This makes no fucking sense, Its either you are forced or not, to pay tax.
These are just organized criminal that pay goons {POLICE} to come & throw you in jail under threat. This just like the abolishing of gold & silver in the early 1900's under the threat of ten years imprisonment. I say bring it on. IF WE ALL SAY STOP PAYING, OR EVEN 50% OF US STOP PAYING! THE SYSTEM WILL COLLAPSE FASTER.
Congress was is legit, but Federal Government is a Scam on Humanity that the Illuminati started on Humanity to kill us all. The Devil really really hates Humans from day one.
Yea, when you don't pay your taxes, the govt swat team shows up to imprison or murder you if you protest ...I would like a full audit of all in office to see how their wealth has increased since they have come into office!
The real Law he is saying, you pay your tax's when your Boss take off your check your tax's. When your in the store's, you pay your tax's, its all automatic, but if the Federal Government trying to make you pay any tax's on top of this, then its fake, then there is no law on are books that make us comply with that. Illegal
When will the people of Nevada realize that Harry is scamming them so he can stay on the Washington gravy train. The SEIU helped secure his position by rigging the voting machines.
--->> Ron Paul 2012 -- MONEY BOMB --- TODAY!! <<---- ronpaul2012 . com
Donate toward preserving the liberties which our government has grossly perverted since the founding of our nation. Help restore our rights and freedoms.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke
Exactly, so whatever the page title or description says means nothing and the revenue enforcement officers can collect on any taxes in Title 26, not just liquor, tobacco, and firearms.
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930) Heads NO case by itself...is used unpublished as reference, I could find NO let me repeat NO court ruling by this title by itself.
1 of 4 An intelligence officer of the internal revenue service carries a pocket commission with a series of numbers and a letter “E” for enforcement. For administrative it would be a series of numbers and the letter “A” for administrative.
7608 (b) found in Internal Revenue Code Book--Heading at top of page “Miscellaneous provisions” and is
frivolous lawsuits: A Service employee lacks the authority to carry out the employee’s duties because the employee does not possess certain type of identification or credential, for example, a pocket commission or a badge, or it is not in the correct form or on the right medium.
I just posted it here a hour ago. Take out the spaces and put the "." where it needs to go and you will find it. OR your could just Google it yourself, that's where I found it!
2 of 4 part of the enforcement category of 7808 (a) that I posted previous.
(1) Any criminal investigator of the Intelligence Division of the Internal Revenue Service whom the Secretary charges with the duty of enforcing any of the criminal provisions of the internal revenue laws, any other criminal provision of law relating to internal revenue for the enforcement of which the Secretary is responsible, or any other lw for which the Secretary has delegated investigatory authority to the Internal
(B)to make arrest without warrant for any offense against the UNITED States relating to the internal revenue laws committed in his presence, or for any felony cognizable under such laws if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing any such felony; and
( c) to make seizures of p property subject to forfeiture under the internal revenue laws
Lukas v Earl is not a Supreme court ruling or it would have Us v. Earl or Lukas, again I repeat, this is unpublished I have looked for everything you have posted! I take no ones word for anything but research it myself! As I have the tools to do so!
@RetSquid Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930) Unpublished! This court ruling heads nothing in justia, however is mentioned in other court rulings but by itself it is not. It is unpublished and has been used for reference only!
WOW, this ruling is used as precedence by the Supreme Court itself!! If other courts use it then it has to be published...besides the fact that it obviously was, as it was a Suprmeme Court case! Has there ever been a SCOTUS case that was unpublished? EVER?
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114 (1930) is an unpublished court ruling and holds no basis in law. And Section 6331 straight from the Internal revenue code deals with Levy and Distraint and (a) Authority of Secretarty. (b) Seizure and sale of property. (c) Successive seizures. And the heading at the top of the page this code is found is "Collection." So your posting of 6331 has been corrected and 7608 (a) is EXACTLY what I said it is because it is word for word straight from the IRC code book
You didn't even try to look up any of these case I posted, did you? Lukas v Earl can be found with a simple Google search..it brings up pages of places to find this 'unpublished' Supreme Court ruling. Who has EVER even HEARD of a Supreme court ruling that was 'unpublished'??? That would negate the entire purpose of the Supreme Court's existence!!
No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect.
Ok lets do, but to correct you, a tax enforcer is different from a protestor. So which part of the defacto, bankrupt, incorporated government do you work for??
@RetSquid I have clearly never called you a liar out of respect but merely corrected you. I am NOT wrong! But it is YOU that is still getting the facts wrong...it is YOU who have posted un-truths not I...I clearly understand how it all fits together, and I have proved it with all I have written. And yes, your language is that of the defacto, incorporated, bankrupt UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT!
Nice try, but you might want to point out ANY lie I have posted.
Also those are they only two choices available, you are A) wrong or B) a liar.
You claims don't match with the objective reality and the law itself, not to mention caselaw...you know, the ones you couldn't find and I had to link them for your? Did you ever get around to reading those 'unpublished' cases? Or even looking at all the other case that used those as a reference and precedent?
1 OF 4 So lets talk about something else shall we?? What about the enforcement powers of the Internal Revenue Service??? Has any one seen the all out raids and the confiscation of a person’s property to settle an alleged tax debt? It gets almost world wide free media. Where you see ATF carrying a persons belongings away, and the news correspondence hammering away at how awful the situation is and ranting about paying a fair share of
2 OF 4 taxes, and not really siteing any law that requires a person to do so. I mean come on…I have…so I questioned where does the IRS authority came from to do this? AND FOUND IT. It is found in IRC 7608(a)Enforcement of E and other laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco, and firearms (QUOTE). Now doesn’t this beat all? My question is… does the average citizen deal in liquor, tobacco, and firearms?? Not the ones I have seen. Doesn’t any one
@RetSquid Code section 6331 Levy and distraint. (a) Authority of Secretary heading at the top of the page "Collection". Says, "if any person liable to pay any tax--has to do with collection, not enforcement. 7608 "Authority of internal revenue enforcement officers (a) Enforcement of subtitle "E" and other laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco, and firearms. (b) Enforcement of laws relating to internal revenue other than subtitle "E" for criminal investigator of Intelligence division.
Are you saying that "collecting" the tax is different from "enforcing" the tax?
Section 7806 "(b) Arrangement and classification- No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title..."
3 OF 4 question things like this any more? Doesn’t it seem like a private person’s stuff is not in the jurisdiction of the said code? I mean if the ATF is the enforcement hand of the IRS, and the enforcement powers specifically state under (a) the enforcement of subtitle E and other laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco, and firearms were in the world does a person’s personal property qualify as any of the requirements in 7608(a)???? Is any one following
4 OF 4 me? Shouldn’t everyone be asking this question? We have a lot of citizens out there, employed in the service of the IRS who should be asking a lot of questions. But it is my understanding that they are only taught enforcement. Most if not all whether they are an administrative agent or an enforcement agent, or just plain administrative, none have ever opened an INTERNAL REVENUE CODE BOOK!
I don't have stock, do you have stock? And speaking for most people I know personally, they don't have stock. What does having or not having stock have to do with the law? You sited a court ruling where indeed that person charged had a duty to report the gain and profit on stock, and under reported it. The cases that are unpublished hold NO legal standing in court. You take those unpublished cases to court and see where it gets you!
1 of 3 Helvering- This court ruling is talking specifically about a loss of gross income from purported sale of shares of National city bank stock. This person has gain or profit that had to be reported.! So to clarify and correct your statement this court ruling is about gain, or profit on stocks. The average citizen does not have gain, or profit, because they cannot afford stock
2 of 3 HELVERING V. MITCHELL, 303 U. S. 391 (1938)
Page 303 U. S. 399
In assessing income taxes, the Government relies primarily upon the disclosure by the taxpayer of the relevant facts. This disclosure it requires him to make in his annual return.
3 of 3 Helvering- 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. As stated in Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan,214 U.S. 320, 214 U.S. 339.
1 of 6 Retsquid--a corporation can still make income-or gain from a persons labor..however that persons labor accumulates as a separate specialized type of property and a person is paid a wage not gain-nor income for that labor. You are talking about two different things here.
@MsLawman7 Notice here they do NOT call the wage income, but a specialized type of property. Property that cannot be taxed as income unless you voluntarily sign a W-4 implying income.
Sorry, but that case is about bankruptcy law, that income was already taxed. They are talking about a tax REFUND being property that is under the control of the bankruptcy trustee.
No, they are taling about an income tax return. Your income is taxable if you file a W-4 or not. That only determines how much is withheld by your employer.
In Lines, we described wages as "a specialized type of property presenting distinct problems in our economic system,'" [footnote 6] since they provide the basic means for the "economic survival of the debtor." 400 U.S. at 400 U.S. 20.
"property" of which petitioner has been deprived is the use of the garnished portion of her wages during the interim period between the garnishment and the culmination of the main suit.
The Court shows it believes the garnishment policy to be a "most inhuman doctrine'"; that it " compels the wage earner, trying to keep his family together, to be driven below the poverty level'";
Page 395 U. S. 345
“The property'' of which petitioner has been deprived is the use of the garnished portion of her wages during the interim period between the garnishment and the culmination of the main suit.”
@RetSquid Your interpretation of voluntary compliance is that of the defacto government and IRS publications. Voluntary compliance is constitutionally exactly what I posted. And I also took the liberty to post your court ruling accurately
FLORA V. UNITED STATES, 362 U. S. 145 (1960)
Page 362 U. S. 176
Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.(definition distrait---to seize)
@RetSquid Again in Flora the court mentions a caution if forced to use distraint!
FLORA V. UNITED STATES, 362 U. S. 145 (1960)
Footnote 43
If the Government is forced to use these remedies [distraint] on a large scale, it will affect adversely taxpayers' willingness to perform under our voluntary assessment system."
INCOME NOT DEFINED IN IRS, BUT IS THROUGH THE SUPREME COURT, AS CORPORATE PROFIT.
3402(n)
(1) incurred no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle a for his preceding taxable year, and (you cannot incure a tax liability if you do not volunteer)
(2) anticipates that he will incur no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for his current taxable year.
Exempt from taxation under section 501(a)
See c(5)
c(5) - Labor, agricultural or horticultural associations
956 F.2d 73: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Emmett Donald Doyle, Defendant-appellant
FOOTNOTE 2
A W-4 form is an Internal Revenue Service form prepared by the taxpayer and submitted to the employer. From the information provided by the taxpayer, the employer determines how much of the taxpayer's income should be withheld for taxes.
lets see Title 26 of 50 titles under USCA says title 26 is not positive law ***
"income" word defind by case law stonelybrook rail corp vs boston and maine RR @ 260 , 377 says income is profit and gain
the w-4 title withholding agreement under subtitle C not subtitle A income tax but a withholding ,under agreement by the employee and the employer any which can cancel not at all agree , no tax until access is due no statue in law to file income tax
Everything in Title 26 IS positive law, the title itself does not need to be. Income is defined in Title 26 Section 61 and Common Law/case law as 'compensation' which is wages/salary. Title 26, Section 6012 says who has to file, Section 6151 says when to file.
@RetSquid YOu want 6012 is where subtitle C or A ??? section 6151 is where subtitle C or A by the way its my believe and acts that paying tax for income of earn by labor is nothing more then being a slave labor earning are an exchange fuck the code willing to died for what i do how about YOU tell the IRS go fuck themselves for me OK
LOL!! You can see where the section is, but it does not matter, it is stil the law. If you just don't like the law, say so, you don't have to lie about it. Your 'believe' has no effect on the law. How about you learn some punctuation so people can understand what you are trying to communicate?
Give away a trillion of OPM and you could too get a billion back in donations...
Energy company received hundreds millions in taxpayer funds. Peter L. Corsell, founder of GridPoint Inc., contributed $50,000 to the inauguration.
Yesterday, KleinOnline broke the story that an Obama adviser who played a key role in developing the energy provisions of the so-called stimulus bill serves on the boards of Gridpoint as well as several other companies that recently received government funds...
If you don't pay taxes they will take it out of your bank account, they will take it out of your check. THEY WILL GO TO JAIL IF YOU DO NOT PAY TAXES .
Guy wont even bring to the floor a vote on the latest bill today...and the Republicans are obstructionist...LOLOLOLOLOLOL......Harry Reid wake up....
I've been studying politics for a while, and I've always viewed that being in the government is NOT a career. If any politician thinks that they have a CAREER in government, they should leave immediately. Being a politician is a SERVICE to the American people, and when you are SERVING, you will do nothing to compromise who you are serving, this means
to have a willingness to compromise and to always tell the truth.
I am sickened by self serving politicians our Founders never envisioned this
At :57 seconds he says "our system of taxation is voluntary" and at 1:02 he says "oh of course you have to pay your taxes". Another politician that's as bright as his own b-hole, just saying whatever words he thinks will move him out of an issue without answering it.
He should not refer to U.S. citizens as "Tax Payers" since federal tax code says those people MUST pay taxes. Object vigorously to ever being labelled a Tax Payer, because if you do, then you must pay taxes. If you read the tax code and substitute Tax Payer with, say, Rodeo Clown for instance... How much of it applies to you? I.e., don't be called a Tax Payer. Refuse to the Tax Payer label - at ALL TIMES. Join the movement to Audit and End the Fed.
You don't have to be very smart to be a politician, just a good bullshitter. There are 2 ways to make an income, 1) earn it, 2) steal it. Politicians fit in #2. You have to have real smarts to earn it in a free market.
no wonder US has problems when you dont wont to pay tax. you want everything but you dont wont to pay for it. here in norway we pay 25 to 50% in incometax depending how much you earn. our vat is 25% on everything and i think thats okey. the only thing i think we pay to much for is tax on cars, for example a new mustang is abaut 200.000$
@TheTraveller83 What some European citizens don't realize is, until 1913, the U.S. did not pay income tax. We where the wealthiest nation on Earth, could pay for health care, save and retire! The government didn't run our lives. Once the Banks got a European style central bank installed, all that changed. Now the world is on the verge of financial collapse because of this type of system. Honestly though, this video was just showing how stupid it is to call our income "voluntary", that's all.
@RetSquid True, but your resources are nationalized. The taxes you pay are setup to redistribute the resulting wealth. I'm sure if you truly audited the money trail, you'd find a rather large proportion going to Banks and not to social programs. It's socially acceptable in Norway to use terms like "redistribute wealth" but not in the U.S. Because of our past, we know there's a better way. It's the reason the U.S. Dollar is the reserve currency of the world.
@RetSquid There's just too much ground to cover in this text format to share why life for everyone would be better if we weren't all working to pay bankers interest payments on the debt they create out of thin air. The actual financial collapse of the world is happening faster than this dialogue. But I'm glad people from around the world add their thoughts too. It's pretty cool to hear other perspectives.
@RetSquid Actually you're wrong and yes, it does. It's a critical legal distinction ( or a "term of art") being a citizen or a tax payer. Nowhere in the tax code will you find "citizen", just "tax payer". Since the constitution does not allow labor to be taxed, the IRS tax code could not be written to be levied against citizens - hence the term of art Tax Payer is used exclusively. Things like making alcohol, selling products, winning money legally make you a tax payer, not income from labor.
No, the term 'taxpayer' does not make you one. Income taxes are levied on an 'indivudual'. It does not matter if you are a Citizen or not, all residents have to pay and Citizens have to pay on income from anywhere. Also your income from labor (i.e. compensation') is the very first thing listed when defining income. There is nothing in the Constitution to support your claims.
@RetSquid Support your claims: cite the Tax Code using the term "individual" to describe a person (not a filing status) and I'll consider your claim. In the legal realm, words take on certain meanings called "terms of art" and in this case, tax code the term Tax Payer is just that. Your are wrong, the Constitution has volumes to say about property rights. Your labor *is* your private property. When it's sold, it is not legally considered "income" but rather "compensation" which is not taxable.
Sorry, Title 26 Section 63 specifically defines income as "compensation for services".
Why don't you cite the Code where it says an 'individual' is NOT a person? Because in ALL the Titles of the United States Code "the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens", unless you want to argue that only children, not adults, are individuals or persons....
@RetSquid I'm sorry, we're way off track and I think it's my fault, poor grammar I guess. I'm not saying individuals aren't people. I mean that the *only* people responsible for paying taxes are Tax Payers. There are lots of things we do that make us Tax Payers... make and sell alcohol, win Lotto, liquid a 401k etc. etc. And I know compensation for services is "income" but that doesn't make it taxable and the IRS Tax Code agrees. Labor is your private property and is invaluable, i.e., no profit.
No, the only people responsible for paying income tax is/are EVERY individual who has income over the deduction amount. The IRS code says that compensation for services IS taxable income, it is the very first thing listed under the definition of 'taxable income'.
"Labor is... invaluable" until you sell it and get compensated for it, then it has a value.
@RetSquid You're right, it says. that. "Gross Income" is "Compensation for Services", next section says "Taxable Income" means Gross Income minus deductions. You got me. Let me research it and get back to you.
@RetSquid I haven't researched it too much but I strongly believe the IRS must go. I don't mind paying taxes on my purchases or profits but my labor is my private property and at best, is traded for money. It is still possible the tax code runs afoul with other areas of the constitution. E.g., a Form 1040 could be considered a violation of your 5th amendment rights - since you *must* submit it and it could be used as incriminating evidence against you. A bit paradoxical if you ask me.
@RetSquid That's a lower court decision. The IRS uses all sorts of court cases and it is fair to reference them, I suppose, but it doesn't become "law" unless the SCOTUS renders an opinion. In this case, they Denied Certiorari so the SCOTUS refused to hear arguments. I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying this court 's decision does not make the matter conclusive or the law. Though arguably remote, a different legal strategy could find its way to the SCOTUS and find the 1040 a violation.
If SCOTUS refused to hear it, whatever the lower court says IS the law and conclusive, but SCOTUS also said the same thing in Sullivan v. United States, 274 U.S. 259, 263-264 (1927).
@RetSquid Well, technically it is the LAW for that person in that state for that year. Remember the SCOTUS refused to hear all sorts of 2nd Amendment cases for years. Then Heller vs. DC hits the court, followed shortly thereafter by McDonald vs. Chicago and gun laws fall across the nation. This point is quite outside the discussion but the IRS loves to parade lower court cases in front of the public to discourage the redress of grievances but certain legal arguments could see the SCOTUS.
[Sullivan v. United States, 274 U.S. 259, 263-264 (1927)] is a SCOTUS case that says the same thing as the lower court, which is why they refused to hear it. Until they overturn it (highly unlikely) that is the law and every State has to abide by it.
@RetSquid The State has Powers and the People have Rights. I don't consider it so much a law for states to abide by as much as a Power extended to the Federal Government.The SCOTUS decided to that the Power to perpetrate exortion against the People was more important than the Rights of the people ...All in the name of profitting the share holders of the Federal Reserve Bank. I.e., we are owned...slaves to an Unconstitutional monetary system of debt and the IRS are thugs running the racketeering.
Stop whining and get over it. This has nothing to do with the FED, the States authorized the Federal government to do what it does, don't like it? Talk to the Founders.
@RetSquid Stop trying the stifle dissent. The Fed is lucky Americans are only whining at this point. And it has everything in the world to do with the Fed. What good would it be to have the Fed charge interest if they didn't have the IRS to take all the blame for sticking guns in our faces to rob us to pay for it? People are waking up to the scam and Ron Paul is just the beginning.
So your whining about income tax is actually dissent about the Fed? The IRS and the Fed have nothing to do with each other, BOTH of them PAY/recieve money TO/for the Federal Government.
@RetSquid That's a naive assessment to say the least. What would the Fed do without the IRS?...hold a Jerry Lewis telethon every year to have people donate interest payments? They were both implemented at the same time because the Fed needed muscle to collect the money. But unlike tax code, this is a subjective topic. It only matters if The People *think* they're related. One can cite whatever law you want, the circumstantial evidence suggests what it suggests and people are waking up to it.
@RetSquid Sure, the Fed pays the Treasury 90% of their profits on interest from borrowed money. So in the most tortured and distorted interpretation of a few select line items, you'll see the Fed paying the Treasury Dept. This is why Ron Paul asked the Treasury to forgo their portion in the last Debt Ceiling debates... as it would have solved the problem. Unfortunately, we're on the hook for the principal of the loans plus interest, for money loaned from nothing. Meaning the Fed is a parasite.
@RetSquid The bonds I own say "Public Debt Series" right on them. When the Fed does this, it adds to the currency supply. Sadly, the Fed uses money it issued (exercising the power to issue currency delegated to it from Congress in the Fed Act in1913). If you or I did that, we'd be arrested for counterfeiting. The government must now use the IRS to tax us to pay the interest on those bonds. Now we can't afford to maintain payments on the interest, much less the principal. Bye bye middle class.
@RetSquid I apologize. Let me clarify. Those words were not meant to connote complexity or perplexity. The scam is rather simple, even to someone like me. Any implied or express notion of profit resulting from a government's interaction with a central bank (like the Federal Reserve Bank) is to push the concept of *questionable accounting practices* beyond its most ludicrous extreme. The Fed is indisputably a parasite on The People and the IRS is the threat of violence persisting it.
All the people I listed have to pay income tax on ANY income from ANY source, unless specifically exempted by the law. The lable of 'taxpayer' has nothing to do with being liable for an tax, the label comes after the liability.
FOR EVERY DOLLAR SOUTHERN STATES PAY, THEY GET BACK 1.50 OR MORE. ... .. .. . ... .. In general Red States receive more from the Federal government and Blue States less. The winners 1. New Mexico(D)---$2.03 2. Mississippi(R)---2.02 3. Alaska(R)--------1.84 4. Louisiana(R)-----1.78 5. West Virgina(R)--1.76 6. North Dakota(R)--1.68 7. Alabama(R)-------1.66 8. South Dakota(R)--1.53 9. Kentucky(R)------1.51 10.Virgina(D)-------1.51 .. .. ..9/1O TOP WELFARE STATES : REPUBLICAN
forcing people to pay taxes to support welfare .. really ... all money ;from the government is welfare of some sort or another .. firemen are on welfare cause they get a government check ... judges are on welfare cause they get a government check ... blah blah blah .. now this idiot .. senator .. can lie and smile about it ... what a con artist ... they don't get any more evil then that .. he is playing around with semantics and demagoguery .. playing the political flute of bullshit.
If you go back and read the posts, real careful and take your time, you should be able to see it. If you can't make it out, then call your mother or the rest of your support group.
@RetSquid Who gives a shit about your name and quit trying to evade the QUESTION. Your wrong my friend, you just don't understand commerce law under presumptive admiralty jurisdiction. If you did understand this you wouldn't have to look like such a worm. Quit squirming...
If you don't hit 'reply' then I don't get notified about your most recent lie/delusion. So your 'waiting' is BS.
Income tax law is not commerce and is not covered by the UCC or Maritime law.
Title 26 Section 1 imposes the income tax on 'every individual', not on a 'person'. So ANY argument based on defining a "person" is moot. And wages (compensation for services) are taxable income, as defined in Section 61 (I believe).
@RetSquid Here is your lie---> INDIVIDUAL - 'As a noun, denotes a single PERSON as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said in this restricted signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, that it may, in proper cases, include ARTIFICIAL PERSONS. See also PERSON' ~ Right out of Blacks's 6th edition sitting right in front of me.
"that it may, in proper cases, include ARTIFICIAL PERSONS." Which obviously means that it must include natural persons. Again, your 'person' argument never wins in court.
This makes no fucking sense, Its either you are forced or not, to pay tax.
These are just organized criminal that pay goons {POLICE} to come & throw you in jail under threat. This just like the abolishing of gold & silver in the early 1900's under the threat of ten years imprisonment. I say bring it on. IF WE ALL SAY STOP PAYING, OR EVEN 50% OF US STOP PAYING! THE SYSTEM WILL COLLAPSE FASTER.
BadassCeino 16 minutes ago
I agree with Harry Reid! Robbing a bank is voluntary, I only go to jail if I do. What's the big deal?
KeithSudano 20 hours ago
Congress was is legit, but Federal Government is a Scam on Humanity that the Illuminati started on Humanity to kill us all. The Devil really really hates Humans from day one.
lindasayshello1 2 days ago
Yea, when you don't pay your taxes, the govt swat team shows up to imprison or murder you if you protest ...I would like a full audit of all in office to see how their wealth has increased since they have come into office!
ben5017 2 days ago
Federal Reserve Banks are the Federal Reserve Government. And this is running the Country and the World with there ONE WORLD ORDER HITLER'S SYSTEM.
lindasayshello1 2 days ago
The real Law he is saying, you pay your tax's when your Boss take off your check your tax's. When your in the store's, you pay your tax's, its all automatic, but if the Federal Government trying to make you pay any tax's on top of this, then its fake, then there is no law on are books that make us comply with that. Illegal
lindasayshello1 2 days ago
@lindasayshello1
Title 26, Section 1 imposes the Federal Income Tax.
RetSquid 1 day ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
Amendment 16 says otherwise.
FixCongress 2 days ago
@FixCongress There passing illegal laws every day on us, against the People and against Humanity. What date is on that amendment.
lindasayshello1 2 days ago
Harry Reid is a SOCIOPATH.
brianmo180 4 days ago
Oh it's voluntary... gee why didn't someone tell me, look's like I'm that much richer this year... Harry Reid you scumbag.
MrBrational 5 days ago
When will the people of Nevada realize that Harry is scamming them so he can stay on the Washington gravy train. The SEIU helped secure his position by rigging the voting machines.
DONGOE 5 days ago
Oh.. I get it...... We're forced to volunteer right ? Lol
nuffsaid66 1 week ago 2
Comment removed
TheEdTeach 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheEdTeach 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
--->> Ron Paul 2012 -- MONEY BOMB --- TODAY!! <<---- ronpaul2012 . com
Donate toward preserving the liberties which our government has grossly perverted since the founding of our nation. Help restore our rights and freedoms.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke
ronpaul2012hope 2 weeks ago
7806 is talking about construction of titles under miscellaneous provisions of the IRC. And 6331 and 7608 are clear in their wording.
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Exactly, so whatever the page title or description says means nothing and the revenue enforcement officers can collect on any taxes in Title 26, not just liquor, tobacco, and firearms.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
i dont exactly know what tax is, what is it ? i live in england, dont know if every country is the same
Gencturk92 1 week ago
@Gencturk92
What do you want to know? What taxes are?
RetSquid 1 week ago
@RetSquid yeah
Gencturk92 1 week ago
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930) Heads NO case by itself...is used unpublished as reference, I could find NO let me repeat NO court ruling by this title by itself.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Now this is just getting stupider by the minute. Here is ANOTHER direct link to the case:
h t t p : / / caselaw DOT lp DOT findlaw DOT c o m /cgi-bin/getcase DOT pl?court=us&vol=281&invol=111
RetSquid 3 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@MsLawman7
I just pm'ed you the entire case.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
1 of 4 An intelligence officer of the internal revenue service carries a pocket commission with a series of numbers and a letter “E” for enforcement. For administrative it would be a series of numbers and the letter “A” for administrative.
7608 (b) found in Internal Revenue Code Book--Heading at top of page “Miscellaneous provisions” and is
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
frivolous lawsuits: A Service employee lacks the authority to carry out the employee’s duties because the employee does not possess certain type of identification or credential, for example, a pocket commission or a badge, or it is not in the correct form or on the right medium.
An extra $5000.00 fine.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid But you did not tell me where this is found! Please verify
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
I just posted it here a hour ago. Take out the spaces and put the "." where it needs to go and you will find it. OR your could just Google it yourself, that's where I found it!
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
2 of 4 part of the enforcement category of 7808 (a) that I posted previous.
(1) Any criminal investigator of the Intelligence Division of the Internal Revenue Service whom the Secretary charges with the duty of enforcing any of the criminal provisions of the internal revenue laws, any other criminal provision of law relating to internal revenue for the enforcement of which the Secretary is responsible, or any other lw for which the Secretary has delegated investigatory authority to the Internal
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
3 of 4 Revenue Service, in the performance of his duties, authorized to perform the functions described in paragraph (2)
(2)The functions authorized under this subsection to be performed by an officer referred to in paragraph (1) are-
(A) to execute and serve search warrants and arrest warrants, and serve subpoenas and summonses issued
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
4 of 4 under authority of the United States;
(B)to make arrest without warrant for any offense against the UNITED States relating to the internal revenue laws committed in his presence, or for any felony cognizable under such laws if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing any such felony; and
( c) to make seizures of p property subject to forfeiture under the internal revenue laws
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
Lukas v Earl is not a Supreme court ruling or it would have Us v. Earl or Lukas, again I repeat, this is unpublished I have looked for everything you have posted! I take no ones word for anything but research it myself! As I have the tools to do so!
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
U.S. Supreme Court Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)
Lucas v. Earl
No. 99
Argued March 3, 1930
Decided March 17, 1930
281 U.S. 111
Justia > US Supreme Court Center > US Supreme Court Cases & Opinions > Volume 281 > LUCAS V. EARL, 281 U. S. 111 (1930)
Try again Ms 'paralegal'.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930) Unpublished! This court ruling heads nothing in justia, however is mentioned in other court rulings but by itself it is not. It is unpublished and has been used for reference only!
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
WOW, this ruling is used as precedence by the Supreme Court itself!! If other courts use it then it has to be published...besides the fact that it obviously was, as it was a Suprmeme Court case! Has there ever been a SCOTUS case that was unpublished? EVER?
RetSquid 3 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
I am a paralegal, I have access to court rulings! And the court rulings you have posted are unpublished!
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
"I am a paralegal,"
Really? You should be fired on the spot for not looking up the cases and not knowing they ARE from the Supreme Court.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@MsLawman7
I already gave you exact citations and web links to those cases, you are now posting outright lies or you can't do a basic web search.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
what a fucking idiot
AlectheGoodNeighbor 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114 (1930) is an unpublished court ruling and holds no basis in law. And Section 6331 straight from the Internal revenue code deals with Levy and Distraint and (a) Authority of Secretarty. (b) Seizure and sale of property. (c) Successive seizures. And the heading at the top of the page this code is found is "Collection." So your posting of 6331 has been corrected and 7608 (a) is EXACTLY what I said it is because it is word for word straight from the IRC code book
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
You didn't even try to look up any of these case I posted, did you? Lukas v Earl can be found with a simple Google search..it brings up pages of places to find this 'unpublished' Supreme Court ruling. Who has EVER even HEARD of a Supreme court ruling that was 'unpublished'??? That would negate the entire purpose of the Supreme Court's existence!!
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Section 7806 (b) Arrangement and classification
No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
You might want to read Section 7608 (b)...
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
Ok lets do, but to correct you, a tax enforcer is different from a protestor. So which part of the defacto, bankrupt, incorporated government do you work for??
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Just because I prove you wrong and/or a liar, I'm part of the Governemnt?
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid I have clearly never called you a liar out of respect but merely corrected you. I am NOT wrong! But it is YOU that is still getting the facts wrong...it is YOU who have posted un-truths not I...I clearly understand how it all fits together, and I have proved it with all I have written. And yes, your language is that of the defacto, incorporated, bankrupt UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT!
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Nice try, but you might want to point out ANY lie I have posted.
Also those are they only two choices available, you are A) wrong or B) a liar.
You claims don't match with the objective reality and the law itself, not to mention caselaw...you know, the ones you couldn't find and I had to link them for your? Did you ever get around to reading those 'unpublished' cases? Or even looking at all the other case that used those as a reference and precedent?
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
1 OF 4 So lets talk about something else shall we?? What about the enforcement powers of the Internal Revenue Service??? Has any one seen the all out raids and the confiscation of a person’s property to settle an alleged tax debt? It gets almost world wide free media. Where you see ATF carrying a persons belongings away, and the news correspondence hammering away at how awful the situation is and ranting about paying a fair share of
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
"So lets talk about something else shall we??"
Sure we can do that :)
Arguing with tax protesters is like playing “whack-a-mole.” As soon as you have slammed down one crazy argument, another one pops its head up.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid so what are you saying? i've actually read the voluntary compliance section
it clearly says you can CHOOSE to submit and have your income shaved
remember, no contract is valid under THREAT, DURESS, OR COERCION.
So we have established that the IRS is using FORCE to ENFORCE their code 'law'.
And you stand firmly behind that huh? You sound like a complete dumbass.
darthcom1 3 weeks ago
@darthcom1
LOL!!! Point out that 'voluntary' section, I want to read it too....
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
2 OF 4 taxes, and not really siteing any law that requires a person to do so. I mean come on…I have…so I questioned where does the IRS authority came from to do this? AND FOUND IT. It is found in IRC 7608(a)Enforcement of E and other laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco, and firearms (QUOTE). Now doesn’t this beat all? My question is… does the average citizen deal in liquor, tobacco, and firearms?? Not the ones I have seen. Doesn’t any one
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Actually, it comes from Section 6331, and it has nothing to do with "liquor, tobacco, and firearms".
RetSquid 3 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid Code section 6331 Levy and distraint. (a) Authority of Secretary heading at the top of the page "Collection". Says, "if any person liable to pay any tax--has to do with collection, not enforcement. 7608 "Authority of internal revenue enforcement officers (a) Enforcement of subtitle "E" and other laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco, and firearms. (b) Enforcement of laws relating to internal revenue other than subtitle "E" for criminal investigator of Intelligence division.
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Are you saying that "collecting" the tax is different from "enforcing" the tax?
Section 7806 "(b) Arrangement and classification- No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title..."
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
3 OF 4 question things like this any more? Doesn’t it seem like a private person’s stuff is not in the jurisdiction of the said code? I mean if the ATF is the enforcement hand of the IRS, and the enforcement powers specifically state under (a) the enforcement of subtitle E and other laws pertaining to liquor, tobacco, and firearms were in the world does a person’s personal property qualify as any of the requirements in 7608(a)???? Is any one following
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
4 OF 4 me? Shouldn’t everyone be asking this question? We have a lot of citizens out there, employed in the service of the IRS who should be asking a lot of questions. But it is my understanding that they are only taught enforcement. Most if not all whether they are an administrative agent or an enforcement agent, or just plain administrative, none have ever opened an INTERNAL REVENUE CODE BOOK!
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
I don't have stock, do you have stock? And speaking for most people I know personally, they don't have stock. What does having or not having stock have to do with the law? You sited a court ruling where indeed that person charged had a duty to report the gain and profit on stock, and under reported it. The cases that are unpublished hold NO legal standing in court. You take those unpublished cases to court and see where it gets you!
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
"What does having or not having stock have to do with the law"
Don't ask me it's YOUR argument!!
RetSquid 3 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
Google: frivolous tax arguments
An IRS .pdf file should show up.
It will explain all frivolous tax arguments and why they are wrong. Anybody arguing over this should read it.
nobodyyouknow18 3 weeks ago
@nobodyyouknow18
This one is also very useful:
h t t p : / / evans-legal DOT c o m /dan/tpfaq DOT h t m l #incomedef
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
It appears that this court ruling you posted is unpublished! And if that is true...it holds no legal authority. United States v. Gerads
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
LOL!! Every court case holds legal authority. Some cases are not used as precedence setting, but even those are still legally binding.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
“There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them....”
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114 (1930).
RetSquid 3 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
1 of 3 Helvering- This court ruling is talking specifically about a loss of gross income from purported sale of shares of National city bank stock. This person has gain or profit that had to be reported.! So to clarify and correct your statement this court ruling is about gain, or profit on stocks. The average citizen does not have gain, or profit, because they cannot afford stock
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
"The average citizen does not have gain, or profit, because they cannot afford stock"
Obviously that is your opinion, but not the law.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
2 of 3 HELVERING V. MITCHELL, 303 U. S. 391 (1938)
Page 303 U. S. 399
In assessing income taxes, the Government relies primarily upon the disclosure by the taxpayer of the relevant facts. This disclosure it requires him to make in his annual return.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3 of 3 Helvering- 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. As stated in Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan,214 U.S. 320, 214 U.S. 339.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
1 of 6 Retsquid--a corporation can still make income-or gain from a persons labor..however that persons labor accumulates as a separate specialized type of property and a person is paid a wage not gain-nor income for that labor. You are talking about two different things here.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7 Notice here they do NOT call the wage income, but a specialized type of property. Property that cannot be taxed as income unless you voluntarily sign a W-4 implying income.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Sorry, but that case is about bankruptcy law, that income was already taxed. They are talking about a tax REFUND being property that is under the control of the bankruptcy trustee.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
No, they are taling about an income tax return. Your income is taxable if you file a W-4 or not. That only determines how much is withheld by your employer.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
No, you are paid wages and those wages are a gain and are taxable.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
2 of 6 Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U.S. 642 (1974)
Page 417 U. S. 648
In Lines, we described wages as "a specialized type of property presenting distinct problems in our economic system,'" [footnote 6] since they provide the basic means for the "economic survival of the debtor." 400 U.S. at 400 U.S. 20.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
3 of 6 Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337 (1969)
Page 395 U. S. 340
“We deal here with wages -- a specialized type of property presenting distinct problems in our economic system.”
“The result is that a prejudgment garnishment of the Wisconsin type may, as a practical matter, drive a wage-earning
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
4 of 6 Page 395 U. S. 342
family to the wall.
Footnote 9
"property" of which petitioner has been deprived is the use of the garnished portion of her wages during the interim period between the garnishment and the culmination of the main suit.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
5 of 6 321 U. S. 503
The Court shows it believes the garnishment policy to be a "most inhuman doctrine'"; that it " compels the wage earner, trying to keep his family together, to be driven below the poverty level'";
Page 395 U. S. 345
“The property'' of which petitioner has been deprived is the use of the garnished portion of her wages during the interim period between the garnishment and the culmination of the main suit.”
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
CONSTITUT LEGAL DEF.
VOLUNTARY
Willingly; done with one's consent; negligently. Wolff, §5.
COMPLIANCE
accedence, acceptance, accommodation, accord, accordance, acquiescence, adaptability, adherence, agreeability, agreement, assent, bowing, concession, concord, concurrence, conformability, conformance, conformity, consent, consonance, cooperation, dutifulness, harmony, keeping, obedience, obsequium, observance, pliancy, submission, tractability, tractableness, willingness to comply, yielding
MsLawman7 4 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
The word “voluntary,” as used in Flora and in IRS publications,
refers to our system of allowing taxpayers to determine the correct amount of
tax and complete the appropriate returns, rather than have the government
determine tax for them. The requirement to file an income tax return is not
voluntary and is clearly set forth in Internal Revenue Code §§ 6011(a),
6012(a), et seq., and 6072(a). See also Treas. Reg. § 1.6011-1(a).
RetSquid 4 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid Your interpretation of voluntary compliance is that of the defacto government and IRS publications. Voluntary compliance is constitutionally exactly what I posted. And I also took the liberty to post your court ruling accurately
FLORA V. UNITED STATES, 362 U. S. 145 (1960)
Page 362 U. S. 176
Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint.(definition distrait---to seize)
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@RetSquid Again in Flora the court mentions a caution if forced to use distraint!
FLORA V. UNITED STATES, 362 U. S. 145 (1960)
Footnote 43
If the Government is forced to use these remedies [distraint] on a large scale, it will affect adversely taxpayers' willingness to perform under our voluntary assessment system."
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
IRS CODE
INCOME NOT DEFINED IN IRS, BUT IS THROUGH THE SUPREME COURT, AS CORPORATE PROFIT.
3402(n)
(1) incurred no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle a for his preceding taxable year, and (you cannot incure a tax liability if you do not volunteer)
(2) anticipates that he will incur no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for his current taxable year.
Exempt from taxation under section 501(a)
See c(5)
c(5) - Labor, agricultural or horticultural associations
MsLawman7 4 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
The Supreme Court has stated that income is the “gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.”
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
Section 3402 is for withholding income taxes, not about being liable for them.
RetSquid 4 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid see my response to your statement in other you tube posting.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
956 F.2d 73: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Emmett Donald Doyle, Defendant-appellant
FOOTNOTE 2
A W-4 form is an Internal Revenue Service form prepared by the taxpayer and submitted to the employer. From the information provided by the taxpayer, the employer determines how much of the taxpayer's income should be withheld for taxes.
MsLawman7 4 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
If you don't file a W-4 then the taxes are withheld at the highest rate.
RetSquid 4 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
See further responses at IRSHelpdallas
twaynepar 4 weeks ago
suck me Harry
twaynepar 4 weeks ago
lets see Title 26 of 50 titles under USCA says title 26 is not positive law ***
"income" word defind by case law stonelybrook rail corp vs boston and maine RR @ 260 , 377 says income is profit and gain
the w-4 title withholding agreement under subtitle C not subtitle A income tax but a withholding ,under agreement by the employee and the employer any which can cancel not at all agree , no tax until access is due no statue in law to file income tax
massvocals1 1 month ago
@massvocals1
Everything in Title 26 IS positive law, the title itself does not need to be. Income is defined in Title 26 Section 61 and Common Law/case law as 'compensation' which is wages/salary. Title 26, Section 6012 says who has to file, Section 6151 says when to file.
RetSquid 1 month ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid YOu want 6012 is where subtitle C or A ??? section 6151 is where subtitle C or A by the way its my believe and acts that paying tax for income of earn by labor is nothing more then being a slave labor earning are an exchange fuck the code willing to died for what i do how about YOU tell the IRS go fuck themselves for me OK
massvocals1 1 month ago
@massvocals1
LOL!! You can see where the section is, but it does not matter, it is stil the law. If you just don't like the law, say so, you don't have to lie about it. Your 'believe' has no effect on the law. How about you learn some punctuation so people can understand what you are trying to communicate?
RetSquid 1 month ago
Classic liberal circle. I bet Reid still plays on the merry go round.
wutang9 1 month ago
It still amazes me that someone that stupid still manages to walk upright.
OddRobb 1 month ago
In the same sentence he says " You don't go to jail...some people go to jail...the fact is our system is voluntary.".
matero30 1 month ago
what a load of BULLSHIT
kingkyzr 1 month ago
Maybe its just Harry that doesn't have to pay !!!
bseekin 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Give away a trillion of OPM and you could too get a billion back in donations...
Energy company received hundreds millions in taxpayer funds. Peter L. Corsell, founder of GridPoint Inc., contributed $50,000 to the inauguration.
Yesterday, KleinOnline broke the story that an Obama adviser who played a key role in developing the energy provisions of the so-called stimulus bill serves on the boards of Gridpoint as well as several other companies that recently received government funds...
cinder544 1 month ago
If you don't pay taxes they will take it out of your bank account, they will take it out of your check. THEY WILL GO TO JAIL IF YOU DO NOT PAY TAXES .
fromtheright 1 month ago
lol
toSTONEiGO 1 month ago
Did Harry graduate, from Clown finishing school?
MrWill99313 1 month ago
Guy wont even bring to the floor a vote on the latest bill today...and the Republicans are obstructionist...LOLOLOLOLOLOL......Harry Reid wake up....
MrWill99313 1 month ago
I've been studying politics for a while, and I've always viewed that being in the government is NOT a career. If any politician thinks that they have a CAREER in government, they should leave immediately. Being a politician is a SERVICE to the American people, and when you are SERVING, you will do nothing to compromise who you are serving, this means
to have a willingness to compromise and to always tell the truth.
I am sickened by self serving politicians our Founders never envisioned this
*
GregariousGorilla 1 month ago
what the hell is he talking about?
lifetimestube 1 month ago
I don't volunteer to pay taxes, they take them from me, and say "if you dont pay theses taxes we will come to you'r home and steal you'r valubles"
Howlinblind 1 month ago
Taxes are voluntary all right...a voluntary ticket to freaking FINES OR WORSE!
CorbinAllred 1 month ago 2
Speechless!
Norbit2 2 months ago
An absolute idiot, is Harry Reid
4040skip 2 months ago
At :57 seconds he says "our system of taxation is voluntary" and at 1:02 he says "oh of course you have to pay your taxes". Another politician that's as bright as his own b-hole, just saying whatever words he thinks will move him out of an issue without answering it.
urallinsane 2 months ago
The system that you protect will not protect you from it when if ever you decide you no longer want to pay for it's protection.
yinzjagoffs 2 months ago
i would wipe my ass on this guys face.
MOUNTAINOUS 2 months ago 3
He should not refer to U.S. citizens as "Tax Payers" since federal tax code says those people MUST pay taxes. Object vigorously to ever being labelled a Tax Payer, because if you do, then you must pay taxes. If you read the tax code and substitute Tax Payer with, say, Rodeo Clown for instance... How much of it applies to you? I.e., don't be called a Tax Payer. Refuse to the Tax Payer label - at ALL TIMES. Join the movement to Audit and End the Fed.
randytate 2 months ago
@randytate
Anyone subect to the income tax laws are 'taxpayers', being called a 'taxpayer' does nothing to your obligation to pay or not to pay income tax.
RetSquid 2 months ago
You don't have to be very smart to be a politician, just a good bullshitter. There are 2 ways to make an income, 1) earn it, 2) steal it. Politicians fit in #2. You have to have real smarts to earn it in a free market.
furyofbongos 2 months ago
Fuck Harry. "i don't like the way you phrased it." The accuracy of facts and your opinion, Harry, are two very very different things.
bdmenne 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The real victims of madness
Search For
"BUSH OBAMA DESTROYED US ARMY" Part 6
eliasmouawad 2 months ago
@craigslistflow
All they have to do is tax the air like they tax 'income'. Base it on voluntary conpliance. They don't because it would the the "bridge to far".
atywaar 3 months ago
no wonder US has problems when you dont wont to pay tax. you want everything but you dont wont to pay for it. here in norway we pay 25 to 50% in incometax depending how much you earn. our vat is 25% on everything and i think thats okey. the only thing i think we pay to much for is tax on cars, for example a new mustang is abaut 200.000$
TheTraveller83 3 months ago
@TheTraveller83 What some European citizens don't realize is, until 1913, the U.S. did not pay income tax. We where the wealthiest nation on Earth, could pay for health care, save and retire! The government didn't run our lives. Once the Banks got a European style central bank installed, all that changed. Now the world is on the verge of financial collapse because of this type of system. Honestly though, this video was just showing how stupid it is to call our income "voluntary", that's all.
randytate 2 months ago
@randytate
We also paid income tax in the 1860's.
RetSquid 2 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid True, but your resources are nationalized. The taxes you pay are setup to redistribute the resulting wealth. I'm sure if you truly audited the money trail, you'd find a rather large proportion going to Banks and not to social programs. It's socially acceptable in Norway to use terms like "redistribute wealth" but not in the U.S. Because of our past, we know there's a better way. It's the reason the U.S. Dollar is the reserve currency of the world.
randytate 2 months ago
@RetSquid There's just too much ground to cover in this text format to share why life for everyone would be better if we weren't all working to pay bankers interest payments on the debt they create out of thin air. The actual financial collapse of the world is happening faster than this dialogue. But I'm glad people from around the world add their thoughts too. It's pretty cool to hear other perspectives.
randytate 2 months ago
@randytate
And that has nothing to do with the argument of income tax being voluntary or mandatory.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Actually you're wrong and yes, it does. It's a critical legal distinction ( or a "term of art") being a citizen or a tax payer. Nowhere in the tax code will you find "citizen", just "tax payer". Since the constitution does not allow labor to be taxed, the IRS tax code could not be written to be levied against citizens - hence the term of art Tax Payer is used exclusively. Things like making alcohol, selling products, winning money legally make you a tax payer, not income from labor.
randytate 2 months ago
@randytate
No, the term 'taxpayer' does not make you one. Income taxes are levied on an 'indivudual'. It does not matter if you are a Citizen or not, all residents have to pay and Citizens have to pay on income from anywhere. Also your income from labor (i.e. compensation') is the very first thing listed when defining income. There is nothing in the Constitution to support your claims.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Support your claims: cite the Tax Code using the term "individual" to describe a person (not a filing status) and I'll consider your claim. In the legal realm, words take on certain meanings called "terms of art" and in this case, tax code the term Tax Payer is just that. Your are wrong, the Constitution has volumes to say about property rights. Your labor *is* your private property. When it's sold, it is not legally considered "income" but rather "compensation" which is not taxable.
randytate 2 months ago
@randytate
Sorry, Title 26 Section 63 specifically defines income as "compensation for services".
Why don't you cite the Code where it says an 'individual' is NOT a person? Because in ALL the Titles of the United States Code "the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens", unless you want to argue that only children, not adults, are individuals or persons....
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid I'm sorry, we're way off track and I think it's my fault, poor grammar I guess. I'm not saying individuals aren't people. I mean that the *only* people responsible for paying taxes are Tax Payers. There are lots of things we do that make us Tax Payers... make and sell alcohol, win Lotto, liquid a 401k etc. etc. And I know compensation for services is "income" but that doesn't make it taxable and the IRS Tax Code agrees. Labor is your private property and is invaluable, i.e., no profit.
randytate 2 months ago
@randytate
No, the only people responsible for paying income tax is/are EVERY individual who has income over the deduction amount. The IRS code says that compensation for services IS taxable income, it is the very first thing listed under the definition of 'taxable income'.
"Labor is... invaluable" until you sell it and get compensated for it, then it has a value.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid You're right, it says. that. "Gross Income" is "Compensation for Services", next section says "Taxable Income" means Gross Income minus deductions. You got me. Let me research it and get back to you.
randytate 2 months ago
@RetSquid I have researched the U.S. CODE and find your position to be correct.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1. Tax imposed: - This basically includes everyone, so yes tax is imposed.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61. Gross income defined: - This basically defines all income as taxable
I still have some questions out for "experts", if I hear back differently then I"ll chime in. Otherwise, I concur with you at this point.
randytate 2 months ago
@randytate
"I still have some questions out for "experts", "
I'm no expert, but I've been looking at the legality of it for a while.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid I haven't researched it too much but I strongly believe the IRS must go. I don't mind paying taxes on my purchases or profits but my labor is my private property and at best, is traded for money. It is still possible the tax code runs afoul with other areas of the constitution. E.g., a Form 1040 could be considered a violation of your 5th amendment rights - since you *must* submit it and it could be used as incriminating evidence against you. A bit paradoxical if you ask me.
randytate 2 months ago
@randytate
“The statutory requirement to file an income tax return does not violate a taxpayer’s right against self-incrimination.”
United States v. MacLeod, 436 F.2d 947, 951 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. den. 402 U.S. 907 (1971).
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid That's a lower court decision. The IRS uses all sorts of court cases and it is fair to reference them, I suppose, but it doesn't become "law" unless the SCOTUS renders an opinion. In this case, they Denied Certiorari so the SCOTUS refused to hear arguments. I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying this court 's decision does not make the matter conclusive or the law. Though arguably remote, a different legal strategy could find its way to the SCOTUS and find the 1040 a violation.
randytate 2 months ago
@randytate
If SCOTUS refused to hear it, whatever the lower court says IS the law and conclusive, but SCOTUS also said the same thing in Sullivan v. United States, 274 U.S. 259, 263-264 (1927).
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Well, technically it is the LAW for that person in that state for that year. Remember the SCOTUS refused to hear all sorts of 2nd Amendment cases for years. Then Heller vs. DC hits the court, followed shortly thereafter by McDonald vs. Chicago and gun laws fall across the nation. This point is quite outside the discussion but the IRS loves to parade lower court cases in front of the public to discourage the redress of grievances but certain legal arguments could see the SCOTUS.
randytate 2 months ago
@randytate
[Sullivan v. United States, 274 U.S. 259, 263-264 (1927)] is a SCOTUS case that says the same thing as the lower court, which is why they refused to hear it. Until they overturn it (highly unlikely) that is the law and every State has to abide by it.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid The State has Powers and the People have Rights. I don't consider it so much a law for states to abide by as much as a Power extended to the Federal Government.The SCOTUS decided to that the Power to perpetrate exortion against the People was more important than the Rights of the people ...All in the name of profitting the share holders of the Federal Reserve Bank. I.e., we are owned...slaves to an Unconstitutional monetary system of debt and the IRS are thugs running the racketeering.
randytate 2 months ago
@randytate
Stop whining and get over it. This has nothing to do with the FED, the States authorized the Federal government to do what it does, don't like it? Talk to the Founders.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Stop trying the stifle dissent. The Fed is lucky Americans are only whining at this point. And it has everything in the world to do with the Fed. What good would it be to have the Fed charge interest if they didn't have the IRS to take all the blame for sticking guns in our faces to rob us to pay for it? People are waking up to the scam and Ron Paul is just the beginning.
randytate 2 months ago
@randytate
So your whining about income tax is actually dissent about the Fed? The IRS and the Fed have nothing to do with each other, BOTH of them PAY/recieve money TO/for the Federal Government.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid That's a naive assessment to say the least. What would the Fed do without the IRS?...hold a Jerry Lewis telethon every year to have people donate interest payments? They were both implemented at the same time because the Fed needed muscle to collect the money. But unlike tax code, this is a subjective topic. It only matters if The People *think* they're related. One can cite whatever law you want, the circumstantial evidence suggests what it suggests and people are waking up to it.
randytate 2 months ago
@randytate
HUH? The FED gets nothing from the IRS, the FED PAID the Treasury $79 Billion last year.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Sure, the Fed pays the Treasury 90% of their profits on interest from borrowed money. So in the most tortured and distorted interpretation of a few select line items, you'll see the Fed paying the Treasury Dept. This is why Ron Paul asked the Treasury to forgo their portion in the last Debt Ceiling debates... as it would have solved the problem. Unfortunately, we're on the hook for the principal of the loans plus interest, for money loaned from nothing. Meaning the Fed is a parasite.
randytate 2 months ago
@randytate
Do you know how government bonds work?
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Yes, I do.
randytate 2 months ago
@RetSquid The bonds I own say "Public Debt Series" right on them. When the Fed does this, it adds to the currency supply. Sadly, the Fed uses money it issued (exercising the power to issue currency delegated to it from Congress in the Fed Act in1913). If you or I did that, we'd be arrested for counterfeiting. The government must now use the IRS to tax us to pay the interest on those bonds. Now we can't afford to maintain payments on the interest, much less the principal. Bye bye middle class.
randytate 2 months ago
@randytate
"most tortured and distorted interpretation"
Only for people like you, it's pretty straight forward for the rest of us.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid I apologize. Let me clarify. Those words were not meant to connote complexity or perplexity. The scam is rather simple, even to someone like me. Any implied or express notion of profit resulting from a government's interaction with a central bank (like the Federal Reserve Bank) is to push the concept of *questionable accounting practices* beyond its most ludicrous extreme. The Fed is indisputably a parasite on The People and the IRS is the threat of violence persisting it.
randytate 2 months ago
@randytate
All the people I listed have to pay income tax on ANY income from ANY source, unless specifically exempted by the law. The lable of 'taxpayer' has nothing to do with being liable for an tax, the label comes after the liability.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@randytate
Title 26, Section 1 describes a person as an individual. Who else can be married, a head of household, widowed, single, etc.?
RetSquid 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It does not matter what you or I think.
The only thing that matters is the truth of the matter.
atywaar 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FOR EVERY DOLLAR SOUTHERN STATES PAY, THEY GET BACK 1.50 OR MORE. ... .. .. . ... .. In general Red States receive more from the Federal government and Blue States less. The winners 1. New Mexico(D)---$2.03 2. Mississippi(R)---2.02 3. Alaska(R)--------1.84 4. Louisiana(R)-----1.78 5. West Virgina(R)--1.76 6. North Dakota(R)--1.68 7. Alabama(R)-------1.66 8. South Dakota(R)--1.53 9. Kentucky(R)------1.51 10.Virgina(D)-------1.51 .. .. ..9/1O TOP WELFARE STATES : REPUBLICAN
beesleeper 3 months ago
forcing people to pay taxes to support welfare .. really ... all money ;from the government is welfare of some sort or another .. firemen are on welfare cause they get a government check ... judges are on welfare cause they get a government check ... blah blah blah .. now this idiot .. senator .. can lie and smile about it ... what a con artist ... they don't get any more evil then that .. he is playing around with semantics and demagoguery .. playing the political flute of bullshit.
goodfellow67216 3 months ago
This country doesn't give a shit about law. If you don't pay your income taxes they will put you in a rape room.
attemptingtobehumble 3 months ago
if their is no repercussions to any rules or law would anybody obey it? answer is hell NO.
FoolishInTheEnd 3 months ago
is this guy an idiot or he's an idiot?
amnesie0 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you go back and read the posts, real careful and take your time, you should be able to see it. If you can't make it out, then call your mother or the rest of your support group.
atywaar 3 months ago
AARON RUSSO WAS ALLEGEDLY MURDERED BY THE CENTRAL INTEL . . . ☼
GreenGoSolar 3 months ago
@GreenGoSolar
Why waste the time and effort?
RetSquid 3 months ago
Nothing that you want to or are able to comprehend. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
atywaar 3 months ago
As long as you have a good lawyer and can afford one I would say everything is voluntary...
joeytruelove 4 months ago
@RedSuid You fail.
PatrickHenry2K 4 months ago
@PatrickHenry2K
You can't even figure out how to spell my name...BTW if you don't reply to me, I don't see it.
RetSquid 4 months ago
@RetSquid Who gives a shit about your name and quit trying to evade the QUESTION. Your wrong my friend, you just don't understand commerce law under presumptive admiralty jurisdiction. If you did understand this you wouldn't have to look like such a worm. Quit squirming...
PatrickHenry2K 4 months ago
@PatrickHenry2K
If you don't hit 'reply' then I don't get notified about your most recent lie/delusion. So your 'waiting' is BS.
Income tax law is not commerce and is not covered by the UCC or Maritime law.
Title 26 Section 1 imposes the income tax on 'every individual', not on a 'person'. So ANY argument based on defining a "person" is moot. And wages (compensation for services) are taxable income, as defined in Section 61 (I believe).
RetSquid 4 months ago
@RetSquid Here is your lie---> INDIVIDUAL - 'As a noun, denotes a single PERSON as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said in this restricted signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, that it may, in proper cases, include ARTIFICIAL PERSONS. See also PERSON' ~ Right out of Blacks's 6th edition sitting right in front of me.
PatrickHenry2K 4 months ago
@PatrickHenry2K
Go read Title 1 Section 8
"that it may, in proper cases, include ARTIFICIAL PERSONS." Which obviously means that it must include natural persons. Again, your 'person' argument never wins in court.
RetSquid 4 months ago