what i work for is my private property i dont get my time and life back and the government does not own me ! they did not make me GOD and my parents did they have lied to me , cheated me , and flat out stolen from me! they wage war against me and my fellow persons they take more and more and just squander it away they drive off our jobs inflate our currency make tons of profits and act like im stealing to keep what is MINE ! TAXED ON ALL SIDES ! WELL ENOUGH ! REVOLUTION! REVOLUTION! REVOLT!
This tape is self-contradictory. It begins by quoting Webster's dictionary defining income as "That gain which proceeds from labor......" etc. and then tries to insist that income from labor is not "gain." Later it says that you cannot "derive" income by rendering services but Webster defines the word "derive" as "to obtain / to receive from another"....as when an employer pays your wages perhaps? This video consists of the repeated bogus insistence that common words are being misinterpreted.
@JackKangaroo1 Websters is a dictionary, not a Judge who rules on the Constitutionality of laws or issues. He made the distinction between both when he stated " I do not know if Webster was ever brought into court as an expert witness since 1913 seems to be the year money began to be created from nothing." In other words, the courts disagreed with Webster's definition. The vid was spot on with no repeated bogus anything. Just fact.
@Macedon51 You and the lunatic fringe that follows Irwin Schiff have argued incessantly that government cannot tax income on anything but a corporation. In order to continue this absurd assertion you must remain ignorant of every court decision on the matter, all of which have upheld the government's authority to tax personal income in the form of wages, business profit, winning the lottery, etc. If you don't believe this, just refuse to pay. I'm sure Schiff could use some company in prison.
People, what everyone needs to do is learn EXACTLY what the code says, and this is very important, HOW it says it. The code IS constitutional, yet taxing your private sector, unprivileged receipts is not. So, how can this be? You have told, and have allowed others to tell the Government your pay IS taxable so they tax you. How the hell did I do that you say? Find out the way I did. Google CRACKING THE CODE by Peter Hendrickson. Go to his website and start reading. Wake-up from the Matrix people.
Don't listen to what RATsquid has to say. It is very obvious he's one of the 130,000 IRS PARASITES that are feeding on YOU every day. Google CRACKING THE CODE by Peter Hendrickson. Go to his site LOST HORIZONS and learn what the code REALLY says as apposed to what they want you to THINK it says
The Revenue Act of 1918 approved February 24, 1919, c. 18, 210, 211, 212(a), 213(a), 40 Stat. 1057, 1062, 1064, 1065, imposes a tax upon the net income of every individual including 'income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service ... of whatever kind and in whatever form paid,' LUCAS v. EARL, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
Thank you "RetSquid" for some much-needed clarification. This whole argument that the gov't cannot tax personal income is silly, as is the presumption that gov't serves no real purpose other than to oppress the People. The much larger issue raised by Ron Paul and others is the rampant deficit spending of gov't on all levels that has helped make us the biggest debtor nation on earth. It has to stop or we will destroy our currency entirely with the cruelest tax of all---hyper-inflation.
Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income. United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943 (3rd Cir. 1990).
Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable. . . . [Taxpayer] seems to have been inspired by various tax protesting groups across the land who postulate weird and illogical theories of tax avoidance all to the detriment of the common weal [sic] and of themselves. United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).
The Court held that the stock dividend did not involve the realization of a taxable gain but that the corporations accumulated profits were simply capitalized or retained as surplus. In reaching that decision, the Court stated that income is the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined. Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
There are a handful of misfits who have bought into this tax protester fantasy, and a few lawyers who could be best described as enablers. The repeated and unsuccessful attempts to challenge the viability of the U.S. tax system demonstrate the futility of the tax protestor movement. . This video is just repeating over tired old arguments that tax protestors have been making for 50 years. They have lost every single case, at every single level, and have never won even one point in 50 years.
waterchildtera 1 year ago
Peter Hendrickson inmate number #15406-039, FCI Milan, P.O. Box 1000, E. Arkona Rd, Milan, MI 48160
33 months to go...
RetSquid 1 year ago
This tape is self-contradictory. It begins by quoting Webster's dictionary defining income as "That gain which proceeds from labor......" etc. and then tries to insist that income from labor is not "gain." Later it says that you cannot "derive" income by rendering services but Webster defines the word "derive" as "to obtain / to receive from another"....as when an employer pays your wages perhaps? This video consists of the repeated bogus insistence that common words are being misinterpreted.
JackKangaroo1 1 year ago
@JackKangaroo1 Websters is a dictionary, not a Judge who rules on the Constitutionality of laws or issues. He made the distinction between both when he stated " I do not know if Webster was ever brought into court as an expert witness since 1913 seems to be the year money began to be created from nothing." In other words, the courts disagreed with Webster's definition. The vid was spot on with no repeated bogus anything. Just fact.
denalaurens 1 year ago
@JackKangaroo1
Cangaroo, you are either ignorant of the facts or misleading the debate (per the provocateur RetSquid).
Nobody argues the government can't tax income.
Rather, what is income is in question.
Evidently, it is corporate profit.
Macedon51 1 year ago
@Macedon51 You and the lunatic fringe that follows Irwin Schiff have argued incessantly that government cannot tax income on anything but a corporation. In order to continue this absurd assertion you must remain ignorant of every court decision on the matter, all of which have upheld the government's authority to tax personal income in the form of wages, business profit, winning the lottery, etc. If you don't believe this, just refuse to pay. I'm sure Schiff could use some company in prison.
JackKangaroo1 1 year ago
People, what everyone needs to do is learn EXACTLY what the code says, and this is very important, HOW it says it. The code IS constitutional, yet taxing your private sector, unprivileged receipts is not. So, how can this be? You have told, and have allowed others to tell the Government your pay IS taxable so they tax you. How the hell did I do that you say? Find out the way I did. Google CRACKING THE CODE by Peter Hendrickson. Go to his website and start reading. Wake-up from the Matrix people.
FredandShell 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't listen to what RATsquid has to say. It is very obvious he's one of the 130,000 IRS PARASITES that are feeding on YOU every day. Google CRACKING THE CODE by Peter Hendrickson. Go to his site LOST HORIZONS and learn what the code REALLY says as apposed to what they want you to THINK it says
FredandShell 2 years ago
@FredandShell
How do you like Pete's prison sentence? LOL!!!
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid is an irs bot .haha send a guy to jail for the rest of his life. bet you were happy when they hung osama ... oh wait they didnt .
nonnagfuckshit 1 year ago
@nonnagfuckshit
A "bot"? Well, if you can prove anything that I have posted wrong, go for it.
RetSquid 1 year ago
U.S. Supreme Court
The Revenue Act of 1918 approved February 24, 1919, c. 18, 210, 211, 212(a), 213(a), 40 Stat. 1057, 1062, 1064, 1065, imposes a tax upon the net income of every individual including 'income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service ... of whatever kind and in whatever form paid,' LUCAS v. EARL, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
RetSquid 3 years ago
Thank you "RetSquid" for some much-needed clarification. This whole argument that the gov't cannot tax personal income is silly, as is the presumption that gov't serves no real purpose other than to oppress the People. The much larger issue raised by Ron Paul and others is the rampant deficit spending of gov't on all levels that has helped make us the biggest debtor nation on earth. It has to stop or we will destroy our currency entirely with the cruelest tax of all---hyper-inflation.
JackKangaroo1 1 year ago
Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income. United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943 (3rd Cir. 1990).
RetSquid 3 years ago
Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable. . . . [Taxpayer] seems to have been inspired by various tax protesting groups across the land who postulate weird and illogical theories of tax avoidance all to the detriment of the common weal [sic] and of themselves. United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).
RetSquid 3 years ago
The Court held that the stock dividend did not involve the realization of a taxable gain but that the corporations accumulated profits were simply capitalized or retained as surplus. In reaching that decision, the Court stated that income is the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined. Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
RetSquid 3 years ago
There are a handful of misfits who have bought into this tax protester fantasy, and a few lawyers who could be best described as enablers. The repeated and unsuccessful attempts to challenge the viability of the U.S. tax system demonstrate the futility of the tax protestor movement. . This video is just repeating over tired old arguments that tax protestors have been making for 50 years. They have lost every single case, at every single level, and have never won even one point in 50 years.
BEDESQUIRE 3 years ago
"There are a handful of misfits who have bought into this tax protester fantasy"
Am I included into your REAL FANTASY tax? How?
Misfits indeed. May I suppose you as manufactured in the womb for this imposition?
It isn't the viability of 'the tax system', it's the religious practice in imposition.
There is a reason, given the choice (i.e. democracy, freedom, free of conspiracy), that 9 out of 10 wouldn't pay a tax. And that is the point, REASON.
You'll see and be happier.
wreckerpecker 2 years ago
"that 9 out of 10 wouldn't pay a tax."
Then you wouldn't have to worry about freedom or anything, the country would not exist.
RetSquid 2 years ago
Great video
rahmega7 3 years ago