Please watch my story"TIFFANY LEBOUEF SEEKS JUSTICE". I have documents to prove my innocence yet no one wants to even acknowledge it. My life has been destroyed.
Look up PRISON STOCKS....very lucrative....WHO ARE THE INVESTORS???
Regressive tax would be great. If everything had 26% tax percentage, the tax officials could just sum it all and and multiply with 0.26 to get the taxed amount. That way the whole current circus of trying to make most of the income to look like capital gains would be pointless as it would be taxed the same. With closure of the tax heavens Cayman Island's, the annual, total tax income would increase by billions.
>>>> 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 Inc.
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 trolls tax protest videos only. Strange, don't you think?
Sure you don't have to pay, it's voluntary..but don't pay it and the IRS Agents will come and liquidate everything you own even before you go to trial. That's a FACT!!
Oooh by the way, you'll end up in Fed prison...don't drop the soap. God Bless America!!
can I upload this on my channel Il give you credits,problem is that I have already similar video but it have so call ID or copyright from The Orchard Music and because music in the video ( watch?v=ATKMMeSblrA )so Il have to delete(if I wont to get more then 15min approval from there's tube lol,anyway I would still like to put something about IRS and how they stealing money from American people.
The government will continue to violate us and strip us of our rights because they know the majority of Americans are just sheep that trust whatever the government tells them. As long as they have their bread and circus they will not bother to investigate for themselves.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." ~ Declaration of Independence
The graduated income tax brackets have been fixed by allowing the loopholes the wealthy can afford to hire lawyers and accountants to arrange their income to avoid taxes.
the IRS, however, is required by the 4TH AMENDMENT to inform the accused of the NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE CRIME. NATURE AND CAUSE MUST BE CITED IN AN IRS INDICTMENT and reference to a law.
whatever source derived does not mean that every ACTIVITY IS TAXABLE. are you kidding me? Whatever source derived means that it could be from income from a property, it would still be taxable.
“It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus, limited, and thus only, IT REACHES EVERY SUBJECT, and may be exercised at discretion.”
retsquid has it sunk in yet? So please stop telling everyone that an indirect tax is on the tangible fruits (the property). Stop the confusion. When you pay a toll for crossing a bridge, the subject of the tax is not the money received by the toll keeper, it is not on the bridge...THE TAX IS ON CROSSING THE BRIDGE!!!!!!
RETSQUID let me repeat AN INDIRECT TAX IS LAID UPON THE HAPPENING OF AN EVENT AN INDIRECT TAX IS LAID UPON THE HAPPENING OF AN EVENT is it sinking in yet? AN INDIRECT TAX IS LAID UPON THE HAPPENING OF AN EVENT AN INDIRECT TAX IS LAID UPON THE HAPPENING OF AN EVENT AN INDIRECT TAX IS LAID UPON THE HAPPENING OF AN EVENT AN INDIRECT TAX IS LAID UPON THE HAPPENING OF AN EVENT AN INDIRECT TAX IS LAID UPON THE HAPPENING OF AN EVENT AN INDIRECT TAX IS LAID UPON THE HAPPENING OF AN EVENT
You are confused on what is the 'tangible fruits".
“If the tax should be construed as a tax on income as a specific fund the disappearance of the fund before the date of assessment would prevent the collection of the tax. (See Foster and Abbott, op. cit., p. 85.)”
@RetSquid The word "ON" legally mean means "with regard or respect to". The dictionary also shows that the word "regard" means "an aspect to be taken into consideration".
The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, 1989, pg. 795
This is why i use the word SUBJECT TO, as much as possible instead of "ON".
I know what the tangible fruit is...but the subject of the tax is not the tangible fruit. We are trying to find the subject of the tax. In an legal indictment the subject of the tax must be clearly stated. just as in a grand larceny case, the item stolen HAS to be in the indictment.
Exactly, which is why the income is taxed, not your bank account. The EVENT is being taxed, the income is just the measure of the tax.
But, hey you know what? Because the 16th Amendment was passed your entire argument is moot (look that word up). Income from any source can be taxed withour apportionment.
retsquid you want to be the supreme court justice so that the case reads: A tax laid on the tangible fruit (property) as distiguish from the happening of an event is an indirect tax. You want it to read like that dont you? But it does not read like that. It reads as it is cited. let me clarify:
A INDIRECT TAX IS LAID UPON THE HAPPENING OF AN EVENT.
Good for you, now what is your problem with the income tax?
You are taxed on the event of your receipt of income, the amount of income recieved is the way to meansure that tax. If you were taxed on the income that you HAVE (i.e. your bank account...tangible fruits) you would spend it all before the date the taxes would be assessed and not be liable for any tax.
The problem with the income tax is that i am not conducting any activity which is taxable, and yet the IRS threatens, and confuses. There is no different between the IRS tactics and the Italian Mafia imposing a Pizzo (protection money) on all businesses. They use scare tactics and confusion.
RetSquid I AM A DOCTOR. I just pulled a bullet from someone chest. I am being taxed for pulling a bullet from someone's chest. if i am indicted for not paying an income tax the IRS indictment will never ever cite the activity and the specifics of the activity. They make references to income but the income is not the subject of the tax.
Incorrect, you can pull bullets all day long and you will not be taxed on it. When the event of you recieving income happens, THEN you are taxed on THAT event.
If you were indicted it would say that you failed to obey Section XXXX of Title 26.
Did you ever read Tom Cryer's memorandum? He debunks, quite plainly, the labyrinth of sections in title 26 that makes him liable. why post them here. if you please refer to the specific sections that you disagree please post them here.
@se7ensnakes Cryer's memorandum is garbage. He raises every tired tax denier argument in the hopes that something will work, but all of his inane claims were rejected by the court.
@GoodLifeGodLike He's currently in the Tax Court facing about $1.8 million in tax deficiencies, interest, and penalties. I wouldn't call that doing something right.
the taxable activity is not the receipt of the income...the taxable activity is the manufacture of alcohol. the income is merely used as a measurement of the activity. you are in direct contradiction with what the supreme court said. It still have not sunk in yet.
“[P]etitioner argues that the income tax is an excise tax and that petitioner did not engage in any taxable excise activities during 1996, 1997, and 1998. The contentions made by petitioner in his petition and on brief are appropriately termed ‘tax protester rhetoric and legalistic gibberish’, and we shall not dignify such arguments with any further discussion.”
From Tom Cryer's memorandum: Although the first 1,564 sections of the Internal Revenue Code are devoted to the Income Tax, the term "income", the alledged subject of the tax, is not defined.
"For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term ‘income,’ as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment....”...“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.”
Moreover in addition the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such....
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 16-17 (1916
The Big Bank owners have learned to stay underground and away from the media. They did this by buying controlling interest in all major media, etc. You wont hear about the Rothschilds in Forbes. Their corporate logo wont appear in any products.
It has been argued that during the 19th century, the family possessed by far the largest private fortune in the world, and by far the largest fortune in modern world history. This is from Wikipedia
The family's rise to European prominence began in 1744, with the birth of Mayer Amschel Rothschild in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, the son of Amschel Moses Rothschild (born circa 1710)
No, the 16th Amendment removed the requirement that the income tax be apportioned. So, if it is a direct tax, it does not have to be apportioned, and if it is an excise then it has to be uniform, which it is.
wrong...the 16th Amendment did not remove the apportionment rule when collecting the income tax.
The 16th Amendment prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning [of our national government under the Constitution] from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged....
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at 112 (1916)
"But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to ***apportionment***. [cites omitted] The Amendment ***relieved from that requirement*** and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.’”
@se7ensnakes “The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power.
Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.’”
yes it obliterated the distinction which the Pollock was based on. So ALL income taxes are indirect. So if the source was from rental property, the income tax will still be indirect. Before the 16th Amendment they have been HELD to an indirect tax.
@RetSquid The key word is "HAD" as in the pollock decision. The supreme court erroneously labeled the income tax for money derived from his property a direct tax. Notice the past tense "had" "held". Then justice white writes: ...but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such....
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 16-17 (1916)
I am merely quoting justice white...he was the one that stated it was erroneous: Again in his own words: but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such....
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 16-17 (1916)
"Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled "
"the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary..."
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co
Taxes on income from property were direct taxes on the property.
yes my typo...they had been held to be direct....BUT NOW WE HAVE THE 16TH AMENDMENT. The purpose of the 16th Amendment was to label all income taxes direct despite the fact that the income may come from rental property (whatever source derived). SO ALL INCOME TAXES ARE INDIRECT.
“[Hamzik] contends only that he does not have a tax liability and subsequent deficiency because all federal income taxes are ‘indirect taxes’ and the Commissioner has not produced the statutes defining the ‘revenue taxable activity’ that would make Hamzik subject to or liable for any tax under Title 26. The tax court properly rejected Hamzik’s arguments as frivolous.”
@RetSquid You are putting the cart before the wheel... The constitution requires that someone accused is informed of the nature and cause of the crime. Show me Hamzik's IRS indictement. Does it state that Hamzik's work was a revenue taxable activity. Example: The IRS contends that Hamzik was an EMT worker. As an EMT worker he practice certain procedures to save people's life. According to Title 26. The procedure of saving lives using cpr, AED is a taxable event and there subject to a tax.
Totally wrong. The reciept of the income is the "taxable event". Until YOU get the money you are not taxed.
SCOTUS has stated that Congress intended to impose the income tax on “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion,” with no restriction as to “source.” Commissioner v. Glenshaw GlassCo.,
ha ha ha you are calling a supreme court decision TOTALLY WRONG??? You think that i am making that statement? i am merely quoting. You are presenting cases that are irrelevant to the definition of an indirect tax. WE ARE TRYING TO DEFINE INDIRECT TAX!!!!!!!
What you are trying to claim is that the income tax is a direct tax on your property, the income that you hold. That is NOT how the courts have EVER seen it. The income tax is an excise tax based on the event of you receiving income, the measure of that tax is the amount you have recieved, it's not on the amount of money that you HAVE, that would be a tax on your 'property', your bank account.
@RetSquid NO NO NO. on the contrary. My claim is that the income tax is an indirect tax. it is a tax on activity. you are wrong and you are desperately trying to wiggle yourself out of this by confusing everyone.
You are misreading this quote. For certain, the Supreme Court cannot obliterate the distinction, generally speaking, of indirect and direct taxes. Direct and Indirect taxes are a natural phenomena, and therefore their distinction cannot be obliterated...any more than the supreme court can obliterate the effects of gravity. The founding fathers merely define them for the purpose of collecting taxes.
Federalist #21, Alexander Hamiton:“Impositions of this kind [taxes on articles of consumption] usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country. Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment.”
The natural phenomena is the observation of direct and indirect taxes. Just as you observe the effects of gravity so can you observe that the natural world has two distinct ways to collect the taxes.
According to the constitution the tax is either on property (direct) or on an activity (indirect, excise). THERE ARE NO OTHER CLASSES OF TAXES. The property taxes must be apportioned and collected by the respective states. The indirect taxes MUST BE ON PRIVILIEGE ACTIVITIES. A classic sample of privilige activities are the traditional three ALCOHOL, TABACCO, AND FIREARMS. You can rename the INCOME TAX, PRIVILIGE TAX and you will be just about right with that?
I will show you, only after you clearly understand what an indirect tax is. Adding more supreme court cases without completely understanding the ones presented will just confuse you further. You still dont know what an indirect tax is. You still believe it is the income (property).
Sometimes the IRS indictment will say:WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED. HA HA HA. IMAGINE a grand larceny case where the prosecutor indictments read: Whatever is worth one thousand dollars, but never mentions what it was that the defendant stole. You still dont get it retsquid. Your mouth is moving faster than your brain.
RETSQUID IS A BIG BANK LOVER, either by intent of ignorance. He is helping bring down the republic by siding with a group that wants globalist economy.
HANDLE THE TRUTH? I just saw the president go into war with another country without the approval of congress. He broke the law and no one is doing anything about it. You still think that this is a constitutional republic?
Sure it is, it is related to the subject of the this debate. It means that if you are indicted for income tax crimes, you might as well toss the constitution out of the window because they dont care about it. The court will cite anything to get you convicted, it will even cite a lie and you cannot do anything about it.
If you are indicted it might be for not filing when you are required to do so, or not paying the amount due when it is due. So you would be in violation of sections 7202, 7203, and probably a few others.
The big banks did not use any money to buy the securities. We now have to pay interest on this. Sweet thing for the banks, but a detriment to the rest of us. The BIG BANK own congress and the presidency, and people like retsquid.
The IRS needs to be abolished. To understand the IRS you need to understand the Federal Reserve and Fractional Reserve Banking. Almost all money created is create through debt and loaned to the government. the IRS is really a collection agency for the Private Federal Reserve bank to pay interest to them, a private for profit bank. WAKE UP AMERICA YOU'VE BEEN ROBBED AND ARE BEING ROBBED! YOUR NATION IS BEING DESTROYED ON PURPOSE! We have enemies within!
@RetSquid Oh don't be silly The Federal Reserve's income is derived from the interest on U.S. government securities. What does that mean? They made money OFF OUR GOVERNMENT. So they gave the government it's own money back? Oh thanks, they must be Saints. Understand this. The Fed is a banking cartel, just like an oil cartel. They protect all the banks in the cartel, that's what cartels do. They even ripped America off to save their own. Surprise!
The Fed takes bonds from the Treasury and sells them to people, that money is what goes to the Government as a loan. The Gov. then pays the owners of those bonds interest. The Fed holds very few bonds itself. About 96% of the Fed's profit's goes back to the Gov.
@RetSquid A US government bond is a debt on top of existing debt. It's an interest bearing loan to the government from the Fed.
But again this besides the point. The Fed is a BANKING CARTEL! Don't get confused their only true purpose is to protect the banks in the cartel. Nothing more, the industry is parasitic. And you and I are the hosts of these parasites. They only want you alive to suck your blood. It's a ponzi, a scam, you need to understand this.
The debt is from the Gov. to the owner of the bond, you, me, the chinese, whoever. The Fed gets either 6% or 4% of any transaction, I forget which, they pay the rest 96%-94% to the Treasury.
But this is besides the issue, they have nothing to do with the Federal income tax.
The debt is artificial. Why do we need to have Treasury Bonds? Why can we not do what ABRAHAM LINCOLN was doing before he got shot? How did ABRAHAM LINCOLN finance the Civil War? Moreover, the BIG BANKS loan money to themselves, thereby creating money out of thin air (using the fractional reserve scheme), then they buy treasury bonds. Now we peoples have to work, pay taxes and inflation to pay interest to these big banks that are holding the securities.
The interest on the bonds is the price of borrowing money. The Government borrows money by selling bonds. It has been that way since the U.S. began, before there were 'BIG BANKS'.
Respond to this video... ALL THAT THE FED DOES IS TO HELP OUT THE PRIVATE BANKS ACHIEVE THEIR PURPOSE. THEIR PURPOSE IS THE RESULT OF PRIVATE MEETINGS.
THE FED is not the money maker...it is the PRIVATE BANKS. The FED just helps them achieve that in a monopolistic fashion. Dont concentrate on just the fed...concentrate on FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING.
@KKKSuperFan spread the w0rd! through time the country has been taken over under a cloud of lies and deception a time will come for THE mass civil dis0bedience and it starts with the 2011 inc0me-tax pr0test DONT FILE and/or withdraw all your money from your bank on or before tax day 2011 inc0me-tax pr0test DONT FILE and/or withdraw all your money from your bank on or before tax day spread the w0rd!! 2011 inc0me-tax pr0test t0gether we can send THE message
spread the w0rd! through time the country has been taken over under a cloud of lies and deception a time will come for THE mass civil dis0bedience and it starts with the 2011 inc0me-tax pr0test DONT FILE and/or withdraw all your money from your bank on or before tax day 2011 inc0me-tax pr0test DONT FILE and/or withdraw all your money from your bank on or before tax day spread the w0rd!! 2011 inc0me-tax pr0test t0gether we can send THE message
You're right. We need to reduce the revenue collected by the government. Lets first change the way we collect taxes, and THEN reduce the amount we collect of taxes. Once we change to a national consumption tax, the percentage will be on every sales receipt. This will make it easy to reduce the federal budget. Study the FairTax and learn more.
To find the truth of our times, follow the money. Nothing is more important to understand than our monetary system, and its connection to the federal income tax. The clearest, simplest explanation of this connection can be found in the YouTube video WHY WE ARE IN SO MUCH DEBT. Highly recommended.
proof RetSquid is an IRS recruit v v v v v v v v v v mwahahaha. Thx Squidgy. I look fwd to many more of your interjections so I can label this exact comment under everyone of yours. See you soon :)
@Tealy855 That deals more with interstate commerce, as in between Alabama shipping to Texas. That means one State can't make you pay a tax on the shipping of your items into their State. So this is actually a benefit. It means your goods won't be taxed a second time by the State you sold it in just because it left the State.
@Tealy855 Do a early study on when the South (with lots of fertile land ) was dealing with the North and how "income" was conceived while dealing between the South and North. The North was concerned with the advantages the South had over it. This had to do with “uniform through out the united states” later.
The power to tax the domestic earnings of the vast majority of American citizens was never granted to congress by the U.S. Constitution. Working and making a living is a natural or unalienable right not a mear privlage and such a broad direct tax could never pass constitional muster and would most certainly be struck down by the Supream Court. The income tax is a excise tax on a privlage.
@Tealy855 The income tax is an indirect tax, it does not need to be apportioned. It needs only to be uniform. The thing is that an indirect tax is a tax on activities. and not every activity is taxable. Could you imagine an irs indictment that is saying that a doctor savings someone's life is a taxable activity. They cannot do that. hence they try to win by confusing and scaring everyone.
You keep saying things "have been proven", but the courts all say you are wrong. Would you like me to post all of those cases here also? I posted them on other videos that you no longer comment on....strange, isn't it?
Can you post a single court case where someone has used your ideas and has won? I can post some where they lost, because they used your ideas.
Example: Congress cannot place a duty of $1 on each apple exported to Canada, but it can place a 10% tax on your income from selling those apples in Canada.
Some people have won a criminal case for not filing or paying income tax, but only by proving it was not 'willfull'. Cryer still owes over $1.4 Million. That case is still ongoing.
@Tealy855 RetSquid is an agent troll who has nothing better to do than spew nonsensical tripe throughout the internet. Time spent on replying to this waste of keystrokes is time wasted. Enjoy your awakening and let RetSquid wallow in self loathing of the most uneducated kind :)
@venuecam Sure. Tom Cryer is still liable for back taxes. US citizens are taxable on their income wherever it's earned in the world. Tealy's arguments are losers.
@prof5string The IRS code states"Income" as "money earned from gains".
Assuming you are on the IRS' side then any accuracy in anything RetSquid comments would be subject to whether Tom Cryer derived any "Income" (payment from gains) or "Pecuniary Wages" (payment in exchange for labor). Both are exclusive from each other. They cannot be the same and without clear evidence of either RetSquid is speaking hypothetically or just plain pathetically Either way :)
@venuecam Cryer earned money from his law practice. It either constituted wages or income derived from business, both of which are includable in gross income under Section 61.
I'm not on the IRS's side. I simply know what the law is and what it isn't. I don't take a position on whether the law is good, bad, wise, or foolish.
@prof5string It's great you know what law is and isn't. Unfortunately you don't seem to know how to distinguish between Legislation (Statutes) and Common Law. And no they aren't intertwined cos that would be like saying oil is intertwined with water.
@RetSquid It's ok Squidgy. Grab a Kleenex. There there. What? That isn't your user name? But that's what it says. Alzheimers perhaps?
Oh sorry. Ret-IRED Squid... An Admiralty nickname referring to officer, recruit or agent. You really don't know how to hide your background well do you? And no matter how you colour your legal-land fictions we are not in a boat on the water therefore every and all legislative jurisdictions you choose to quote are pointless. Common Law =/ Legislative Law :D
@RetSquid "Everyone"? Name them starting at the top of the list, or is it just your opinion? If you can't name everyone of "everyone" then it'll be accepted that your comment and every other is based on opinion, not evidence :D
This has been flagged as spam show
Please watch my story"TIFFANY LEBOUEF SEEKS JUSTICE". I have documents to prove my innocence yet no one wants to even acknowledge it. My life has been destroyed.
Look up PRISON STOCKS....very lucrative....WHO ARE THE INVESTORS???
I HOPE NOT THE JUDGES AND POLITICIANS.......
joanarc1111 1 week ago
your a hero
wobinga7 1 month ago
Regressive tax would be great. If everything had 26% tax percentage, the tax officials could just sum it all and and multiply with 0.26 to get the taxed amount. That way the whole current circus of trying to make most of the income to look like capital gains would be pointless as it would be taxed the same. With closure of the tax heavens Cayman Island's, the annual, total tax income would increase by billions.
fingrid 1 month ago
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 Inc.
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 trolls tax protest videos only. Strange, don't you think?
BRYAN351 2 months ago
Sure you don't have to pay, it's voluntary..but don't pay it and the IRS Agents will come and liquidate everything you own even before you go to trial. That's a FACT!!
Oooh by the way, you'll end up in Fed prison...don't drop the soap. God Bless America!!
VIKING33NY 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To understand the fraud, the real question of liability is: "what law gives force and effect to the IRC?" NeOn314.webplus.net
NeOne314IamOne 2 months ago
can I upload this on my channel Il give you credits,problem is that I have already similar video but it have so call ID or copyright from The Orchard Music and because music in the video ( watch?v=ATKMMeSblrA )so Il have to delete(if I wont to get more then 15min approval from there's tube lol,anyway I would still like to put something about IRS and how they stealing money from American people.
You can pp on your answer,thx and God bless you
TRUTH21SS 4 months ago
.
The absence of excess aggravating stimuli IS Balance and comes from truth spoken or done.
Do not allow “Thwarting” to cut ahead of you in line; to cut in front of YOUR inspiration.
"When you’re doing what you’re supposed to be doing, it rests softly inside your being with no judgment, no guilt and no imbalance. You just KNOW!"
The absence of excess aggrivating stimuli IS Balance! ~ and comes from truth spoken or done.
robertedwardfay 5 months ago
I wish I could afford him as a lawyer
xxxxLetsRidexxxxx 6 months ago
The government will continue to violate us and strip us of our rights because they know the majority of Americans are just sheep that trust whatever the government tells them. As long as they have their bread and circus they will not bother to investigate for themselves.
robinsonjd1978 6 months ago
Lol money.
Omgadnowai 6 months ago
sign me up man i am with you all the way-long live the republic!!!!!!
vegaguy1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." ~ Declaration of Independence
OooHesGood 6 months ago
The graduated income tax brackets have been fixed by allowing the loopholes the wealthy can afford to hire lawyers and accountants to arrange their income to avoid taxes.
gophomaxx 7 months ago
If you speak the TRUTH you will be killed. That's why people do not speak up.
KnowThyself7 8 months ago 2
the IRS, however, is required by the 4TH AMENDMENT to inform the accused of the NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE CRIME. NATURE AND CAUSE MUST BE CITED IN AN IRS INDICTMENT and reference to a law.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
The nature and cause it that you were required by Title 26 to file an income tax return and pay the amount due and that you failed to do so.
RetSquid 11 months ago
whatever source derived does not mean that every ACTIVITY IS TAXABLE. are you kidding me? Whatever source derived means that it could be from income from a property, it would still be taxable.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
“It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus, limited, and thus only, IT REACHES EVERY SUBJECT, and may be exercised at discretion.”
License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 471 (1866)
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid
Thats irrelevant to NATURE AND CAUSE as presented in an indictment.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
What do you mean? The nature and cause is that you failed to do what you were required by law to do.
RetSquid 11 months ago
HAS IT SUNK IN YET RETSQUID?
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Yes, you are incapable of seeing anything beyond your own limmited view of the law
RetSquid 11 months ago
retsquid has it sunk in yet? So please stop telling everyone that an indirect tax is on the tangible fruits (the property). Stop the confusion. When you pay a toll for crossing a bridge, the subject of the tax is not the money received by the toll keeper, it is not on the bridge...THE TAX IS ON CROSSING THE BRIDGE!!!!!!
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
You are confused on what is the 'tangible fruits".
“If the tax should be construed as a tax on income as a specific fund the disappearance of the fund before the date of assessment would prevent the collection of the tax. (See Foster and Abbott, op. cit., p. 85.)”
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid The word "ON" legally mean means "with regard or respect to". The dictionary also shows that the word "regard" means "an aspect to be taken into consideration".
The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, 1989, pg. 795
This is why i use the word SUBJECT TO, as much as possible instead of "ON".
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
I know what the tangible fruit is...but the subject of the tax is not the tangible fruit. We are trying to find the subject of the tax. In an legal indictment the subject of the tax must be clearly stated. just as in a grand larceny case, the item stolen HAS to be in the indictment.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
TAXING THE TANGIBLE FRUIT (PROPERTY) IS A DIRECT TAX!!!!!!
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Exactly, which is why the income is taxed, not your bank account. The EVENT is being taxed, the income is just the measure of the tax.
But, hey you know what? Because the 16th Amendment was passed your entire argument is moot (look that word up). Income from any source can be taxed withour apportionment.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid The 16th Amendment did not give congress any new taxing subjects.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Correct, Congress could already tax ALL incomes.
RetSquid 11 months ago
yes congress does but not legally. Thats the point of this discussion.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
REALLY?????
"Congress already had the power to tax all incomes."
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926).
You are just plainly wrong.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid you mean congress can tax the income of Embassadors on American soil? That news to me. I have to check that out..
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Yes, they could tax "embassadors"[SIC], but they probably don't because of a Treaty with that Ambassador's country.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
I'll wait while you try a squirm out of THAT one. :)
RetSquid 11 months ago
Not under current law and the 16th Amendment.
RetSquid 11 months ago
retsquid you want to be the supreme court justice so that the case reads: A tax laid on the tangible fruit (property) as distiguish from the happening of an event is an indirect tax. You want it to read like that dont you? But it does not read like that. It reads as it is cited. let me clarify:
A INDIRECT TAX IS LAID UPON THE HAPPENING OF AN EVENT.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
retsquid one again and for the 5th time i am going to cite this supreme court case:
A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax.
Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, at 502 (1930)
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Good for you, now what is your problem with the income tax?
You are taxed on the event of your receipt of income, the amount of income recieved is the way to meansure that tax. If you were taxed on the income that you HAVE (i.e. your bank account...tangible fruits) you would spend it all before the date the taxes would be assessed and not be liable for any tax.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid
The problem with the income tax is that i am not conducting any activity which is taxable, and yet the IRS threatens, and confuses. There is no different between the IRS tactics and the Italian Mafia imposing a Pizzo (protection money) on all businesses. They use scare tactics and confusion.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
The taxable activity is the reciept of the income.
“The IRS is not required to show that the Debtor’s income is derived from a ‘revenue taxable activity.’”
In re: Michael Fleming 86 AFTR2d ¶2000-5138; No. 97-6342-8G3 (U.S.Bank.Ct. M.D.Fl. 8/9/2000).
RetSquid 11 months ago
RetSquid I AM A DOCTOR. I just pulled a bullet from someone chest. I am being taxed for pulling a bullet from someone's chest. if i am indicted for not paying an income tax the IRS indictment will never ever cite the activity and the specifics of the activity. They make references to income but the income is not the subject of the tax.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Incorrect, you can pull bullets all day long and you will not be taxed on it. When the event of you recieving income happens, THEN you are taxed on THAT event.
If you were indicted it would say that you failed to obey Section XXXX of Title 26.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid
Did you ever read Tom Cryer's memorandum? He debunks, quite plainly, the labyrinth of sections in title 26 that makes him liable. why post them here. if you please refer to the specific sections that you disagree please post them here.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Send me a pm and I will prove them wrong also.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes Cryer's memorandum is garbage. He raises every tired tax denier argument in the hopes that something will work, but all of his inane claims were rejected by the court.
prof5string 10 months ago
@prof5string Well he doesn't pay taxes and he's obviously not in jail, so he must doing something right....right?
GoodLifeGodLike 10 months ago
@GoodLifeGodLike He's currently in the Tax Court facing about $1.8 million in tax deficiencies, interest, and penalties. I wouldn't call that doing something right.
prof5string 10 months ago
@GoodLifeGodLike
He's not in jail because the Government did not prove 'willfulness'.
RetSquid 10 months ago
the taxable activity is not the receipt of the income...the taxable activity is the manufacture of alcohol. the income is merely used as a measurement of the activity. you are in direct contradiction with what the supreme court said. It still have not sunk in yet.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
“[P]etitioner argues that the income tax is an excise tax and that petitioner did not engage in any taxable excise activities during 1996, 1997, and 1998. The contentions made by petitioner in his petition and on brief are appropriately termed ‘tax protester rhetoric and legalistic gibberish’, and we shall not dignify such arguments with any further discussion.”
Heisey v. Commissioner
RetSquid 11 months ago
They are subject to the income tax.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
From Tom Cryer's memorandum: Although the first 1,564 sections of the Internal Revenue Code are devoted to the Income Tax, the term "income", the alledged subject of the tax, is not defined.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
"For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term ‘income,’ as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment....”...“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
RetSquid 11 months ago
Moreover in addition the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such....
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 16-17 (1916
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
The Big Bank owners have learned to stay underground and away from the media. They did this by buying controlling interest in all major media, etc. You wont hear about the Rothschilds in Forbes. Their corporate logo wont appear in any products.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
about the big banks - The house of Rothschild
It has been argued that during the 19th century, the family possessed by far the largest private fortune in the world, and by far the largest fortune in modern world history. This is from Wikipedia
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
about the big banks
The family's rise to European prominence began in 1744, with the birth of Mayer Amschel Rothschild in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, the son of Amschel Moses Rothschild (born circa 1710)
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
the only thing that the 16th Amendment did was to prevent congress from naming the income tax a direct tax. THAT IS ALL!
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
No, the 16th Amendment removed the requirement that the income tax be apportioned. So, if it is a direct tax, it does not have to be apportioned, and if it is an excise then it has to be uniform, which it is.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid
wrong...the 16th Amendment did not remove the apportionment rule when collecting the income tax.
The 16th Amendment prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning [of our national government under the Constitution] from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged....
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at 112 (1916)
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
"But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to ***apportionment***. [cites omitted] The Amendment ***relieved from that requirement*** and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.’”
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co
RetSquid 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes “The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power.
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.’”
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@SadegoGG
yes it obliterated the distinction which the Pollock was based on. So ALL income taxes are indirect. So if the source was from rental property, the income tax will still be indirect. Before the 16th Amendment they have been HELD to an indirect tax.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Actually, taxes on the income from properties were held to be DIRECT taxes.
"But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment."
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co
What point are you trying to make?
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid The key word is "HAD" as in the pollock decision. The supreme court erroneously labeled the income tax for money derived from his property a direct tax. Notice the past tense "had" "held". Then justice white writes: ...but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such....
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 16-17 (1916)
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
It was not 'erroneous", before the 16th taxes on income from property WAS a direct tax.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid
I am merely quoting justice white...he was the one that stated it was erroneous: Again in his own words: but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such....
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 16-17 (1916)
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@se7ensnakes
"Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled "
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
"the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary..."
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co
Taxes on income from property were direct taxes on the property.
RetSquid 11 months ago
yes my typo...they had been held to be direct....BUT NOW WE HAVE THE 16TH AMENDMENT. The purpose of the 16th Amendment was to label all income taxes direct despite the fact that the income may come from rental property (whatever source derived). SO ALL INCOME TAXES ARE INDIRECT.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
“[Hamzik] contends only that he does not have a tax liability and subsequent deficiency because all federal income taxes are ‘indirect taxes’ and the Commissioner has not produced the statutes defining the ‘revenue taxable activity’ that would make Hamzik subject to or liable for any tax under Title 26. The tax court properly rejected Hamzik’s arguments as frivolous.”
Hamzik v. Commissioner
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid You are putting the cart before the wheel... The constitution requires that someone accused is informed of the nature and cause of the crime. Show me Hamzik's IRS indictement. Does it state that Hamzik's work was a revenue taxable activity. Example: The IRS contends that Hamzik was an EMT worker. As an EMT worker he practice certain procedures to save people's life. According to Title 26. The procedure of saving lives using cpr, AED is a taxable event and there subject to a tax.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Totally wrong. The reciept of the income is the "taxable event". Until YOU get the money you are not taxed.
SCOTUS has stated that Congress intended to impose the income tax on “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion,” with no restriction as to “source.” Commissioner v. Glenshaw GlassCo.,
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid
The income is merely a measure of the activity and/or privilege. The income is not the subject of the tax it is the basis for determining the tax.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
ha ha ha you are calling a supreme court decision TOTALLY WRONG??? You think that i am making that statement? i am merely quoting. You are presenting cases that are irrelevant to the definition of an indirect tax. WE ARE TRYING TO DEFINE INDIRECT TAX!!!!!!!
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
You are confused on what the court said, read a few lines more and you sill see that I am correct.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
What you are trying to claim is that the income tax is a direct tax on your property, the income that you hold. That is NOT how the courts have EVER seen it. The income tax is an excise tax based on the event of you receiving income, the measure of that tax is the amount you have recieved, it's not on the amount of money that you HAVE, that would be a tax on your 'property', your bank account.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid NO NO NO. on the contrary. My claim is that the income tax is an indirect tax. it is a tax on activity. you are wrong and you are desperately trying to wiggle yourself out of this by confusing everyone.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
Respond to this video...
You are misreading this quote. For certain, the Supreme Court cannot obliterate the distinction, generally speaking, of indirect and direct taxes. Direct and Indirect taxes are a natural phenomena, and therefore their distinction cannot be obliterated...any more than the supreme court can obliterate the effects of gravity. The founding fathers merely define them for the purpose of collecting taxes.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
How do you figure taxes are a "natural phenmena"?
Direct taxes are taxes on physical property.
Federalist #21, Alexander Hamiton:“Impositions of this kind [taxes on articles of consumption] usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country. Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment.”
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid
The natural phenomena is the observation of direct and indirect taxes. Just as you observe the effects of gravity so can you observe that the natural world has two distinct ways to collect the taxes.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Sorry, the Natural world does not collect taxes, only man.
RetSquid 11 months ago
According to the constitution the tax is either on property (direct) or on an activity (indirect, excise). THERE ARE NO OTHER CLASSES OF TAXES. The property taxes must be apportioned and collected by the respective states. The indirect taxes MUST BE ON PRIVILIEGE ACTIVITIES. A classic sample of privilige activities are the traditional three ALCOHOL, TABACCO, AND FIREARMS. You can rename the INCOME TAX, PRIVILIGE TAX and you will be just about right with that?
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
"Privilege" has nothing to do with income tax. Show me what and where in the law or Constitution that your claim is based on.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid
I will show you, only after you clearly understand what an indirect tax is. Adding more supreme court cases without completely understanding the ones presented will just confuse you further. You still dont know what an indirect tax is. You still believe it is the income (property).
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
The income tax is an excise tax on the event of your receipt of that income.
RetSquid 11 months ago
Sometimes the IRS indictment will say:WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED. HA HA HA. IMAGINE a grand larceny case where the prosecutor indictments read: Whatever is worth one thousand dollars, but never mentions what it was that the defendant stole. You still dont get it retsquid. Your mouth is moving faster than your brain.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Reposting the exact same claim with no proof does not make it correct.
RetSquid 11 months ago
RETSQUID IS A BIG BANK LOVER, either by intent of ignorance. He is helping bring down the republic by siding with a group that wants globalist economy.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
If you can't handle the truth, that is your problem.
But thanks for giving up the dabate and announcing your loss with an Ad Hominem.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid
HANDLE THE TRUTH? I just saw the president go into war with another country without the approval of congress. He broke the law and no one is doing anything about it. You still think that this is a constitutional republic?
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Congress can stop him anytime they want by refusing to fund it. That does not make it right, but that is not the subject of this debate or video.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid
Sure it is, it is related to the subject of the this debate. It means that if you are indicted for income tax crimes, you might as well toss the constitution out of the window because they dont care about it. The court will cite anything to get you convicted, it will even cite a lie and you cannot do anything about it.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
If you are indicted it might be for not filing when you are required to do so, or not paying the amount due when it is due. So you would be in violation of sections 7202, 7203, and probably a few others.
What do you see that is wrong with any of this?
RetSquid 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926).
SadegoGG 11 months ago
The big banks did not use any money to buy the securities. We now have to pay interest on this. Sweet thing for the banks, but a detriment to the rest of us. The BIG BANK own congress and the presidency, and people like retsquid.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
A minute ago you said that they DID buy the bonds, why did you change your mind in less than a minute?
RetSquid 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this free to look at go to Google video Douglas County, OR - Special Tax Liens Meeting 09-07-2007
stanleymims 1 year ago
Taxation is theft.
WorBlux 1 year ago
The IRS needs to be abolished. To understand the IRS you need to understand the Federal Reserve and Fractional Reserve Banking. Almost all money created is create through debt and loaned to the government. the IRS is really a collection agency for the Private Federal Reserve bank to pay interest to them, a private for profit bank. WAKE UP AMERICA YOU'VE BEEN ROBBED AND ARE BEING ROBBED! YOUR NATION IS BEING DESTROYED ON PURPOSE! We have enemies within!
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou
Did you know that the FED PAID the Treasury over $45 billion in '09?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Oh don't be silly The Federal Reserve's income is derived from the interest on U.S. government securities. What does that mean? They made money OFF OUR GOVERNMENT. So they gave the government it's own money back? Oh thanks, they must be Saints. Understand this. The Fed is a banking cartel, just like an oil cartel. They protect all the banks in the cartel, that's what cartels do. They even ripped America off to save their own. Surprise!
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou
Go look it up.
The Fed takes bonds from the Treasury and sells them to people, that money is what goes to the Government as a loan. The Gov. then pays the owners of those bonds interest. The Fed holds very few bonds itself. About 96% of the Fed's profit's goes back to the Gov.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid A US government bond is a debt on top of existing debt. It's an interest bearing loan to the government from the Fed.
But again this besides the point. The Fed is a BANKING CARTEL! Don't get confused their only true purpose is to protect the banks in the cartel. Nothing more, the industry is parasitic. And you and I are the hosts of these parasites. They only want you alive to suck your blood. It's a ponzi, a scam, you need to understand this.
imikewillrockyou 1 year ago
@imikewillrockyou
The debt is from the Gov. to the owner of the bond, you, me, the chinese, whoever. The Fed gets either 6% or 4% of any transaction, I forget which, they pay the rest 96%-94% to the Treasury.
But this is besides the issue, they have nothing to do with the Federal income tax.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
The debt is artificial. Why do we need to have Treasury Bonds? Why can we not do what ABRAHAM LINCOLN was doing before he got shot? How did ABRAHAM LINCOLN finance the Civil War? Moreover, the BIG BANKS loan money to themselves, thereby creating money out of thin air (using the fractional reserve scheme), then they buy treasury bonds. Now we peoples have to work, pay taxes and inflation to pay interest to these big banks that are holding the securities.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
The interest on the bonds is the price of borrowing money. The Government borrows money by selling bonds. It has been that way since the U.S. began, before there were 'BIG BANKS'.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid THATS IRRELEVANT....THE ACTION IS IN THE PRIVATE BANKS!!!!!
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
Respond to this video... ALL THAT THE FED DOES IS TO HELP OUT THE PRIVATE BANKS ACHIEVE THEIR PURPOSE. THEIR PURPOSE IS THE RESULT OF PRIVATE MEETINGS.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@RetSquid
THE FED is not the money maker...it is the PRIVATE BANKS. The FED just helps them achieve that in a monopolistic fashion. Dont concentrate on just the fed...concentrate on FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
serrtucheserrtuche 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
serrtucheserrtuche 1 year ago
You're right. We need to reduce the revenue collected by the government. Lets first change the way we collect taxes, and THEN reduce the amount we collect of taxes. Once we change to a national consumption tax, the percentage will be on every sales receipt. This will make it easy to reduce the federal budget. Study the FairTax and learn more.
urgener 1 year ago
To find the truth of our times, follow the money. Nothing is more important to understand than our monetary system, and its connection to the federal income tax. The clearest, simplest explanation of this connection can be found in the YouTube video WHY WE ARE IN SO MUCH DEBT. Highly recommended.
SilentNoMorePubs 1 year ago 2
I agree,its one big scam,
bbbhhgg 1 year ago
proof RetSquid is an IRS recruit v v v v v v v v v v mwahahaha. Thx Squidgy. I look fwd to many more of your interjections so I can label this exact comment under everyone of yours. See you soon :)
venuecam 1 year ago
Tom, that's cause we live in a military law world now. Admirality. It's f'ed up isn't it?
Cstrife234 1 year ago
NICE
amcanmike 1 year ago
If my income is from exporting goods to Canada - how can congress tax that ?
." [Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5]
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State
Tealy855 1 year ago
Comment removed
RetSquid 1 year ago
@Tealy855 That deals more with interstate commerce, as in between Alabama shipping to Texas. That means one State can't make you pay a tax on the shipping of your items into their State. So this is actually a benefit. It means your goods won't be taxed a second time by the State you sold it in just because it left the State.
zentner18 1 year ago
@zentner18 I guess the word export meant from another state
back then - like somthing from Texas shipped to Florida, thanks
Tealy855 1 year ago
@Tealy855 Do a early study on when the South (with lots of fertile land ) was dealing with the North and how "income" was conceived while dealing between the South and North. The North was concerned with the advantages the South had over it. This had to do with “uniform through out the united states” later.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@Tealy855 Because it isn't a tax on the artcles being exported. It's a tax on the income you earned.
prof5string 1 year ago
Thank u!
btharealest 1 year ago
The power to tax the domestic earnings of the vast majority of American citizens was never granted to congress by the U.S. Constitution. Working and making a living is a natural or unalienable right not a mear privlage and such a broad direct tax could never pass constitional muster and would most certainly be struck down by the Supream Court. The income tax is a excise tax on a privlage.
Tealy855 1 year ago
@Tealy855 The income tax is an indirect tax, it does not need to be apportioned. It needs only to be uniform. The thing is that an indirect tax is a tax on activities. and not every activity is taxable. Could you imagine an irs indictment that is saying that a doctor savings someone's life is a taxable activity. They cannot do that. hence they try to win by confusing and scaring everyone.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The IRS operates on the publics belief that they owe taxes and are required to file in addition to fear tactics.
Tealy855 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The IRS operates on the publics belief that they owe taxes and are required to file in addition to fear tactics.
Tealy855 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The IRS operates on the publics belief that they owe taxes and are required to file in addition to fear tactics.
Tealy855 1 year ago
The IRS operates on the publics belief that they owe taxes and are required to file in addition to fear tactics.
Tealy855 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Those made liable within the several states are:
1. non resident alliens with domestic income
2. foreign corporations with domestic income
3.. withholding agents for the above
4. U.S Persons holding the income of the above( 1 and 2 )
U.S. Citizens residing abroad and receiving foreign income are also made liable
Tealy855 1 year ago
Those made liable within the several states are:
1. non resident alliens with domestic income
2. foreign corporations with domestic income
3.. withholding agents for the above
4. U.S Persons holding the income of the above( 1 and 2 )
U.S. Citizens residing abroad and receiving foreign income are also made liable
Tealy855 1 year ago
@Tealy855
You forgot every citizen with income from anywhere in the world.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Wrong!!-It has been proven that only income from international commerce is taxable, This is because of constitutional limitations imposed
on congress. They can not tax the domestic income of citizens of the 50 states
and that has been proven. So go back to the hole you crawled out of -ya
magot-
Tealy855 1 year ago
@Tealy855
You keep saying things "have been proven", but the courts all say you are wrong. Would you like me to post all of those cases here also? I posted them on other videos that you no longer comment on....strange, isn't it?
Can you post a single court case where someone has used your ideas and has won? I can post some where they lost, because they used your ideas.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid If my income is from exporting goods to Canada - how can congress tax that ?
." [Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5]
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State
Tealy855 1 year ago
@Tealy855
Correction--> The export is not taxed, your income from it is taxed.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
Example: Congress cannot place a duty of $1 on each apple exported to Canada, but it can place a 10% tax on your income from selling those apples in Canada.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Ya - Tom Cryer for one
Tealy855 1 year ago
@Tealy855
Some people have won a criminal case for not filing or paying income tax, but only by proving it was not 'willfull'. Cryer still owes over $1.4 Million. That case is still ongoing.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@Tealy855 RetSquid is an agent troll who has nothing better to do than spew nonsensical tripe throughout the internet. Time spent on replying to this waste of keystrokes is time wasted. Enjoy your awakening and let RetSquid wallow in self loathing of the most uneducated kind :)
venuecam 1 year ago
@venuecam I agree - I am not going to respond to his BS anymore-
I say WACK that mole / troll -
Tealy855 1 year ago
@venuecam Could you please cite a single instance of something RetSquid posted that was inaccurate?
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string could you please cite a single instance of something RetSquid posted that was accurate?
venuecam 1 year ago
@venuecam Sure. Tom Cryer is still liable for back taxes. US citizens are taxable on their income wherever it's earned in the world. Tealy's arguments are losers.
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string Explain Revocation of election between "spouses". Thank you.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b There are many elections spouses can make. Be more specific.
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string Well at least you are unlike Retsquid and acknowledge that one exist
asicit2b 1 year ago
@prof5string The IRS code states"Income" as "money earned from gains".
Assuming you are on the IRS' side then any accuracy in anything RetSquid comments would be subject to whether Tom Cryer derived any "Income" (payment from gains) or "Pecuniary Wages" (payment in exchange for labor). Both are exclusive from each other. They cannot be the same and without clear evidence of either RetSquid is speaking hypothetically or just plain pathetically Either way :)
venuecam 1 year ago
@venuecam Cryer earned money from his law practice. It either constituted wages or income derived from business, both of which are includable in gross income under Section 61.
I'm not on the IRS's side. I simply know what the law is and what it isn't. I don't take a position on whether the law is good, bad, wise, or foolish.
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string It's great you know what law is and isn't. Unfortunately you don't seem to know how to distinguish between Legislation (Statutes) and Common Law. And no they aren't intertwined cos that would be like saying oil is intertwined with water.
venuecam 1 year ago
@venuecam
Statutes are the written law which overrides any unwritten or common law.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid if you say so LOL
venuecam 1 year ago
@venuecam
No, that is what everyone says.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Correction. What many people know and what makes IRS recruits like you frustrated. The truth is frustrating to those who deny it.
venuecam 1 year ago
@venuecam
I know, that is why people like you get so frustrated and start calling names, you are frustrated by the truth.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid It's ok Squidgy. Grab a Kleenex. There there. What? That isn't your user name? But that's what it says. Alzheimers perhaps?
Oh sorry. Ret-IRED Squid... An Admiralty nickname referring to officer, recruit or agent. You really don't know how to hide your background well do you? And no matter how you colour your legal-land fictions we are not in a boat on the water therefore every and all legislative jurisdictions you choose to quote are pointless. Common Law =/ Legislative Law :D
venuecam 1 year ago
@venuecam
You are confused again/still. Legislative law applies everywhere in that jurisdiction, land or water.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid "Everyone"? Name them starting at the top of the list, or is it just your opinion? If you can't name everyone of "everyone" then it'll be accepted that your comment and every other is based on opinion, not evidence :D
venuecam 1 year ago
@venuecam
"Everyone" meaning everyone involved in any law making process, legislatures, Congress, Governors, Presidents, and all of the courts.
Do you have any evidence that I am wrong? Or is that just YOUR opinion?
RetSquid 1 year ago