over you, and the baneful effects it is having on the rest of society, GLOBALLY.
No "Tax" Law is "Right", it is theft with the threat of force, designed to maintain an inherently corrupt system.
None should be used to coerce men into providing the fruit of their labours to destroy other members of the human race.
I am sure someone else will be along presently to applaud you on trying to scare good people straight again.
I't won't be me.

edit on 12-7-2012 by The X because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 06:38 PM
reply to post by EvilSadamClone

Derail your thread?

The only other person in "your thread" agrees with me, or rather I agree with them!

I fully understand what you are saying but it doesn't matter for the reasons I have already stated and more...

new topics

top topics


log in