>>>> WARNING: Don't waste your time debating with "RetSquid." He's either a paid dis-info agent of the IRS and/or the Federal Reserve, or he's simply a jack-off cheerleader for slavery incorporated.
Scroll through the old comments from this video and MANY others like it, and you'll see he's been trolling them for up to 4 YEARS. He only trolls videos of this type as well. Strange, don't you think?
Yeah, Taxes my ass, I dont want a military, I don't want paved roads, I don't want running water, I don't want police or fire fighters, I don't want anyone checking to make sure my food and medication is safe, I don't want anyone telling the banks that they can't charge me anything they want, I don't want anyone telling abc,nbc, etc that they can't show full frontal nudity on daytime television, I don't want public schools, colleges, and universities. I just want all my money. Show me the law.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
@Laughingblades I would like to point out that this does not pertain to the income tax which the constitution specifies that a person cannot be taxed on their labor/ wages. There is also the fact that income tax does not get distributed but in fact goes to the federal reserve to pay the interest on the debt you were born with. Don't take my word on this research it for yourself, it is all a matter of public record.
Which Constitution and which 'public record" are you talking about? Because it sure isn't the Unted States Constitution. The Cosntitution specifically says that income IS taxable.
Also the Federal Reserve pay about 96% of it's profits into the Treasury and the income tax brings in about 10 times what the interest is on the debt.
@RetSquid It is in the USA constitution which you are free to look up yourself but I have a feeling that you know what you know and that's that, so me telling you exactly where to look will not help if you have not the eyes to see the truth. You are including income tax with all other taxes and the 96% you mentioned is a deliberate falsehood. The federal reserve has never opened it's books for assessment because it is a private corporation that is not publicly traded in the stock market.
"It is in the USA constitution" No, quite the opposite is in the Constitution. There are only two limits on taxation, direct taxes have to be apportioned and exports cannot be taxed. Income tax is neither.
You are partly correct about the 96%, it's actually only 94%. In 2010, the Federal Reserve made a profit of $82 billion and transferred $79 billion to the U.S. Treasury. The Fed has a annual audit by an independent firm and it is published online.
@Healthykids72 Article 1 Section 8 allows the income tax. There is not a single provision against the income tax in the constitution and Article 1 Section 8 gives congress the power to levy taxes, so just accept it, the income tax IS constitutional.
Unless you have an argument for how the income tax violates the constitution you're basically just saying "But it doesn't say the words Income Tax" and that's not an argument.
@Laughingblades There are a lot of taxes. does not state income. Courts have decided that the income tax deals with Gains and profits and not personal income. But don't worry keep taking up for the IRS.
@jefferson17399 Taxation on income is perfectly constitutional, the IRS is irrelevant to that fact. You have absolutely no leg to stand on when you say it's unconstitutional to tax income.
Not going to argue with Govt bots like you and ratcrap or Retsquid whatever the hell you all call yourselfs. Either way you either govt bots or live in your parents basements.
“Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets"
@Healthykids72 Pertaining to the Federal Reserve under Article 1 Section 8 though, it relates to these words "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts"
The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank, today the World Bank holds more power over it than US Congress, when Congress takes money from the Federal Reserve that money is on loan, and has to be paid back. I agree that this is a problem. Unfortunately Congress is now bought and owned by banks and corporations.
@objectivistathlete The constitution in no way specifies any prohibition against an income tax, the only monetary taxes that weren't allowed under the constitution were taxes on debt and interest, which a subsequent amendment allowed.
In other words, yes it does authorize the income tax, it authorizes taxation in general, as long as federal taxes are applied throughout all the states.
@Laughingblades The income tax was ruled unconstitutional in a Supreme Court ruling. That's why the 16th Amendment had to be passed in order to make the income tax constitutional. My only point being that your original post is technically incorrect.
@objectivistathlete No, it wasn't. The Income Tax was never ruled unconstitutional. You're confusing the income tax with taxation of debt and interest. The income tax has always been constitutional, taxation of debt, rent, and interest has not.
The relevant sections is the 16'th Amendment to A1S9C4 which expanded what the tax could be applied to (IE Land, Rent, Debt, Interest) and A1S2C3 which allowed states to levy their own taxes (which is at odds with A1S8C1 Subsection 2)
@Right2Petition un-Constitutional? The US Constitution does NOT apply to the American people. They did not sign it therefore are NOT a party to it. USA went bankrupt in 1913. It doesn't exist anymore. There is now the USC (United States Corporation) Corporations don't have LAWS they have CODES of Practice! How can the IRS, a non-Governmental Body, show you a Law that does not exist for a country that does not exist? EDUCATION!
Did you just copy and paste this? The Constitution applies to the States and the Federal Government, the USA never went bankrupt, if it did show me the bankruptcy court filing.... The U.S. is a corporation, just like every State, City, County, and town. The IRS is part of the Treasury Department, income tax law is in Title 26 USC and IS the Law and a Code and a Statute.
Sorry, if you have a problem with Truth. That seems to be the case with many people like you, you just don't like to be told the factual truth about things.
@Right2Petition They shouted "Who us the law!"? That doesn't even make sense. That's the standard of American Education these days? Either they're idiots or you are for getting it wrong.
@RetSquid So true. We are the problem. We the people are more concerned about superbowls, fastfood, and barbie plastic. Without fuel, guns and thermonuclear weapons we'd get our fat, pepsi, asses kicked. The Hopi Indians were right.
The federal reserve is privately owned. Americans pay tax to the brittish government.
With Monsanto and the bilderberg group A new world-one world government will be in place and we will have no constitution and government appointed rights which they can take away when they see fit. Not the God given rights guaranteed to us by the people who fought and died for our Freedom This is only the start of whats to come. Educate yourself and your family.
@Jai666666666 Schools are paid for in the majority by LOCAL property taxes. The roads are paid for by the gas taxes. Your 'income' is not by law 'income'. It is WAGES. Wages cannot be taxed, as they are an exchange, not INCOME. An exchange of labor for cash is not income. The Supreme Court has defined income as "gains from corporate activity".
Don't buy all the bullshit you're being fed. The world wouldn't fall apart if the IRS didn't steal up to half of all you make from your labor.
“Let us now put [the question] to rest: WAGES ARE INCOME. Any reading of tax cases by would-be tax protesters now should preclude a claim of good-faith belief that wages – or salaries – are not taxable”
United States v. Koliboski (Emphasis in original).
“The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.”
@RetSquid Actually, several circuit courts have held varying opinions on this issue. You chose to portray two that support your side.
Simply Google "Supreme Court rulings on Income Taxes", please. Since it is the Supreme Court, and not lower courts, that determines the law of the land.
Actually, until SCOTUS overrules a lower court, THAT court's decision is the 'law of the land'. And EVERY court agrees every citizen who has the incomes listed in Title 26 owes income tax. If you have any decisions that support the idea that people DON'T owe income tax please post them.
@Jai666666666 we do through the other taxes we pay. Sales tax, death tax , inheritance tax, capital gains tax, self employment tax, money made from fines through the court system, Property tax. We even pay taxes on our phone, water and electric bills to name a few. Not to mention the federal reserve fractional reserve policy which make money out of thin air. This leads me to believe that the Army will stay well funded. Would'nt you agree?
@RetSquid As to highways and the military, that would take some doing, as there are trillions 'missing' from the Pentagon books right about now.
However, I think a little local research on your own would demonstrate that schools are paid for by property taxes. State sales taxes fund the majority of road/bridge construction, supplemented by gas taxes. That much, you can find out with just minutes of looking.
@RetSquid You know, you seem to have an agenda. I've done enough research into this to see that your broad strokes are purely subjective bias. I don't advocate tax evasion but I do advocate independent thought and research.
And genuine documentation.
Have you by any chance noticed the number of appeals made by people who were clearly denied due process on this issue, SPECIFICALLY skirting the issue of constitutionality?
Now, before you wax lyrical, remember the amendment process.
My only 'agenda' is proving liars who say there is no law for income tax or that it only applies to a few people wrong. Can you post any case where people have been denied due process? The constitutionality of the income tax has been proven LONG ago.
What do you think I need to know about the amendment process that I don't already?
@RetSquid Actually, I hear you very selectively choosing to illuminate your bias.
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the IRS hasn't ever denied anyone due process? Are you SERIOUSLY?
You make claims, but you don't really 'prove' them. You assert that they have been proven. I wish you well, as you seem content with the status quo, and are unwilling to ask questions or dig a little deeper.
By the way, was the 16th Amendment ratified properly?
@RetSquid I get it now. Not that you're right, but that you won't be convinced otherwise. Actually, proof of denial of due process is a pretty easy matter to research. No, the 16th Amendment WAS NOT ratified properly. No, the income tax is NOT compulsory.
And I'm curious....what department of the IRS do you work for?
I see you are a typical income tax denier. If you have any proof I WILL accept it. Income tax is NOT voluntary, read section 6151.
“In assessing income taxes, the Government relies primarily upon the disclosure by the taxpayer of the relevant facts. To ensure full and honest disclosure, to discourage fraudulent attempts to evade the tax, Congress imposes sanctions. Such sanctions may confessedly be either criminal or civil.”
@RetSquid I actually pay my taxes, and I ask questions. You are clearly someone whose income depends on continuing to present a biased case. I'm guessing a tax attorney.
Is income tax an apportioned tax?
As to whether or not it is voluntary or compulsory, even the tax code itself presents it both ways.
Your bias is completely one-sided, and you have trolled this topic for motives I question. IRS? Tax attorney?
Read my profile. I am not with the IRS in any way, nor am I a lawyer. The tax code makes income tax compulsory NOT voluntary. The income tax is an unapportioned tax and it is uniform throughout the United States.
My baid is completely one sided, and that side is the one with the truth on it, not the side of the liars. Everything I post as a 'fact' IS a fact and can be verified.
@RetSquid And yet, highly qualified individuals, not all, but some, have gone quite public, including IRS Commisioners, IRS agents, tax attorneys, and (tentatively) Congressmen, saying that it's not so clear-cut. I'm still researching it, but I've seen ambiguity, outright internal contradiction, and tons of evidence of IRS malfeasance.
@RetSquid And there it is. Quote that one law, please? All it has to say is, essentially, wages are income, and taxes are mandatory. Cite that specifically, please?
“The petitioner’s argument that the Internal Revenue Code [Title 26] was not enacted by Congress is equally meritless. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted by the 83rd Congress on August 16, 1954 (ch. 736, 68A Stat. 3) and has been amended by Congress with some frequency since that time.”
Urban v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-220, affd. per curiam, 964 F.2d 888 (9th Cir. 1992).
@RetSquid So, you dodge the ratification of the 13th amendment argument by calling it a 'political' argument, and counter it with this? I see where you're coming from, I truly do, but let me ask you this:
Why doesn't the IRS simply come out to this crowd and say what you're saying?
No, I believe I said thast about the 16th Amendment. The Courts nd the Executive branch have no part to play in the Amnendment process.
"come out to this crowd "?
Because there are people like you in the crowd who would not believe them even if they did. You would do exactly like you do here, claim that they can't, no matter WHAT they bring out.
@RetSquid Don't go all psychic. It doesn't suit you. So, since the 16th amendment is a LEGISLATIVE issue, why did you say earlier it wasn't a LEGAL issue?
You're talking in circles on that issue.
In the defense of people who are just asking questions about CLEAR ambiguities (with the legality of the 16th amendment at its heart), it's that kind of circular talk that CREATES the questions.
You don't know a thing about me other than we had a trivial discussion on YouTube. Fail. ( 13th was a typo).
If I said it wasn't a legal issue, then it would have to be a legislative now wouldn't it? The Courts know that there is no "ambiguities" with the process, it worked just how it is supposed to work.
“Despite plaintiff’ and numerous other tax protesters’ contention that the 16th Amendment was never ratified, courts have long recognized the 16th Amendment’ ratification and validity.”
Betz v. United States
“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments....completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous:...the 16th Amendment to the Constitution is...invalid . . .”
Whether an amendment has been properly ratified is considered to be a “political question” to be resolved by Congress and the states, and not in court. In a challenge to the validity of the 19th Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that official notices of the state legislatures to the Secretary of State were “binding upon him, and, being certified by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts.” Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922).
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution..which...shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress
Got to love America and its IRS. I work my A** off they take my money and spend it on what THEY want to. While I am in debt with my own bills. I have no House, I eat off dollar menus and speak to people that DONT want to work telling me they have homes, cable and brand new cars. And what the hell is this $9,000.00 first time home buyers bs? I cant even afford a home and the IRS is garnishing my wages on back taxes? AMERICA THE CROOKED!
@RetSquid Maybe we should all quit our jobs. Not pay our taxes, and go on welfare. Wouldnt that be fair to all? Why take the working peoples money and hand it out? Guess nowadays you have to be dumb to try and get a job. Let the government support us.lol
ha section 1 says if you make this ___ this is how much you owe ___ where is the law sec 1 is just a graph oof amounts that they would like to have. the constitution says determine what is needed and devide that. when have you ever heard that done, they just take all they can.
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
YEAH, COMMON LAW SHOULD BE ILLEGAL! Hmmm, Dupont, Baxter, JP Morgan, Walt Disney=Zionist Government! DO YOU KNOW WHAT obama's NAME MEANS IN HEBREW? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE WORD CITY MEANS IN HEBREW? Dont take the Shot! Wake UP America! AMERICA IS A REPUBLIC AND IS TO BE UNDER REPUBLIC LAW, NOT DEMOCRACY, OR ITS LAW! DEMOCRATIC LAW IS A FRAUD! PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE UP TO THIS FACT, AND SEE THE COVERUPS! ALL LAWS SHOULD BE VOTED UPON BY THE PEOPLE, GUILT IS ONLY WHEN ALL 12 VOTE AGAINST YOU!
Also the money changers have everything to do with this whole subject.And whose inscription was on the coin to indicate the ownership ?No different today.When "The $y$tem "converts worldwide ALL the "laws" will be changed.Resistance is the only option for freedom.
Guess they are right, you do have trouble remembering things.Either a sinning sinner or a non-sinning christian.Remember now?Dont care about my grammEr cantcha tell ?
THE IRS IS EVIL PERIOD! All taxation is theft! All taxation is a direct violation of one of the Ten Commandments! The 8th Commandment states: You shall not steal". The EVIL IRS is in direct violation of the 8th Commandment: You shall not steal"!!!!!!
Its not about sjow me the law , if you enter into a contract you better honor it. cancel your w4 or dont waste your time. and BTW its the so called FEDERAL income tax, because if your a federal employee you do have to pay , i file but i know how to file , and they clain they didnt get it because they cant debate me.
Wrong again troll, i owe NOTHING if you were correct then why dont they just send us a bill and be done with it your probably a agent of the service. go to the deniers page and prove it
No the IRS hopes you are ignorant and spineless and file how they want you to , i report an honest accurate account and they know it other wise there would be no question to the matter i wouldn't be here. your such a sad coward, you must be a disinfo agent for the service who else would troll irs video for years trying to get people to let the irs keep there money. you are laying stumbling blocks and that is deception , your evil and will pay for it.
Also for those who say that the tax code requires a individual "income" tax.... the tax code doesn't define "income", and according to the Supreme Court case EISNER v. MACOMBER, the definition of income in the constitution is gains or profits from some activity. Therefore working for money is an even exchange of money for goods and services, no gain or profit involved.
The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.
Sorry ' RedSquid ' , you WRONG. The title 26 you are refering to is a " Corporate " tax ... anyone making a ' profit therefore has to pay taxes ... I agree 100% . But that Law has been confused with paying a PERSONAL INCOME TAX my dear sir ... stop adding to the confussion unless you work for the iRS
There are a handful of people who have avoided criminal (but not civil) penalties by convincing a jury that they were too STUPID or delusional to understand the tax laws and their violations were not willful, but no one has ever won against the IRS in a tax collection case using one of the TPs frivolous arguments.
Geithner and Snipes 'LIED ON THEIR FORMS AND SIGNED IT UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER 29USC1746(2) AND NEVER RESERVED HIS RIGHTS UNDER UCC 1-308/1-207 AND SIGNED IT UNDER 29USC1746(1)" and they picked a fight with a full contact football player thinking they're playing soft ball with a baseball cap in their stadium. They lost before they even started...
actually, it's not. it's required for all those who ignorantly sign a W4 agreement to donate all their pay to the public; and then have to file the "individual" artificial person 1040 Form to justify why they should get back their money from a collection agency that is NOT a government agency but a bank for the various wealthiest families in the world; then they tell you when you can draw against it at a rate of 43 cents on the dollar.
Also; the FRN is NOT a lawfull dollar; never was...
This court recognizes that the Internal Revenue Code is positive law applicable to disputes concerning whether taxes are owed by someone like the plaintiff. This court refuses to embrace the plaintiff's position that the tax laws of the United States are some kind of hoax designed by the IRS to violate the constitutional rights of United States citizens. Quite simply, the court finds plaintiff's position preposterous.
Ok einstein look up the definition in their code of "citizen of the United States"
26CFR31.3121(e)-1 includes only puerto rico, virgin islands, and after 1-1-1964 Guam and America Samoa,
then go to 26 USC 7701 Definition of "state" and United States" includes only the Distric of Columbia...
and while your at it, Look up Hale v. Henkel...
slavery was wiped out so unless you volunteer [W4], you're not liable... unless you got a license to work then you're involved in a trade or business...
But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right.
If you know statutory law "includes" means limited to. When a word is given a special meaning it abandons all other meanings. "What is not specifically mentioned is ment to be delibrately left out" translated lating maxim.
Once a word is redefined in stautory construction, it will only mean what is specifically mentioned, period
Where does the Code specifically reach outside of D.C. 26USC7701 or the special term "State" and "United States" mean anything other than D.C.
Ok, I could do this in one shot. 42USC14701(7) includes the states of the Union and 26USC7701(10) does not.
Ready here we go, it gets bumpy here:
IRC Sec 3140. The word "State" when used in this Title, shall be construed to include the Territories and the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry "its" provisions.
Persons in International Law Sec 201(g) States of the United States. A State of the United States is NOT a state under international law.
because anybody who voluentered to donate there pay signed a W4; or they went and got a permission [license] and lied and said they live and/or work in the Distric of Columbia [statutory "citizen of the U.S.] not American Citizens; they made themselves liable, then when you lied on their "Individual = citizen of theU.S.] 1040 Form which is only for public servants in the Federal U.S. [D.C.] and claimed they are either in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands [look at your IMF from the IRS]
American Citizens are NOT liable in the first place. Any State permission [license] makes you liable because you just engaged in a "Trade or Business" within the "United States" [Distric of Columbia] or You signed the "Voluntary Withholding Form W-4" and donated all your pay, by converting it into "income/wages" for waorking in a "public office"....
To get that answerlook up the definition of income and wages. You will find that it only referes to estate and trusts only.
Additionally, it is a tax created for those who wanted the benefits and privilages of working for the Government and to do that, they have obscured and hidden the intent to raise revenue by applying their private laws to "taxpayers" on "nontaxpayers" which are not with their scope. By use of the misapplied Form1040, W2, & W4 [Voluntary Withholding Agreement] etcetera.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61. Gross income defined
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items...
Furthermore, Olsons attempt to escape tax by deducting his wages as cost of labor and by claiming that he had obtained no privilege from a governmental agency illustrate the frivolous nature of his position. This court has repeatedly rejected the argument that wages are not income as frivolous, [citations omitted] and has also rejected the idea that a person is liable for tax only if he benefits from a governmental privilege.
Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985)
That was just plain idiotic. He filed the wrong papers than made a ridiculous claim. Cancel the W4, fire the withholding agent. If you work for some regular company, you are trading your labor for equal comensation, why would anybody volunter into such a pyrimad sceme like social security or other rediculous fake benefits. The government has nothing to offer other than what they stole from john to give to peter. Of course his claim was frivolous, i bet he sign the W4 & never cancelled it.
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).
I wonder if you might state the law requiring to pay income taxes. While the 16th Ammendment states that congress may collect, it doesn't compel aonyone to pay. They may collect only as much as is willingly given, as far as I can tell. So, since the 16th Amendment doesn't, what law requires anyone to pay a direct unapportioned tax?
I'd like to know what the law states. Yes, I have, ignorant oaf that I am, have tried to look up the law, but haven't found it as yet.
My understanding is that Tax Code is in reference to enforcement of the law and not the law itself. If my understanding isn't correct, where is it stated that Tax Code is, in fact, law?
The amendment, within the text of the amendment, does not state that anyone must pay an income tax. It merely suggests that congress can collect a tax from someone.
So, you're telling me that either the law is so big that you can't post all of it here.or (by inference on my part) that you don't know which one it is. I'll assume that iyou really do know where it is and are keeping it from me.
If it's too big then just point me to the specific section that states that payment is compulsory and that all citizens have no choice but to pay a direct unapportioned income tax - noting that 16th doesn't apply because the language doesn't support your claim.
This has been flagged as spam show
>>>> WARNING: Don't waste your time debating with "RetSquid." He's either a paid dis-info agent of the IRS and/or the Federal Reserve, or he's simply a jack-off cheerleader for slavery incorporated.
Scroll through the old comments from this video and MANY others like it, and you'll see he's been trolling them for up to 4 YEARS. He only trolls videos of this type as well. Strange, don't you think?
BRYAN351 1 month ago
Yeah, Taxes my ass, I dont want a military, I don't want paved roads, I don't want running water, I don't want police or fire fighters, I don't want anyone checking to make sure my food and medication is safe, I don't want anyone telling the banks that they can't charge me anything they want, I don't want anyone telling abc,nbc, etc that they can't show full frontal nudity on daytime television, I don't want public schools, colleges, and universities. I just want all my money. Show me the law.
Vernonu9 5 months ago
Article 1 Section 8
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
Now you've been shown the law, admit it.
Laughingblades 5 months ago 4
@Laughingblades I would like to point out that this does not pertain to the income tax which the constitution specifies that a person cannot be taxed on their labor/ wages. There is also the fact that income tax does not get distributed but in fact goes to the federal reserve to pay the interest on the debt you were born with. Don't take my word on this research it for yourself, it is all a matter of public record.
Love,
Nancy
Healthykids72 3 months ago
@Healthykids72
Which Constitution and which 'public record" are you talking about? Because it sure isn't the Unted States Constitution. The Cosntitution specifically says that income IS taxable.
Also the Federal Reserve pay about 96% of it's profits into the Treasury and the income tax brings in about 10 times what the interest is on the debt.
RetSquid 3 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid It is in the USA constitution which you are free to look up yourself but I have a feeling that you know what you know and that's that, so me telling you exactly where to look will not help if you have not the eyes to see the truth. You are including income tax with all other taxes and the 96% you mentioned is a deliberate falsehood. The federal reserve has never opened it's books for assessment because it is a private corporation that is not publicly traded in the stock market.
Healthykids72 3 months ago
@Healthykids72
"It is in the USA constitution" No, quite the opposite is in the Constitution. There are only two limits on taxation, direct taxes have to be apportioned and exports cannot be taxed. Income tax is neither.
You are partly correct about the 96%, it's actually only 94%. In 2010, the Federal Reserve made a profit of $82 billion and transferred $79 billion to the U.S. Treasury. The Fed has a annual audit by an independent firm and it is published online.
Anything else?
RetSquid 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Healthykids72
"you know what you know and that's that, so me telling you exactly where to look will not help if you have not the eyes to see the truth"
Yes, your claims already have a hint of that. You won't find your claim about income tax in the Constitution, but you will still claim it's in there.
RetSquid 3 months ago
@Healthykids72 Article 1 Section 8 allows the income tax. There is not a single provision against the income tax in the constitution and Article 1 Section 8 gives congress the power to levy taxes, so just accept it, the income tax IS constitutional.
Unless you have an argument for how the income tax violates the constitution you're basically just saying "But it doesn't say the words Income Tax" and that's not an argument.
The Federal Reserve is a separate issue.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
none of your information is correct. I also find it funny that you call yourself healthykids
jefferson17399 3 weeks ago
@Laughingblades Article 1 section 8 says NOTHING about income tax. says taxes, duties,impost and excises
jefferson17399 3 weeks ago
@jefferson17399 The income tax is a tax.
Laughingblades 3 weeks ago
@Laughingblades There are a lot of taxes. does not state income. Courts have decided that the income tax deals with Gains and profits and not personal income. But don't worry keep taking up for the IRS.
jefferson17399 3 weeks ago
@jefferson17399 Taxation on income is perfectly constitutional, the IRS is irrelevant to that fact. You have absolutely no leg to stand on when you say it's unconstitutional to tax income.
Laughingblades 3 weeks ago
Not going to argue with Govt bots like you and ratcrap or Retsquid whatever the hell you all call yourselfs. Either way you either govt bots or live in your parents basements.
jefferson17399 3 weeks ago
@jefferson17399 That's good because you have no argument. Your entire position is baseless and the best you can do is ad homs
Laughingblades 3 weeks ago
@jefferson17399
Don't run away crying, just run away.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
so ratcrap are you a low like, coward IRS agent or do you live in your mom's basement?
jefferson17399 3 weeks ago
@jefferson17399
Still can't come up with a logical, adult response, huh?
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@jefferson17399
“Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets"
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206-7 (1920),
RetSquid 3 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@Healthykids72 Pertaining to the Federal Reserve under Article 1 Section 8 though, it relates to these words "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts"
The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank, today the World Bank holds more power over it than US Congress, when Congress takes money from the Federal Reserve that money is on loan, and has to be paid back. I agree that this is a problem. Unfortunately Congress is now bought and owned by banks and corporations.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades When was this article written? Before or after the Amendment?
AmericanRican 1 month ago
@AmericanRican Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 was in the first founding article of the constitution, it was written before the bill of rights.
Laughingblades 1 month ago
@Laughingblades
Did he REALLY ask you that? :) I see it, I just can't believe it...
RetSquid 1 month ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@Laughingblades you said it, "WAS" ;)
AmericanRican 1 month ago
@AmericanRican lol ahhhh yeah DERP
Laughingblades 1 month ago
@Laughingblades That section of the Constitution does not authorize the income tax.
objectivistathlete 2 weeks ago
@objectivistathlete The constitution in no way specifies any prohibition against an income tax, the only monetary taxes that weren't allowed under the constitution were taxes on debt and interest, which a subsequent amendment allowed.
In other words, yes it does authorize the income tax, it authorizes taxation in general, as long as federal taxes are applied throughout all the states.
Laughingblades 2 weeks ago
@Laughingblades The income tax was ruled unconstitutional in a Supreme Court ruling. That's why the 16th Amendment had to be passed in order to make the income tax constitutional. My only point being that your original post is technically incorrect.
objectivistathlete 2 weeks ago
@objectivistathlete No, it wasn't. The Income Tax was never ruled unconstitutional. You're confusing the income tax with taxation of debt and interest. The income tax has always been constitutional, taxation of debt, rent, and interest has not.
The relevant sections is the 16'th Amendment to A1S9C4 which expanded what the tax could be applied to (IE Land, Rent, Debt, Interest) and A1S2C3 which allowed states to levy their own taxes (which is at odds with A1S8C1 Subsection 2)
Laughingblades 2 weeks ago
@Right2Petition un-Constitutional? The US Constitution does NOT apply to the American people. They did not sign it therefore are NOT a party to it. USA went bankrupt in 1913. It doesn't exist anymore. There is now the USC (United States Corporation) Corporations don't have LAWS they have CODES of Practice! How can the IRS, a non-Governmental Body, show you a Law that does not exist for a country that does not exist? EDUCATION!
Itsmeeman1 9 months ago
@Itsmeeman1
Did you just copy and paste this? The Constitution applies to the States and the Federal Government, the USA never went bankrupt, if it did show me the bankruptcy court filing.... The U.S. is a corporation, just like every State, City, County, and town. The IRS is part of the Treasury Department, income tax law is in Title 26 USC and IS the Law and a Code and a Statute.
RetSquid 9 months ago
@RetSquid What section under Title 26 USC are you referring to???...
TheDigihax 9 months ago
who the fuck are you and why are u defending the irs u worthless fuck
PecolaCatfishHunters 7 months ago
@PecolaCatfishHunters Nothing i said is defending the IRS you dumb ass mother fucker......I asked What section under title 26 is he talking about....
TheDigihax 7 months ago
@PecolaCatfishHunters
Sorry, if you have a problem with Truth. That seems to be the case with many people like you, you just don't like to be told the factual truth about things.
RetSquid 7 months ago
@RetSquid what section of Title 26 USC are you talking about?...my comment vanished so i had to do it again lol...
TheDigihax 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDigihax
Here is 'the law': Title 26
Section 1, imposes the tax
Section 61 defines Gross income
Section 63 defines Taxable income.
Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and
Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return.
RetSquid 9 months ago
@Itsmeeman1 Are you joking? Or are you being serious? If you are being serious you are probably the most uneducated idiot on youtube.
cfxboxmoh 6 months ago
@Right2Petition They shouted "Who us the law!"? That doesn't even make sense. That's the standard of American Education these days? Either they're idiots or you are for getting it wrong.
Itsmeeman1 9 months ago
"We the people" real life idiots on parade.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid So true. We are the problem. We the people are more concerned about superbowls, fastfood, and barbie plastic. Without fuel, guns and thermonuclear weapons we'd get our fat, pepsi, asses kicked. The Hopi Indians were right.
MrBeautifulba1 1 year ago
@MrBeautifulba1
No, not...[We The People]..."We The People"...it's the name of a (FAIL) tax protestor group
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Well, either way Mother Natures gonna clean house.
MrBeautifulba1 1 year ago
@MrBeautifulba1
What does Mother Nature have to do with this?
RetSquid 1 year ago
The federal reserve is privately owned. Americans pay tax to the brittish government.
With Monsanto and the bilderberg group A new world-one world government will be in place and we will have no constitution and government appointed rights which they can take away when they see fit. Not the God given rights guaranteed to us by the people who fought and died for our Freedom This is only the start of whats to come. Educate yourself and your family.
devonw86 1 year ago
@devonw86
"Americans pay tax to the brittish government."
LOL!!!
RetSquid 1 year ago
The schools?
Jai666666666 1 year ago
@Jai666666666 Schools are paid for in the majority by LOCAL property taxes. The roads are paid for by the gas taxes. Your 'income' is not by law 'income'. It is WAGES. Wages cannot be taxed, as they are an exchange, not INCOME. An exchange of labor for cash is not income. The Supreme Court has defined income as "gains from corporate activity".
Don't buy all the bullshit you're being fed. The world wouldn't fall apart if the IRS didn't steal up to half of all you make from your labor.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore
“Let us now put [the question] to rest: WAGES ARE INCOME. Any reading of tax cases by would-be tax protesters now should preclude a claim of good-faith belief that wages – or salaries – are not taxable”
United States v. Koliboski (Emphasis in original).
RetSquid 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore
“The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.”
Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid I'll check into this, thanks. What's the source?
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore
The source is listed right after the quote.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Actually, several circuit courts have held varying opinions on this issue. You chose to portray two that support your side.
Simply Google "Supreme Court rulings on Income Taxes", please. Since it is the Supreme Court, and not lower courts, that determines the law of the land.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore
Actually, until SCOTUS overrules a lower court, THAT court's decision is the 'law of the land'. And EVERY court agrees every citizen who has the incomes listed in Title 26 owes income tax. If you have any decisions that support the idea that people DON'T owe income tax please post them.
RetSquid 1 year ago
Who's going to pay for the Army?
Jai666666666 1 year ago
@Jai666666666 we do through the other taxes we pay. Sales tax, death tax , inheritance tax, capital gains tax, self employment tax, money made from fines through the court system, Property tax. We even pay taxes on our phone, water and electric bills to name a few. Not to mention the federal reserve fractional reserve policy which make money out of thin air. This leads me to believe that the Army will stay well funded. Would'nt you agree?
DaSurreal1da 1 year ago
@DaSurreal1da
How much money do you think comes from those sources?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@Jai666666666 The military budget has always been calculated based on the proceeds from CORPORATE taxes. 100%.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore
What a bunch of CRAP! Try and post a valid source for your info...I bet you can't, because ti's a lie.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Don't broadstroke:
Income taxes do not pay for schools nor roads.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore
If you have a breakdown of the exact amounts the Federal Government spends on those items I'd like to see it.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid As to highways and the military, that would take some doing, as there are trillions 'missing' from the Pentagon books right about now.
However, I think a little local research on your own would demonstrate that schools are paid for by property taxes. State sales taxes fund the majority of road/bridge construction, supplemented by gas taxes. That much, you can find out with just minutes of looking.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore
Corporate income tax = $222 billion
DOD budget = $663 billion.
You MIGHT want to check your sources.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Mind if I check yours? Does 'corporate income tax' include 'windfall profits tax'? OR any of the other dozens of corporate taxes?
Don't broadstroke.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore
Look up the Federal budget and you will see exactly what I saw.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid You know, you seem to have an agenda. I've done enough research into this to see that your broad strokes are purely subjective bias. I don't advocate tax evasion but I do advocate independent thought and research.
And genuine documentation.
Have you by any chance noticed the number of appeals made by people who were clearly denied due process on this issue, SPECIFICALLY skirting the issue of constitutionality?
Now, before you wax lyrical, remember the amendment process.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore
My only 'agenda' is proving liars who say there is no law for income tax or that it only applies to a few people wrong. Can you post any case where people have been denied due process? The constitutionality of the income tax has been proven LONG ago.
What do you think I need to know about the amendment process that I don't already?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Actually, I hear you very selectively choosing to illuminate your bias.
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the IRS hasn't ever denied anyone due process? Are you SERIOUSLY?
You make claims, but you don't really 'prove' them. You assert that they have been proven. I wish you well, as you seem content with the status quo, and are unwilling to ask questions or dig a little deeper.
By the way, was the 16th Amendment ratified properly?
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore
So YOU have no proof of any denial of due process? Yes, the 16th was ratified properly, as all of the States and all of the courts have agreed.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid I get it now. Not that you're right, but that you won't be convinced otherwise. Actually, proof of denial of due process is a pretty easy matter to research. No, the 16th Amendment WAS NOT ratified properly. No, the income tax is NOT compulsory.
And I'm curious....what department of the IRS do you work for?
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore
I see you are a typical income tax denier. If you have any proof I WILL accept it. Income tax is NOT voluntary, read section 6151.
“In assessing income taxes, the Government relies primarily upon the disclosure by the taxpayer of the relevant facts. To ensure full and honest disclosure, to discourage fraudulent attempts to evade the tax, Congress imposes sanctions. Such sanctions may confessedly be either criminal or civil.”
Helvering v. Mitchell
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid I actually pay my taxes, and I ask questions. You are clearly someone whose income depends on continuing to present a biased case. I'm guessing a tax attorney.
Is income tax an apportioned tax?
As to whether or not it is voluntary or compulsory, even the tax code itself presents it both ways.
Your bias is completely one-sided, and you have trolled this topic for motives I question. IRS? Tax attorney?
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore
Read my profile. I am not with the IRS in any way, nor am I a lawyer. The tax code makes income tax compulsory NOT voluntary. The income tax is an unapportioned tax and it is uniform throughout the United States.
My baid is completely one sided, and that side is the one with the truth on it, not the side of the liars. Everything I post as a 'fact' IS a fact and can be verified.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid And yet, highly qualified individuals, not all, but some, have gone quite public, including IRS Commisioners, IRS agents, tax attorneys, and (tentatively) Congressmen, saying that it's not so clear-cut. I'm still researching it, but I've seen ambiguity, outright internal contradiction, and tons of evidence of IRS malfeasance.
When you put 'fact' in quotes...heh.
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore
The basics of the income tax are very simple. But, no system is perfect, nor are the people in any system perfect.
The point is that videos like this are wrong, there is a law for income tax and it applies to everyone and their wages.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid And there it is. Quote that one law, please? All it has to say is, essentially, wages are income, and taxes are mandatory. Cite that specifically, please?
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore
Title 26:
§ 61. Gross income defined
General definition
...gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
Compensation for services... [WAGES ARE INCOME]
§ 6012. Persons required to make returns of income
§ 6151. Time and place for paying tax shown on returns
RetSquid 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore
“The petitioner’s argument that the Internal Revenue Code [Title 26] was not enacted by Congress is equally meritless. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted by the 83rd Congress on August 16, 1954 (ch. 736, 68A Stat. 3) and has been amended by Congress with some frequency since that time.”
Urban v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-220, affd. per curiam, 964 F.2d 888 (9th Cir. 1992).
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid So, you dodge the ratification of the 13th amendment argument by calling it a 'political' argument, and counter it with this? I see where you're coming from, I truly do, but let me ask you this:
Why doesn't the IRS simply come out to this crowd and say what you're saying?
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore
No, I believe I said thast about the 16th Amendment. The Courts nd the Executive branch have no part to play in the Amnendment process.
"come out to this crowd "?
Because there are people like you in the crowd who would not believe them even if they did. You would do exactly like you do here, claim that they can't, no matter WHAT they bring out.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Don't go all psychic. It doesn't suit you. So, since the 16th amendment is a LEGISLATIVE issue, why did you say earlier it wasn't a LEGAL issue?
You're talking in circles on that issue.
In the defense of people who are just asking questions about CLEAR ambiguities (with the legality of the 16th amendment at its heart), it's that kind of circular talk that CREATES the questions.
You don't know a thing about me other than we had a trivial discussion on YouTube. Fail. ( 13th was a typo).
OneVoiceMore 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore
If I said it wasn't a legal issue, then it would have to be a legislative now wouldn't it? The Courts know that there is no "ambiguities" with the process, it worked just how it is supposed to work.
RetSquid 1 year ago
“Despite plaintiff’ and numerous other tax protesters’ contention that the 16th Amendment was never ratified, courts have long recognized the 16th Amendment’ ratification and validity.”
Betz v. United States
“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments....completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous:...the 16th Amendment to the Constitution is...invalid . . .”
Lonsdale v. United States
RetSquid 1 year ago
@OneVoiceMore
Whether an amendment has been properly ratified is considered to be a “political question” to be resolved by Congress and the states, and not in court. In a challenge to the validity of the 19th Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that official notices of the state legislatures to the Secretary of State were “binding upon him, and, being certified by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts.” Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922).
RetSquid 1 year ago
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution..which...shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress
RetSquid 1 year ago
Got to love America and its IRS. I work my A** off they take my money and spend it on what THEY want to. While I am in debt with my own bills. I have no House, I eat off dollar menus and speak to people that DONT want to work telling me they have homes, cable and brand new cars. And what the hell is this $9,000.00 first time home buyers bs? I cant even afford a home and the IRS is garnishing my wages on back taxes? AMERICA THE CROOKED!
straightcleaner 1 year ago 3
@straightcleaner
Maybe you should do a better job of managing your money. If you spend more than you make it is your own fault.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Maybe we should all quit our jobs. Not pay our taxes, and go on welfare. Wouldnt that be fair to all? Why take the working peoples money and hand it out? Guess nowadays you have to be dumb to try and get a job. Let the government support us.lol
straightcleaner 1 year ago
@straightcleaner
What does this have to do with whether or not income tax is the law and your poor money management?
RetSquid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Here are some websites you can join to help in stopping the Federal Reserve's corruption and injustice!
We Are Patriots.us
Prison Planet.tv
Tea Party Patriots.org
Campaign For Liberty.com
Ron Paul.com
109740ewh 1 year ago
that is just a schedule of amounts, read it yourself and come back when you grow up
bailey9r 1 year ago
@bailey9r
You really don't know WHAT you are talking about do you?
LOL!!!
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Do you have a life?
Seems like every time i see a tax law video, you're there leaving 10,000 comments.
smokyp3nguin 1 year ago
@smokyp3nguin
Yes, I have a life, it just doesn't that long to prove that this stuff is mostly lies.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@bailey9r If you thing the Code is just a schedule of amounts, you certainly haven't read it.
zentner18 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
These codes apply to Title 26 "taxpayers"
Who are MADE liable and are required by specific codes that apply to there situation and obligations.Read title 26
on the subject, educate yourself on what it means and how it applies.
asicit2b 1 year ago
message to everything2
That's just the rates you idiot!!
THERE IS NO LAW TO FILE INCOME TAX!
bbayhylle 1 year ago
@bbayhylle
Here is the law: Title 26
Section 1, imposes the tax
Section 61 defines Gross income
Section 63 defines Taxable income.
Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and
Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return.
RetSquid 1 year ago
ha section 1 says if you make this ___ this is how much you owe ___ where is the law sec 1 is just a graph oof amounts that they would like to have. the constitution says determine what is needed and devide that. when have you ever heard that done, they just take all they can.
bailey9r 1 year ago
@bailey9r
Title 26 Section on IS the LAW, it imposes the income tax on those people listed. I don't even know what you are talking about with the Constitution.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid (C) The exception under subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any individual—
(ii) for whom the standard deduction is zero under section 63 (c)(6).
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 1 year ago
@IRSFRAUDEXPOSED
You are going to have to post more than that for someone to look it up.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@IRSFRAUDEXPOSED
Oh, yeah, a couple of other things:
(1)Thanks for the mention of me on your channel, good way to get more traffic.
(2)It's spelled "FRAUD" not "fruad" like in your profile, and
(3)It's the right to "BEAR ARMS" not to "BARE ARMS".
RetSquid 1 year ago
@IRSFRAUDEXPOSED
No reply?
RetSquid 1 year ago
Section 6012 - "if you have the income"!
HELLO!
bbayhylle 1 year ago
@bbayhylle
§ 61. Gross income defined
General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items
RetSquid 1 year ago
0:53 "obey the constitutions"
which constitutions ? i thought we only had one ?
stonerj0e 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
YEAH, COMMON LAW SHOULD BE ILLEGAL! Hmmm, Dupont, Baxter, JP Morgan, Walt Disney=Zionist Government! DO YOU KNOW WHAT obama's NAME MEANS IN HEBREW? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE WORD CITY MEANS IN HEBREW? Dont take the Shot! Wake UP America! AMERICA IS A REPUBLIC AND IS TO BE UNDER REPUBLIC LAW, NOT DEMOCRACY, OR ITS LAW! DEMOCRATIC LAW IS A FRAUD! PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE UP TO THIS FACT, AND SEE THE COVERUPS! ALL LAWS SHOULD BE VOTED UPON BY THE PEOPLE, GUILT IS ONLY WHEN ALL 12 VOTE AGAINST YOU!
911truthseekers 2 years ago
You really need some help with your definitions.
"AMERICA IS A REPUBLIC"
Correct.
"ALL LAWS SHOULD BE VOTED UPON BY THE PEOPLE"
If we did that then we would be a pure Democracy, which means that the mob rules, not the law.
You need to learn more before commenting like that.
RetSquid 2 years ago
Who are you to comment about Me not caring enough ?I would call you a name but i don't do that.
asicit2b 2 years ago
"Me not caring enough"
You don't care enough to try and communicate your message.
RetSquid 2 years ago
Id'ent it goodly nuff ta understand for ya ?
asicit2b 2 years ago
It has worked sofar.
asicit2b 2 years ago
Also the money changers have everything to do with this whole subject.And whose inscription was on the coin to indicate the ownership ?No different today.When "The $y$tem "converts worldwide ALL the "laws" will be changed.Resistance is the only option for freedom.
asicit2b 2 years ago
Guess they are right, you do have trouble remembering things.Either a sinning sinner or a non-sinning christian.Remember now?Dont care about my grammEr cantcha tell ?
asicit2b 2 years ago
"Dont care about my grammEr cantcha tell ?'
Yes, I can tell, it means that you don't care enough about what you are saying.
If you did, you would 'write' so people could understand you, it's called 'communication'.
RetSquid 2 years ago
How can anyone deFEND and uphold a corrupt and vile corporation like the "federal" re$ERVE is beyond reason.You are one or the other.
asicit2b 2 years ago
You really should improve your grammar, "one or the other" WHAT?
RetSquid 2 years ago
What TYPE of "tax" was peter told to pay ? And what happened to the money changers?Trying to manipulate the meaning again i see.
asicit2b 2 years ago
Those are two different things, the money changers were driven out because they were conducting business in the Temple.
Peter was told to pay the "custom or tribute" tax in Matt 17:26.
RetSquid 2 years ago
THE IRS IS EVIL PERIOD! All taxation is theft! All taxation is a direct violation of one of the Ten Commandments! The 8th Commandment states: You shall not steal". The EVIL IRS is in direct violation of the 8th Commandment: You shall not steal"!!!!!!
NOBULLSPIN 2 years ago
"The EVIL IRS is in direct violation of the 8th Commandment"
Then why did Jesus tell Peter to pay taxes??
RetSquid 2 years ago
Its not about sjow me the law , if you enter into a contract you better honor it. cancel your w4 or dont waste your time. and BTW its the so called FEDERAL income tax, because if your a federal employee you do have to pay , i file but i know how to file , and they clain they didnt get it because they cant debate me.
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 2 years ago
Federal employee or not, W-4 or not, contract..not
You still owe taxes on your income as per Title 26 Section 61.
RetSquid 2 years ago
Wrong again troll, i owe NOTHING if you were correct then why dont they just send us a bill and be done with it your probably a agent of the service. go to the deniers page and prove it
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 2 years ago
"send us a bill"
Because it is based on voluntary compliance, the IRS hopes that people will honestly report their income and not lie about it like you probably do.
RetSquid 2 years ago
No the IRS hopes you are ignorant and spineless and file how they want you to , i report an honest accurate account and they know it other wise there would be no question to the matter i wouldn't be here. your such a sad coward, you must be a disinfo agent for the service who else would troll irs video for years trying to get people to let the irs keep there money. you are laying stumbling blocks and that is deception , your evil and will pay for it.
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 2 years ago
LOL!!
I'm here to prove liars like yourself wrong.
You are just lucky that you haven't been caught yet, or the IRS doesn't care because you don't owe enough to make charging you wothwhile.
RetSquid 2 years ago
Also for those who say that the tax code requires a individual "income" tax.... the tax code doesn't define "income", and according to the Supreme Court case EISNER v. MACOMBER, the definition of income in the constitution is gains or profits from some activity. Therefore working for money is an even exchange of money for goods and services, no gain or profit involved.
MajorGeneralONeill 2 years ago
Wrong..
"...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 2 years ago
The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.
Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17
RetSquid 2 years ago
Sorry ' RedSquid ' , you WRONG. The title 26 you are refering to is a " Corporate " tax ... anyone making a ' profit therefore has to pay taxes ... I agree 100% . But that Law has been confused with paying a PERSONAL INCOME TAX my dear sir ... stop adding to the confussion unless you work for the iRS
Hangtime96 2 years ago
WRONG! It's personal/individual income tax also.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A Determination of Tax Liability
PART I—TAX ON INDIVIDUALS
RetSquid 2 years ago
hell yea fuck the IRS they can suck my dick but I
wont pay taxes
killumianti99 2 years ago
What confusion?
It says that it is individual income tax, and describes who is liable.
Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
Heads of households
Unmarried individuals
Married individuals filing separate returns
And it is "income' not 'profit'.
RetSquid 2 years ago
Listen to Tom Cryer's 4 segments on the income tax. Tom is the man in the video response.
almartin77 2 years ago
There are a handful of people who have avoided criminal (but not civil) penalties by convincing a jury that they were too STUPID or delusional to understand the tax laws and their violations were not willful, but no one has ever won against the IRS in a tax collection case using one of the TPs frivolous arguments.
RetSquid 2 years ago
Don't be a mexican, don't be a geithner. Just be an obedient American and pay the tax.
thablackmarkit 2 years ago
Geithner and Snipes 'LIED ON THEIR FORMS AND SIGNED IT UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER 29USC1746(2) AND NEVER RESERVED HIS RIGHTS UNDER UCC 1-308/1-207 AND SIGNED IT UNDER 29USC1746(1)" and they picked a fight with a full contact football player thinking they're playing soft ball with a baseball cap in their stadium. They lost before they even started...
bxlxix69 2 years ago
the boner law is the 16 Amendment. get used to it.
thablackmarkit 2 years ago
actually, it's not. it's required for all those who ignorantly sign a W4 agreement to donate all their pay to the public; and then have to file the "individual" artificial person 1040 Form to justify why they should get back their money from a collection agency that is NOT a government agency but a bank for the various wealthiest families in the world; then they tell you when you can draw against it at a rate of 43 cents on the dollar.
Also; the FRN is NOT a lawfull dollar; never was...
bxlxix69 2 years ago
CONGRATULATIONS!!
It's a rare post that you can look at and say,"Every single thing you said was wrong!", but you did it!
RetSquid 2 years ago
You think so?
Then what law makes Americans Citizens subject to the "income tax"?
Let me know when you can't find it; its a "code", NOT LAW...
bxlxix69 2 years ago
Title 26 the income tax code is law, dufus.
This court recognizes that the Internal Revenue Code is positive law applicable to disputes concerning whether taxes are owed by someone like the plaintiff. This court refuses to embrace the plaintiff's position that the tax laws of the United States are some kind of hoax designed by the IRS to violate the constitutional rights of United States citizens. Quite simply, the court finds plaintiff's position preposterous.
YOUNG, v. IRS
RetSquid 2 years ago
Ok einstein look up the definition in their code of "citizen of the United States"
26CFR31.3121(e)-1 includes only puerto rico, virgin islands, and after 1-1-1964 Guam and America Samoa,
then go to 26 USC 7701 Definition of "state" and United States" includes only the Distric of Columbia...
and while your at it, Look up Hale v. Henkel...
slavery was wiped out so unless you volunteer [W4], you're not liable... unless you got a license to work then you're involved in a trade or business...
bxlxix69 2 years ago
Can you read English?
"Includes" means 'includes', not 'only'.
But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right.
Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis
RetSquid 2 years ago
If you know statutory law "includes" means limited to. When a word is given a special meaning it abandons all other meanings. "What is not specifically mentioned is ment to be delibrately left out" translated lating maxim.
Once a word is redefined in stautory construction, it will only mean what is specifically mentioned, period
Where does the Code specifically reach outside of D.C. 26USC7701 or the special term "State" and "United States" mean anything other than D.C.
Doesn't exist...
bxlxix69 2 years ago
"If you know statutory law "includes" means limited to"
LOL!! How can D.C be defined as 'only' a state and exclude all the real States?
How about YOU show ME any proof that Title 26 doesn't mean exactly what it says it means?
RetSquid 2 years ago
Ok, I could do this in one shot. 42USC14701(7) includes the states of the Union and 26USC7701(10) does not.
Ready here we go, it gets bumpy here:
IRC Sec 3140. The word "State" when used in this Title, shall be construed to include the Territories and the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry "its" provisions.
Persons in International Law Sec 201(g) States of the United States. A State of the United States is NOT a state under international law.
bxlxix69 2 years ago
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > § 7701. Definitions
(a)
(9) United States
The term United States when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
I have no idea how ANYONE can read that and come up with your definition. How can you have a 'UNITED STATES' with no states and only a district???
RetSquid 2 years ago
Prove it and quote positave law in the Federal Register....
bxlxix69 2 years ago
122 STAT. 3765
Public Law 110-343
110th Congress
RetSquid 2 years ago
It's already been proven that the 16th AMD confered NO new taxing power, period.
If you think there is a law in those 27k pages of codes, what is it?
bxlxix69 2 years ago
So why is everyone still paying taxes. I bet you payed em too. Geithner and Snipes got busted.
thablackmarkit 2 years ago
because anybody who voluentered to donate there pay signed a W4; or they went and got a permission [license] and lied and said they live and/or work in the Distric of Columbia [statutory "citizen of the U.S.] not American Citizens; they made themselves liable, then when you lied on their "Individual = citizen of theU.S.] 1040 Form which is only for public servants in the Federal U.S. [D.C.] and claimed they are either in Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands [look at your IMF from the IRS]
bxlxix69 2 years ago
so you mean to tell me, you successfully got the IRS off your back and you no longer pay the federal income tax?
thablackmarkit 2 years ago
American Citizens are NOT liable in the first place. Any State permission [license] makes you liable because you just engaged in a "Trade or Business" within the "United States" [Distric of Columbia] or You signed the "Voluntary Withholding Form W-4" and donated all your pay, by converting it into "income/wages" for waorking in a "public office"....
bxlxix69 2 years ago
Why would Congress pass an income tax law that didn't apply to the people with income??
The rest of your statement is just stupid.
RetSquid 2 years ago
To get that answerlook up the definition of income and wages. You will find that it only referes to estate and trusts only.
Additionally, it is a tax created for those who wanted the benefits and privilages of working for the Government and to do that, they have obscured and hidden the intent to raise revenue by applying their private laws to "taxpayers" on "nontaxpayers" which are not with their scope. By use of the misapplied Form1040, W2, & W4 [Voluntary Withholding Agreement] etcetera.
bxlxix69 2 years ago
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61. Gross income defined
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items...
RetSquid 2 years ago
Furthermore, Olsons attempt to escape tax by deducting his wages as cost of labor and by claiming that he had obtained no privilege from a governmental agency illustrate the frivolous nature of his position. This court has repeatedly rejected the argument that wages are not income as frivolous, [citations omitted] and has also rejected the idea that a person is liable for tax only if he benefits from a governmental privilege.
Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985)
RetSquid 2 years ago
That was just plain idiotic. He filed the wrong papers than made a ridiculous claim. Cancel the W4, fire the withholding agent. If you work for some regular company, you are trading your labor for equal comensation, why would anybody volunter into such a pyrimad sceme like social security or other rediculous fake benefits. The government has nothing to offer other than what they stole from john to give to peter. Of course his claim was frivolous, i bet he sign the W4 & never cancelled it.
bxlxix69 2 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 2 years ago
When did your personal labor become a commodity that made us into slave workers for the State?
Or that our personal labor is anything but our private/personal property?
Another attempt of creating a slave by the Judges again? I think so.
bxlxix69 2 years ago
"Or that our personal labor is anything but our private/personal property?"
It is your property, and when you get paid for trading it you are taxed on that income.
RetSquid 2 years ago
I wonder if you might state the law requiring to pay income taxes. While the 16th Ammendment states that congress may collect, it doesn't compel aonyone to pay. They may collect only as much as is willingly given, as far as I can tell. So, since the 16th Amendment doesn't, what law requires anyone to pay a direct unapportioned tax?
I'd like to know what the law states. Yes, I have, ignorant oaf that I am, have tried to look up the law, but haven't found it as yet.
Help an oaf, please.
bobbygnosis 2 years ago
Here is the law: Title 26
Section 1, imposes the tax
Section 61 defines Gross income
Section 63 defines Taxable income.
Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and
Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return.
The Amendment authorizes an income tax and The United States Revenue Act of 1913 (and the laws that followed) compels payment.
RetSquid 2 years ago
My understanding is that Tax Code is in reference to enforcement of the law and not the law itself. If my understanding isn't correct, where is it stated that Tax Code is, in fact, law?
The amendment, within the text of the amendment, does not state that anyone must pay an income tax. It merely suggests that congress can collect a tax from someone.
So, no, I don't think you've convinced me.
Good try, though.
Cheers.
bobbygnosis 2 years ago
If you look in Title 26 you can go back to the actual law each part came from. There are too many to post here.
RetSquid 2 years ago
So, you're telling me that either the law is so big that you can't post all of it here.or (by inference on my part) that you don't know which one it is. I'll assume that iyou really do know where it is and are keeping it from me.
If it's too big then just point me to the specific section that states that payment is compulsory and that all citizens have no choice but to pay a direct unapportioned income tax - noting that 16th doesn't apply because the language doesn't support your claim.
bobbygnosis 2 years ago