There is absolutely no law to file.. That is true.. You are at risk if you choose the course of not paying.. Or even filing.. However, all it will take is one billionaire to have the balls to refuse to pay, and then take it before the Supreme Court? And then it's over folks, you will see congress trying to figure out what happened.. And the treasury will have to start printing our money.. Oh and by the way, we will have new money.. Which is a okay by me..
If this was a nation if truth and fairness, we would have the say in where our tax dollars went, like to Schools, Health Insurance and Medical Research, but 80% of our taxes goes to the US corrupt military to illegally occupy the third world countries to steal their national resources, the other 10% goes to their brutal police force to keep its citizen under leash, the last 10% goes to maintaining roads so the slave can produce for the 90% of the crooks making life miserable for us all.
Perhaps, but without taxes, no education, road, bridges, health care, army, office, farm subsidies, public park, public transport, police, firemen, power plant, railways, tunnels, water and food safety regulations...
Taxes are not a robbery, it's taking money out of every individual in order to pay things for the entire community. Basically, it's making things work for everyone, posing the background needed for the "pursuit of happiness". Otherwise, I can't imagine how bad it would be.
@102sammy because they're assholes so i say to hell with them. do 30 mins in jail have someone bail u out and keep ur damn money that u worked ur ass off for, fuck ppl who dont care about us
DONT READ THIS BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMORROW WILL BE BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. IF YOU DO NOT POST THIS COMMENT ON THREE VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN TWO DAYS. NO,YOUVE ALREADY STARTED READING THIS SO DONT STOP. THIS IS SCARY. PUT THIS ON FIVE VIDEOS IN THE NEXT 143 MIN. WHEN YOUR DONE PRESS F6 AND YOUR LOVERS NAME APPEAR ON YOUR SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SCARY CUZ IT ACTUALLY WORks
@SuperKahones There definitely is a law, but some people are either too stupid or have a preconceived notion that no amount of evidence to the contrary can change.
This goes for every "Democratic" country in the world. I'm from Belgium and what do you think what would happen if you don't pay taxes. I'll tell you what: They take away everything you own. They'll scare the shit out of you and throw you in jail. Is that Democracy? No its not. It's corporatism and fascism. Fuck it. Thats why i'm a young and poor writer. I don't pay shit and i'm going to live in an anti-squatting commune. I don't want to be a modern slave.
@Laughingblades But those taxes have to be apportioned (in other words, equal across the board). Income taxes are not apportioned. Why do you think the 16th Amendment was passed. Then the Supreme Court said that income is profit accumulated from the sale of a good or service. You need to understand your constitutional law a little better. Besides, the only reason I file is to get the money back that IRS says they owe me (I always end up with a refund).
@Laughingblades their "right" to tax us was never ratified. fuck the govt i'll move to the mountains, undrground or just leave the damn country b4 they tell me they own me. only god can own me. paprwork doesnt scare me or make me feel like i have 2 give my life over to anyone who doesnt care if i live or die. i aready did that in the military n to hell with ppl who think they can take away who i am. and if we go to hell together well so be it because i'll beat their ass up and down that place.
@ShiZi999 Article 1 Section 8, the very first article of the Constitution of the United States of America, begs to differ. Are you suggesting that the Constitution was never ratified? I guess we should throw out the Bill or Rights then.
Why did you even serve the Military if you don't believe in the Constitution?
@Laughingblades hell the fuck no i dont believe n the constitutn. i joind b/c im the oldest child n because of birth ordr n the dynamics of my childhd i felt like i had 2 please my fathr; i saw how happy he was when i told him i took the asvab n couldnt help myself when he was finlly pleasd w/me.
Respond to this video... THATS why i joined. i got the fuck out right aftr tht. dont challnge me cuz i WILL win this argumnt. ask your self (and b honest w/urself) is this life wat it should b? r we being treatd fairly? n who the hell r these ppl n the govt who just took control w/o asking?
@Laughingblades "but anyway" do you understand that i dont give a fuck if you volunteer to be a slave and not a man who stands up for himself because the most important thing for me is having god in my life and being proud of my ethnic heritage? have fun being blind because i have real priorities that have to do with my heart and soul, i couldnt care less about your little "constitution test". thats SO high school. you must be a dude cuz u sound like a fuckin retard NEVER FAILS
@ShiZi999 Well you certainly pass the macho douchebag test, but your god your heritage and your priorities are all irrelevant to the question of whether or not taxation is constitutionally legal.
Lurk more kiddo you may learn how to be less obvious.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
@Laughingblades As the Constitution says, the taxes must be uniform. The Income Tax isn't uniform. If it were uniform, then everyone would be paying the same percentage. There wouldn't be tax tables in your company's payroll office and you wouldn't have those pages and pages of tax tables in the back of the tax prep booklet. Besides, in the late 1890's, the Supreme Court ruled that an income tax was unconstitutional.
Income taxes are uniform, everyone in the same situation pays the same amount. The courts have never ruled income tax unconstitutional after 1913. And they have always said that Congress could tax income from wages and such.
@NewHeathen78 Yes they are. The income tax is based on income, uniformly throughout the united states anyone earning over 200,000 is subject to the income tax. You're on the wrong side of the constitution and the law here.
If you earn less than $100,000 a year and you support the abolition of income tax you are a fool! Here's why; Income Tax is one of the fairest forms of taxation there is as It penalises the rich more heavily than the poor.
Without income tax, government taxation would take the form of higher sales tax or taxes on food and clothes etc. Those taxes would penalise the poor much more than the rich because the poor spend a greater proportion of their income on food and clothes.
@Ravengaurd6 That is true. But there would still be tax and income tax would still be about the fairest form for the reason I mentioned. The people who lobby for (and stand to gain the most from) an end to income tax are those with incomes well above the average. That's fine, they are entitled to lobby for whatever they want. What I don't like however, is the way they try to convince the uninformed masses to support them.
@Tadgh78 with less taxes all around everyone would be made better off. tax cuts on business AND citizens means businesses would be able to higher more people and those people would be able to keep more of their money so that they efficiently allocate to address their own needs more efficiently than a third party would. With less government voluntary associations could work to solve issues without all of the road blocks and corruptions of delving into the pockets of other interests.
@Ravengaurd6 The majority would not be better off in a low tax economy because taxes are used to redistribute wealth and the top 10 of society owns about 70% of the wealth.The other 90% gets by on the 30%.Is it fair to tax the rich only as much as the poor?That is what an end of income tax would mean. 70% of jobs are created by small and medium sized business. If you want to support jobs then those are the areas of the economy you tax less.
@Tadgh78 I never said 0% taxes I said less taxes and in truth I prefer a more participatory redistribution system where all involved have more control over where their inputs go. people should be able to see and have voice in the allocation of their tax inputs to insure that the services and programs they end up in remain efficient and effective. welfare should be fixed to act as a rewards program for savings and personal development instead of promoting the breaking of families.
@Ravengaurd6 Ok. The video is about ending income tax, so I assumed you were supporting that. As I said I am of the opinion that income tax is one of the fairest of all taxes.
Now I'm not sure how a "participatory redistribution system would work". Is there an existing model for that anywhere in the world? It may or may not be a positive development. For one thing if people were given choices about where their tax money went I can see the U.S military budget being reduced considerably.
@Tadgh78 the military budget is already something people are looking to cut. as far how good the income tax is. if it truly is illegal than it needs to go down and alternative ways of funding found. And if more and more people oppose it you either knock it down or apply more force to break them through harsher penalties or even arrest.(that's something I am opposed to on grounds of principle,but many actually will look to as an acceptable route)
@Ravengaurd6 There are good and bad laws. Just because something is against the law doesn't automatically make it right or wrong. If income tax is abolished and nothing else is done you will see the rich grow richer and everyone else including the middle class grow poorer and there will be less money for social services including Law and order and education. Is that what you want to see happen?
@Tadgh78 Nothing of the sort,love. I'm proposing a more efficient and sustainable alternative. I'm basically seeking ways of achieving the same ends through different means. the current system continues to see the pool of wealth as a fixed entity and focuses on forced distribution and not promoting continued creation and efficient allocation. a system that promotes constant growth and encourages optimization at all sectors of society. This is not some ideal but a plan.
@Ravengaurd6 Your plan is unorthodox and raises several questions. How do you propose to redistribute wealth without imposed taxation? You don't seriously think that people will voluntarily give up a large part of their income do you? If you rely on sales tax or other stealth taxes on goods and services you are then back to taxing the poor more heavily than the rich. As for " more efficient allocation" how is that going to work without more administration and therefor more government?
@Tadgh78 through Contracts to Benefits.fees for benefits like police,medical and emergency services within specific zones. there'd be a collective revenue for infrastructure that is managed by an agency that focuses on optimal construction and contracting for efficient upkeep and innovative engineering. Welfare is community a pool of inputs that draws from and rewards a constructive culture of saving, personal investment,education and family planning amongst the poor. more civil, less state.
This Harrell fellow was a delusional conspiracy theorist at best. Just so people know about this... it was about STATE income taxes, not federal. He was acquitted in one case, his lone victory in a long string of losses. Yet, he was convicted in another case and ordered to pay 3 years worth of STATE income taxes. The States Rights people should love that.
They're the mafia, like Arron Russo said "I don't advise you not to pay your taxes because you may get hurt" they do it by force not by legalities because it's illegal technically...Shut down the Federal Reserve, problem solved.
What this man says is true!! Everthing is as he says! However try not paying your taxes and you will be sending this guy a letter from federal prison. Stay away from the I.R.S.! Play the with the Devil and you are safer than talking to those people. People stay away!!!
Taxes are the price of civilization. You want to benifits of civilization, well how do you think it is built and maintained, thats right, taxes. It is, litiruly, only in america that you will find people who think taxes are illegal and or should not be payed.
@dave19941000 taxes were ment for corporations, you know those mother fuckers who could afford it instead of a middle class american working 80 hours a week only to make 750 on a check but also for the federal govt to take 200 of it away for taxes! that 3 almost 4 days of me working out of those 2 weeks to get a 750 dollar check. what do they think i just worked 80 hrs to give them 200 without my concent? dont you think i would need it more that rich motherfucker on the yacht in south america!
Suppose you are wrong........and we decided to trust your advice, and Severe penalties are administered. Are you ready for a massive class action law suit?
@TheJordo313 taxes are illegal and we DONT OWE THE IRS, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO A GOOGLE SEARCH ON IT BECAUSE I CANT REPOST THE LINK IN YOUTUBE, and americans are not obligated to go to court because we are citizens. court is for maritime merchandise
@KripDrip not until u stop being a slave to these people who dont give a shit if u live or die, and start being a man and not let ppl use you or lie to u. then i'll get myself a personal limo wherever i go and i wont drive anymore!
@TheJordo313 Why don't you just do the research yourself and make up your own mind? You don't believe it, then go do your own research. If you don't have the character to do that, then do yourself a favor and keep those kind of statements to yourself.
@theabomation no if u work under the table running your own busines. fuck paperwork. we dont need paperwork to survive. we need food and water and shelter to live, not some group of rich people saying we need to bow down to them. to hell with them.
Do you know why we have to pay Income Taxes? Every dimes we worked for is not our money, for it belongs to the Federal Reserve. And they can take it all away if they wants. Yes we worked hard and earned it, but that doesn't means we own the money. Sorry, no offense, but it's very true.
@dmana3172 thats not our fault that the federal reserve wants to create money out of debt(no gold to back it up) or (they want to create mony out of thin air) and then forceit upon its own ppl to pay for it. and btw the federal reserve is privately owned which means it is not the property of the us government but some other rich guy who doesnt give 2 shits about us but he indeeds care about the money that he stealing from us.
You never felt more patriotic? M'am, You are a true patriot! God bless you for your wisdom and courage to stand up for what is right. It had to be difficult to speak the truth in that jury room.
The "happening of an event" is the work you performed that has earn you the income. Okay now show me an IRS indictment that says: you are a taxpayer because you were sweeping the floor. Or you are a taxpayer because you were picking fruits. Or you are a taxpayer because you were doing surgery on someone to save their life. So no more mumbo jumbo, just show me a IRS indictment that says this, and please no generalities.
1) We know that the income tax is an indirect tax.
2) We also know that an indirect tax is " A tax laid upon the happening of an event.".
What do we need to know?
what is in question?
1) In an IRS indictment, how did an individual become a taxpayer. What did he do?
2) Since we know that "earning income" is not the subject of the tax, because "earning income" is the tangible fruit. Then the subject of the tax is what work you perform to earn money. The "happening of an event is..
If the IRS claims that you earn income, they are claiming that the subject of the tax is income but that is the "tangible fruits" which is not the subject of the tax. The subject is the event. When you sweep a floor to earn money, the receipt of money is not the taxable event, it is the sweeping of the floor.
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;...
This means that I need to know what i did to become a taxpayer. Did i work?
However, we can sit here and talk about the minute differences between a direct and indirect tax, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the irs indictment says.
The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.
House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, page 2580.
Sherry Jackson was involved in a corporation....a corporation, unlike a person is a privilege according to title 26. However, I am certain that you are not sufficiently educated to understand
Sherry Jackson was involved in a corporation....a corporation, unlike a person is a privilege according to title 26. However, I am certain that you are not sufficiently educated to procedural errors in IRS indictments.
Correction: The IRS indictment do address the subject of the income tax, when in fact, the event that is the subject of the tax is a bona fide taxable event, as mentioned in Title 26. The classic three:Alcohol, Tabacco, and Firearm are plainly mentioned in Title 26 and the indictment for violations are clearly stated. For wages it is a different story. The IRS indictment usually refers to: As required by law.
The IRS never ever addresses the subject of the income tax in any of their indictment. In other words...they want to collect a tax, but they feel that they dont have to state what they are taxing. Knock knock...who is it? tax collector...how can i help you? we are here to collect 1200 dollars in taxes, what???? If you dont pay we are going to have to take you to prison. But But I paid all or of my taxes, what is this one? Maam we dont have to tell you...pay up or come along.
The income tax is part of the FRICFR (FRACTIONAL-RESERVE-INCOME-TAX-FEDERAL-RESERVE system). This system as a whole is a systematic liability to the general population.
The people benefiting from the FRICFR (fractional-reserve-income-tax-federal-reserve system), buy the politicians that pass the law. They dont seem to care if there is a constitution or not. The truth of the matter is that when you go against the IRS you are going against people who have the ability to finance both sides of a war, and bankrupt entire nations. The income tax is their money, dont mess with it or you will end up in prision. This is like the Italian Pizzo (protection money).
the FRICFR is Americas version of the Italian Pizzo. Except that the FRICFR is far more sophisticated than the Pizzo. A lot of people in Italy tried to stamp-out the Pizzo but the people benefiting from it have infiltrated politics and now they are so positioned that the people are helpless against this. If a society can be governed by blatant corruption, imagine what would happen if the criminals were more discrete, if they own the media and control education and the judicial?
@sadegoGG Well first off I am not a tax protester. I understand our government corrupt as it is has to have some revenue. But what part of the statement" The constitution expressly forbids unapportioned taxes is not clear. No matter how you dress it up or try to hid the fact it not legal, does not make it legal. A law or court ruling repugnant to the constitution is not a law, not matter what you try and do to make it otherwise. Besides the corrupt system is going to collapse soon anyway.
My answer to you kind of sucked. What I said was true, but if you want the specifics to why the income tax is Constitutional despite that statement I can give assist you.
It has to do with the income tax not being a direct tax. Only direct taxes have to be apportioned. So if you want me to go through a lot of the details just ask. I'll simply prove the income tax isn't a direct tax (With Supreme Court cases prior to 1913) defining what a direct tax.
There is no doubt that the income tax is constitutional. The thing is, though your idea of the "income tax" and the supreme court's idea of the income tax are different. You are confuse as to what the subject of the income tax is. Since the income tax is an indirect tax, the subject of the income tax is the activity which produced the income. Therefore, we are talking about taxing an event. Have you ever seen an IRS indictment where the subject of the income tax mentined?
It is difficult to understand how you can claim a property right in something you haven’t done yet. If your labor were “property” like other property, you could sell it and then sit back and do nothing. However, if you “sell” your labor and are paid for it, you still have to work to earn it.
Even if the major premise is correct, and labor is a form of property, the conclusion is still wrong because
Well all that mumbo jumbo you just wrote only demonstrates that you are not clear as to what an indirect tax is. In an indirect is not taxing a property, it is taxing an event. When you pay a toll to cross a bridge, the tax is not "on" the bridge...the tax is on the event of crossing the bridge.
Although the meaning of “direct tax” has sometimes been questioned, it was always understood that taxes imposed by Congress could apply to, and be collected from, individual citizens, and that not every tax collected directly from the population was a “direct tax” within the meaning of the Constitution.
One common mistake made by tax protesters is in assuming that the phrase “Capitation, or other direct, Tax” in the Constitution is a reference to any tax that is collected “directly” from the person on whom it is imposed, while “indirect” taxes such as “Duties, Imposts and Excises” are collected on goods during manufacture, or in transit, and the ultimate burden is passed along to someone else (usually the consumer).
That is a definition of “direct” and “indirect” that is frequently used by economists, but it is not the meaning of “direct” and “indirect” that has been applied by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), the Supreme Court was unanimous in its opinion that Congress could impose a tax on a citizen of Virginia for carriages held for personal use and that the tax was an excise or duty and not “direct.”
Of the four justices who heard the case, two (William Paterson and James Wilson) were members of the Constitutional Convention that drafted the Constitution, and presumably knew what it meant.
In Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an income tax against an individual, William H. Springer, finding that the income tax was a constitutional “duty or excise” and not a “direct tax.”
“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: .. .. (3) the income tax is a direct tax which is invalid absent apportionment, and Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S.Ct. 673, 39 L.Ed. 759, modified, 158 U.S. 601, 15 S.Ct. 912, 39 L.Ed. 1108 (1895),
is authority for that and other arguments against the government’s power to impose income taxes on individuals.. ..”
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
“It is generally agreed that Article I of the Constitution authorizes Congress to tax the income of individuals, and that the Sixteenth Amendment eliminated the requirement that such taxes be apportioned among the states.”
In re: Michael Fleming, 86 AFTR2d ¶2000-5138; No. 97-6342-8G3 (U.S.Bank.Ct. M.D.Fl. 8/9/2000). “Congress may impose taxes on individuals in the states without apportionment among the several States, and ‘without regard to any census or enumeration,’ and ‘on incomes, from whatever source derived.’”
Secora v. United States, 1997 WL 460162, at 6 (U.S.D.C. Neb.).
The meaning of “direct tax” urged by many tax protesters as a “tax imposed directly” would trivialize the Constitution, because it reduces the constitutional definition of “direct tax” to a mere question of how the tax is collected. So, if the U.S. were to impose a tax on employees for the wages they receive, that would be a “direct tax” according to the tax protester definition,
but if the U.S. were to impose a tax on employers for wages paid (or a tax on banks for the payment of interest, or on corporations for the payment of dividends), that would be an “indirect tax” and constitutional, even though the net effect would be exactly the same (i.e., the employees or depositors or shareholders would bear the burden of the tax through reduced wages and salaries, interest, or dividends).
The meaning of “direct tax” that has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court is much more sensible (as well as consistent with the known intent of the framers of the Constitution), because it focuses on what is being taxed (the value of property, but not transfers of property) rather than on how the tax is collected.
Some courts have referred to the income tax as a “non-apportioned direct tax,” which is unfortunate because it suggests that the income tax is a “Capitation, or other direct, Tax” that does not need to be apportioned, a suggestion that was explicitly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brushaber. Under the Constitution, a “direct tax” must be apportioned, while an “indirect tax” must be uniform throughout the United States.
One of the questions raised in Brushaber was whether the 16th Amendment created a type of tax that need be neither apportioned nor uniform, and the court rejected that possibility, stating (in a rather convoluted sentence):
“[T]hat the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct,
thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the
Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class.”
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
The court then went on to hold that the income tax satisfied the requirement of geographical uniformity imposed by the Constitution, even though the rate of tax was not uniform on all incomes.
Did the court in Becraft, quoted above, mean to say that the income tax is a “non-apportioned direct tax” that need not be uniform? No, because the question of uniformity was not raised with the court. This is merely confusion in terminology, the court using the word “direct” to describe a tax that is imposed and collected by the government directly from citizens or residents of the United States, not that the income tax is a “direct tax” within the meaning of the Constitution.
Please, in the future, reply to my most recent comment. That will ensure to me you actually read all of my comments, and it makes it easier for you to read further replies.
Also, if your going to debate me...please include Supreme Court cases (Actually read the entire thing so you don't post anything out of context).
the Internal Revenue Code does not tax labor itself, but the compensation received for labor (i.e., the income from labor).
If you go into your back yard and work for a week taking clay and making pots, there is no income and no tax. However, if you sell your pots, you have income because you have taken in money, and have more money than you had before.
Similarly, if you “sell your labor” by agreeing to work in someone else’s factory (or farm) for a week, you have sold your labor and the compensation you receive is taxable.
As a general proposition, it is correct that Congress cannot tax the value of property directly (or at least not without apportionment), but can only tax exchanges or transfers of property.
For example, the federal estate tax is clearly a tax on the value of property, and yet it has been held to be constitutional as an excise tax on the transfer of the property at death. Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41 (1900). Similarly, Congress cannot tax the value of real property, but can tax sales or transfers of real property. So the income tax is a tax on the receipt of income, and the sale of labor is a transaction that allows the constitutional imposition of a tax.
Of course, every court that has been forced to rule on this issue has ruled against the tax protester raising it. “Finally, the taxpayer argues that because wages are property, a tax on them is a property tax, and because the tax the Commissioner is attempting to collect is not apportioned, it is unconstitutional. However, as we and innumerable other courts have repeatedly explained, wages are income, and income taxes do not need to be apportioned.”
Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985), (the court not only ruled against the taxpayer, but also imposed sanctions of $2,000 against the taxpayer).
“It is clear beyond peradventure that the income tax on wages is constitutional.”
Stelly v. Commissioner, 761 F.2d 1113, 1115 (5th Cir. 1985), cert. den. 106 S.Ct. 149 (1985).
I really don't know what your argument is...so let me show you that the founding fathers were not opposed to an income tax.
Another example of the triumph of hope over reason, because there is absolutely no historical evidence for such a belief.
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution says that “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises...” The only specific exemption is in Section 9, which prohibits taxes on exports.
In Hylton v. United States, the three justices who wrote opinions were unanimous in their view that the Congressional power to tax was a general (or “plenary”) power, the only exception being exports. Justice Chase stated that:
“The power, in the eighth section of the first article, to lay and collect taxes, included a power to lay direct taxes, (whether capitation, or any other) and also duties, imposes, and excises; and every other species or kind of tax whatsoever, and called by any other name. ...
I consider the Constitution to stand in this manner. A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports...”
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Chase; emphasis added).
In the same case, Justice Paterson (who was a member of the Constitutional Convention) stated:
"It was, however, obviously the intention of the framers of the Constitution, that Congress should possess full power over every species of taxable property, except exports. The term taxes, is generical, and was made use of to vest in Congress plenary authority in all cases of taxation.”
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Paterson; emphasis added).
“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) (emphasis added).
In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton had stated that the Congressional power to tax would be “concurrent and coequal” with the power of the states to tax (Federalist #32) and the Supreme Court has agreed that “The subject-matter of taxation open to the power of the Congress is as comprehensive as that open to the power of the states....”
Chas. C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581 (1937). See also, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 154 (1911). And, before and after the adoption of the Constitution, several states imposed taxes on professions, vocations, or employments. As explained by the Supreme Court:
“Taxes, which are but the means of distributing the burden of the cost of government, are commonly levied on property or its use, but they may likewise be laid on the exercise of personal rights and privileges. As has been pointed out by the opinion in the Chas. C. Steward Machine Co. Case [301 U.S. 548 (1937)], such levies, including taxes on the exercise of the right to employ or to be employed, were known in England and
the Colonies before the adoption of the Constitution, and must be taken to be embraced within the wide range of choice of subjects of taxation, which was an attribute of the sovereign power of the states at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and which was reserved to them by that instrument. As the present
levy [imposed by Alabama on wages paid] has all the indicia of a tax, and is of a type traditional in the history of Anglo-American legislation, it is within state taxing power, and it is immaterial whether it is called an excise or by another name.”
Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495, 508-509 (1937).
If the states had the power to tax wages, salaries, and other incomes from employment, then the Congress of the United States had the same power. (For other examples, see the cases cited in the discussion of whether a tax on wages is a “direct tax.”)
There have been a few Supreme Court decisions that have found incomes that Congress did not have the power to tax. However, all of those decisions arose out of considerations of federalism
(i.e., the relationship between the federal and state governments) or the separation of powers within the federal government, and all of those decisions were over-ruled by later decisions and are no longer good law. For example:
In Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. 113 (1870), it was held that Congress could not tax the salary of a state employee. That holding was explicitly overruled by Graves v. New York ex rel. O’Keefe, 306 U.S. 466, 486-487 (1939).
Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920), held that the compensation received by federal judges could not be subject to income tax because Article III of the Constitution states that the compensation of judges ‘shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.’ Evans v. Gore was over-ruled by O’Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939).
In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, (1895), the Supreme Court held that interest on the debts of state and local governments could not be taxed. That holding was reversed in South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988).
In Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393 (1932), it was held that the income from land owned by a state and leased to a private corporation could not be taxed if the lease was part of a “governmental function.” That holding was reversed by Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., 303 U.S. 376 (1938).
So, over the years, the Supreme Court has considered the possibility that certain types of income from government-related activities might be constitutionally exempt from income tax, but eventually decided that no such exemptions existed.
Tax protesters sometimes find and quote those decisions, not realizing (or not caring) that the decisions represent relatively short-lived experiments in inter-governmental immunities and are simply not relevant to federal taxes on incomes unrelated to any governmental activity.
There is not a single decision in the history of the United States in which any judge has ever even suggested that Congress cannot tax wages and salaries generally.
And, if the salaries of state employees can be taxed by Congress, it is ludicrous to suggest that ordinary salaries paid by private employers might have some kind of immunity from tax.
In Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U.S. 115, 117 (1916), one of the appellants was an individual named Edwin Thorne, and he complained about the constitutionality of “a progressive tax on the income of individuals.” The Supreme Court denied the appeal saying that “we need not now enter into an original consideration of the merits of these contentions because each and all of them were considered and adversely disposed of in Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 60 L.Ed. __,
36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236.” (And the Brushaber decision upheld the constitutionality of an income tax under the 16th Amendment.)
More recent judges have rejected this argument as well:
“[Becraft’s] position can fairly be reduced to one elemental proposition: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens and thus such citizens are not subject to the federal income tax laws. ...
We hardly need comment on the patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition. For over 75 years, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized the Sixteenth Amendment’s authorization of a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens residing in the United States and thus the validity of the federal income tax laws as applied to such citizens.”
In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir., 1989). “[W]e have rejected, on numerous occasions, the tax-protester argument that the federal income tax is an unconstitutional direct tax that must be apportioned. See, e.g., Lively v. Commissioner, 705 F.2d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam)”
United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. den. 510 U.S. 1193 (1994).
Most importantly remember that the owners of the banks that set up this system of income tax, fractional reserve banking, federal reserve are extremely powerful. They control what is being taught in schools, they control the media, they control the courts, they control politicians who write the laws. Therefore the jury and the judge has already decided against you regardless of what you say in court.
Whats worse is that the funds for the income tax go to pay the interest on the national debt. Private banks using the fractional reserve principle, loan money to themselves and thereby creating money out of thin air. The money is used to buy Treasury bonds. Then Mr Taxpayer have to pay taxes to the bank and pay off the interest on the treasury bonds. Amidst all of this paper and transaction, the only thing real is your work!
Can you prove the money pays interest to the federal debt?
Can you PM me where in a CAFR, government websites, or distinguished economists who back their information through the presentation of their research and how they drew their conclusions that you used to fact check your statement before you began passing the word as truth on the internet?
The 47 volumes and 21000 pages of the Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (PSSCC):
one-third of all income taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government, and another one-third escapes collection due to the underground economy. "With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.
According to the budget reports of the United States (Fiscal Year 2006) the federal government earned $1.04 trillion off the income tax. 'Historical Tables. Budget of the United States Government. Fiscal Year 2008. Page 30'. In the same document, net interest expenses in 2006 were $226 billion (Page 54). About 20% of the income tax. Obviously we are not using gross interest (Which would only be 40% anyways) because we don't want to consider government trust funds.
In the trust funds the government just pays off debt to itself. ex: Moving money from one account to another.
This issue actually originated from the Grace Commission Report of 1984 under President Reagan.
The Grace Commission Report states the quote that you provided me. With Reagan's bias against the income tax, some professional even question how good this information is. However, lets analyze it.
Even accepting the Commission's word as gospel, the Commission didn’t say that all income tax goes to interest. The Commission said it goes to interest and transfer payments. “Transfer payments” are payments for programs such as welfare. You may or may not like welfare programs, but many people regard them as an important government function. So there’s a big difference between saying that all income tax goes to interest and saying it all goes to interest and transfer payments.
Moreover, the Commission put its statement in a misleading way. In the last quoted paragraph, the Commission said that “all” income tax goes to interest and transfer payments, but the prior paragraphs show that the Commission meant "all the income tax left over after the part we regard as wasted." The Commission wrote off 1/3 of income tax as wasted.
That’s obviously pretty contestable. Moreover, because the Commission regarded 1/3 of income tax as “not collected,” the 1/3 of income taxes that the Commission regarded as wasted represents 1/2 of all collected income taxes.
So what the Commission really said is “half of income taxes collected by the federal government go to interest on the national debt and welfare.” Again, even accepting the Commission's word, that’s pretty different from “all income taxes go to interest.”
Does it matter what percentage of the income tax goes to pay off the interest on the national debt? What if someone extorts money from you, would it matter if it is 1%, 50% or 100%? The National Debt is an artificiality. There is computer digital exchange, but amidst all of this bookkeeping entries and paper work, the only thing real is a person's labor consolidated in money. Lets start to ask: Why the Federal Reserve Note over the United State Note? Why Treasury Bonds?
So the statement that 100% of income taxes go to pay interest on the national debt is completely wrong.
And what is the point of this statement anyway? Protestors who make this statement seem to be responding to the argument that we need the income tax to fund the government. They appear to be
claiming that we could eliminate the income tax without affecting any government programs that people might want. I guess they reach this conclusion by thinking something like this: "the income tax doesn't fund any government programs that anyone might want, because 100% of it just goes to pay interest on the
national debt. Some other source of revenue funds the programs people want." But even if that were true (which it isn't), so what? It's not as though we can stop paying interest on the national debt. That's mandatory. If income tax weren't available to fund that interest, some other revenue would have to be used to pay it, and the programs that rely on that other revenue would suffer.
I don't see how this is applicable to the Constitutionality of the income tax, or what the income tax is paying off. Your initial statement was a complete lie. Are you trying to change the subject or do you have a point?
Interest free money is a possibility, but it has nothing to do with the legalities of the Income Tax or what the income tax pays for. Did you read all of my comments? I know there were a lot of them...but I wanted to cover everything.
So we can't conclude that we could eliminate the income tax without hurting government programs that people want.
Think of it this way: suppose you had a large credit card debt, and you said to yourself, "too much of my income is going to pay interest on my credit card debt -- not enough of my income is going to pay for things I really want."
In such a case, the solution would not be to stop earning income! Eliminating your income wouldn't get rid of your debt. You'd just have to keep paying that credit card interest anyway, and you wouldn't have income to fund it. You'd be even worse off. The solution would be either to increase your income somehow, or to cut down on your discretionary spending, and pay down your debt.
Similarly, you may think that too much of federal income taxes go to pay interest on the national debt, but, again, eliminating the income tax wouldn't get rid of the debt. The debt has to be paid for somehow.
So go ahead and openly criticize the government for spending too much. I certainly do. But don't go out and lie to people saying the income tax only goes to the national debt, then post a text that disproves you...acting like paying off the debt isn't important.
This has been flagged as spam show
There is absolutely no law to file.. That is true.. You are at risk if you choose the course of not paying.. Or even filing.. However, all it will take is one billionaire to have the balls to refuse to pay, and then take it before the Supreme Court? And then it's over folks, you will see congress trying to figure out what happened.. And the treasury will have to start printing our money.. Oh and by the way, we will have new money.. Which is a okay by me..
SuperGuitarman69 3 weeks ago
"land of the free" yeah, right..
Mastakuia 1 month ago
If ALL of the people stood up and protested in THIS manner, we could take the crooks out of Washington.
2012Mastema 1 month ago
15 ppl are fucking zombie sheeple
dab0331 1 month ago 4
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 1 month ago
To understand the fraud, the real question of liability is: "what law gives force and effect to the IRC?" NeOn314.webplus.net
NeOne314IamOne 1 month ago
@RationalBullets EXACTLY
ShiZi999 2 months ago
If this was a nation if truth and fairness, we would have the say in where our tax dollars went, like to Schools, Health Insurance and Medical Research, but 80% of our taxes goes to the US corrupt military to illegally occupy the third world countries to steal their national resources, the other 10% goes to their brutal police force to keep its citizen under leash, the last 10% goes to maintaining roads so the slave can produce for the 90% of the crooks making life miserable for us all.
CEOTerminator 2 months ago
Perhaps, but without taxes, no education, road, bridges, health care, army, office, farm subsidies, public park, public transport, police, firemen, power plant, railways, tunnels, water and food safety regulations...
Taxes are not a robbery, it's taking money out of every individual in order to pay things for the entire community. Basically, it's making things work for everyone, posing the background needed for the "pursuit of happiness". Otherwise, I can't imagine how bad it would be.
MenwithHill 2 months ago
oh really so maybe you can tell me why im making pmnts to to the irs and their about to Levy my account all tax retuns filed!!
102sammy 3 months ago
@102sammy because they're assholes so i say to hell with them. do 30 mins in jail have someone bail u out and keep ur damn money that u worked ur ass off for, fuck ppl who dont care about us
ShiZi999 2 months ago
16th Amendment?
rhoads83j 3 months ago
@rhoads83j good thinking, but it wasnt ratified, so they're lying to us, as usual
ShiZi999 2 months ago
@rhoads83j never ratified ;) thank goodness.
TheOffensiveuser 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
End the Fed, End the IRS. Ron Paul 2012!
peanutblondie 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DONT READ THIS BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMORROW WILL BE BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. IF YOU DO NOT POST THIS COMMENT ON THREE VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN TWO DAYS. NO,YOUVE ALREADY STARTED READING THIS SO DONT STOP. THIS IS SCARY. PUT THIS ON FIVE VIDEOS IN THE NEXT 143 MIN. WHEN YOUR DONE PRESS F6 AND YOUR LOVERS NAME APPEAR ON YOUR SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SCARY CUZ IT ACTUALLY WORks
ManKindRage 4 months ago
We are all slaves to the globalist banksters.
benjaminalarie 4 months ago
There is no law, because they don't know the law!
SuperKahones 4 months ago
@SuperKahones There definitely is a law, but some people are either too stupid or have a preconceived notion that no amount of evidence to the contrary can change.
prof5string 4 months ago
RIP AARON! I share the same truth. There is no law! PERI0D! FIGHT BACK FOLKS
10
!
SuperKahones 4 months ago 2
This goes for every "Democratic" country in the world. I'm from Belgium and what do you think what would happen if you don't pay taxes. I'll tell you what: They take away everything you own. They'll scare the shit out of you and throw you in jail. Is that Democracy? No its not. It's corporatism and fascism. Fuck it. Thats why i'm a young and poor writer. I don't pay shit and i'm going to live in an anti-squatting commune. I don't want to be a modern slave.
texasB666 5 months ago
@texasB666 DAMN RIGHT
ShiZi999 2 months ago
The United States constitution clearly affords to Congress the power to lay and collect taxes. It's right there in Article One Section Eight.
Time to admit that you were wrong and get that apology ready.
Laughingblades 5 months ago
@Laughingblades But those taxes have to be apportioned (in other words, equal across the board). Income taxes are not apportioned. Why do you think the 16th Amendment was passed. Then the Supreme Court said that income is profit accumulated from the sale of a good or service. You need to understand your constitutional law a little better. Besides, the only reason I file is to get the money back that IRS says they owe me (I always end up with a refund).
NewHeathen78 5 months ago
@Laughingblades their "right" to tax us was never ratified. fuck the govt i'll move to the mountains, undrground or just leave the damn country b4 they tell me they own me. only god can own me. paprwork doesnt scare me or make me feel like i have 2 give my life over to anyone who doesnt care if i live or die. i aready did that in the military n to hell with ppl who think they can take away who i am. and if we go to hell together well so be it because i'll beat their ass up and down that place.
ShiZi999 2 months ago
@ShiZi999 Article 1 Section 8, the very first article of the Constitution of the United States of America, begs to differ. Are you suggesting that the Constitution was never ratified? I guess we should throw out the Bill or Rights then.
Why did you even serve the Military if you don't believe in the Constitution?
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades hell the fuck no i dont believe n the constitutn. i joind b/c im the oldest child n because of birth ordr n the dynamics of my childhd i felt like i had 2 please my fathr; i saw how happy he was when i told him i took the asvab n couldnt help myself when he was finlly pleasd w/me.
ShiZi999 2 months ago
Respond to this video... THATS why i joined. i got the fuck out right aftr tht. dont challnge me cuz i WILL win this argumnt. ask your self (and b honest w/urself) is this life wat it should b? r we being treatd fairly? n who the hell r these ppl n the govt who just took control w/o asking?
ShiZi999 2 months ago
@ShiZi999 Looks like you already failed the constitution test.
But anyway, you do realize that the constitutionally legal status of taxation and the corruption of our government are two separate issues right?
Laughingblades 2 months ago
@Laughingblades "but anyway" do you understand that i dont give a fuck if you volunteer to be a slave and not a man who stands up for himself because the most important thing for me is having god in my life and being proud of my ethnic heritage? have fun being blind because i have real priorities that have to do with my heart and soul, i couldnt care less about your little "constitution test". thats SO high school. you must be a dude cuz u sound like a fuckin retard NEVER FAILS
ShiZi999 2 months ago
@ShiZi999 Well you certainly pass the macho douchebag test, but your god your heritage and your priorities are all irrelevant to the question of whether or not taxation is constitutionally legal.
Lurk more kiddo you may learn how to be less obvious.
Laughingblades 2 months ago
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Laughingblades 5 months ago
@Laughingblades As the Constitution says, the taxes must be uniform. The Income Tax isn't uniform. If it were uniform, then everyone would be paying the same percentage. There wouldn't be tax tables in your company's payroll office and you wouldn't have those pages and pages of tax tables in the back of the tax prep booklet. Besides, in the late 1890's, the Supreme Court ruled that an income tax was unconstitutional.
NewHeathen78 5 months ago
@NewHeathen78
Income taxes are uniform, everyone in the same situation pays the same amount. The courts have never ruled income tax unconstitutional after 1913. And they have always said that Congress could tax income from wages and such.
RetSquid 5 months ago
@NewHeathen78 Yes they are. The income tax is based on income, uniformly throughout the united states anyone earning over 200,000 is subject to the income tax. You're on the wrong side of the constitution and the law here.
Laughingblades 5 months ago
@NewHeathen78 FUCKIN RIGHT
ShiZi999 2 months ago
If you earn less than $100,000 a year and you support the abolition of income tax you are a fool! Here's why; Income Tax is one of the fairest forms of taxation there is as It penalises the rich more heavily than the poor.
Without income tax, government taxation would take the form of higher sales tax or taxes on food and clothes etc. Those taxes would penalise the poor much more than the rich because the poor spend a greater proportion of their income on food and clothes.
Tadgh78 6 months ago
@Tadgh78 With a smaller government and less spending there would be less of a need to tax in general.
Ravengaurd6 5 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 That is true. But there would still be tax and income tax would still be about the fairest form for the reason I mentioned. The people who lobby for (and stand to gain the most from) an end to income tax are those with incomes well above the average. That's fine, they are entitled to lobby for whatever they want. What I don't like however, is the way they try to convince the uninformed masses to support them.
Tadgh78 5 months ago
@Tadgh78 with less taxes all around everyone would be made better off. tax cuts on business AND citizens means businesses would be able to higher more people and those people would be able to keep more of their money so that they efficiently allocate to address their own needs more efficiently than a third party would. With less government voluntary associations could work to solve issues without all of the road blocks and corruptions of delving into the pockets of other interests.
Ravengaurd6 5 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 The majority would not be better off in a low tax economy because taxes are used to redistribute wealth and the top 10 of society owns about 70% of the wealth.The other 90% gets by on the 30%.Is it fair to tax the rich only as much as the poor?That is what an end of income tax would mean. 70% of jobs are created by small and medium sized business. If you want to support jobs then those are the areas of the economy you tax less.
Tadgh78 5 months ago
@Tadgh78 I never said 0% taxes I said less taxes and in truth I prefer a more participatory redistribution system where all involved have more control over where their inputs go. people should be able to see and have voice in the allocation of their tax inputs to insure that the services and programs they end up in remain efficient and effective. welfare should be fixed to act as a rewards program for savings and personal development instead of promoting the breaking of families.
Ravengaurd6 5 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 Ok. The video is about ending income tax, so I assumed you were supporting that. As I said I am of the opinion that income tax is one of the fairest of all taxes.
Now I'm not sure how a "participatory redistribution system would work". Is there an existing model for that anywhere in the world? It may or may not be a positive development. For one thing if people were given choices about where their tax money went I can see the U.S military budget being reduced considerably.
Tadgh78 5 months ago
@Tadgh78 the military budget is already something people are looking to cut. as far how good the income tax is. if it truly is illegal than it needs to go down and alternative ways of funding found. And if more and more people oppose it you either knock it down or apply more force to break them through harsher penalties or even arrest.(that's something I am opposed to on grounds of principle,but many actually will look to as an acceptable route)
Ravengaurd6 5 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 There are good and bad laws. Just because something is against the law doesn't automatically make it right or wrong. If income tax is abolished and nothing else is done you will see the rich grow richer and everyone else including the middle class grow poorer and there will be less money for social services including Law and order and education. Is that what you want to see happen?
Tadgh78 5 months ago
@Tadgh78 Nothing of the sort,love. I'm proposing a more efficient and sustainable alternative. I'm basically seeking ways of achieving the same ends through different means. the current system continues to see the pool of wealth as a fixed entity and focuses on forced distribution and not promoting continued creation and efficient allocation. a system that promotes constant growth and encourages optimization at all sectors of society. This is not some ideal but a plan.
Ravengaurd6 5 months ago
@Ravengaurd6 Your plan is unorthodox and raises several questions. How do you propose to redistribute wealth without imposed taxation? You don't seriously think that people will voluntarily give up a large part of their income do you? If you rely on sales tax or other stealth taxes on goods and services you are then back to taxing the poor more heavily than the rich. As for " more efficient allocation" how is that going to work without more administration and therefor more government?
Tadgh78 5 months ago
@Tadgh78 through Contracts to Benefits.fees for benefits like police,medical and emergency services within specific zones. there'd be a collective revenue for infrastructure that is managed by an agency that focuses on optimal construction and contracting for efficient upkeep and innovative engineering. Welfare is community a pool of inputs that draws from and rewards a constructive culture of saving, personal investment,education and family planning amongst the poor. more civil, less state.
Ravengaurd6 5 months ago
Comment removed
Tadgh78 6 months ago
Comment removed
Tadgh78 6 months ago
Comment removed
Tadgh78 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This Harrell fellow was a delusional conspiracy theorist at best. Just so people know about this... it was about STATE income taxes, not federal. He was acquitted in one case, his lone victory in a long string of losses. Yet, he was convicted in another case and ordered to pay 3 years worth of STATE income taxes. The States Rights people should love that.
PalemoonSun 6 months ago
Comment removed
PalemoonSun 6 months ago
We've paid for the roads five thousand times over.
stevieRay3211 6 months ago
They're the mafia, like Arron Russo said "I don't advise you not to pay your taxes because you may get hurt" they do it by force not by legalities because it's illegal technically...Shut down the Federal Reserve, problem solved.
royalblowno 7 months ago 6
@royalblowno The income tax is perfectly legal and has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve. We had the income tax 72 years before the Fed.
prof5string 6 months ago
@royalblowno THANK YOU SOMEBODY GETS IT
ShiZi999 2 months ago
i LOL'd very hard at 7:02 hahahah
AoiMitsuko 7 months ago
the americans need to see how free they really are!
ProducionFuckGayrek 7 months ago 5
What this man says is true!! Everthing is as he says! However try not paying your taxes and you will be sending this guy a letter from federal prison. Stay away from the I.R.S.! Play the with the Devil and you are safer than talking to those people. People stay away!!!
hoppyhayes 8 months ago
AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET US FREE
LoveVanillaRose 8 months ago
@RationalBullets Who the hell is Jamie Dimon and what is JP.
dave19941000 8 months ago
@RationalBullets No thanks, I think paying taxes to my country is enough.
dave19941000 8 months ago
Taxes are the price of civilization. You want to benifits of civilization, well how do you think it is built and maintained, thats right, taxes. It is, litiruly, only in america that you will find people who think taxes are illegal and or should not be payed.
dave19941000 9 months ago
@dave19941000 taxes were ment for corporations, you know those mother fuckers who could afford it instead of a middle class american working 80 hours a week only to make 750 on a check but also for the federal govt to take 200 of it away for taxes! that 3 almost 4 days of me working out of those 2 weeks to get a 750 dollar check. what do they think i just worked 80 hrs to give them 200 without my concent? dont you think i would need it more that rich motherfucker on the yacht in south america!
StandUpAgainstOurGov 8 months ago
TAXES:
GOVERNMENTS STEAL MONEY FROM PEOPLE
GOVERNMENT PEOPLE ENJOY GOOD LIFE WITH TAXPAYER MONEY
666nightwolf1 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
taxes are illegal and we DONT OWE THE IRS, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO A GOOGLE SEARCH ON IT BECAUSE I CANT REPOST THE LINK IN YOUTUBE
ShiZi999 9 months ago
Suppose you are wrong........and we decided to trust your advice, and Severe penalties are administered. Are you ready for a massive class action law suit?
TheJordo313 9 months ago
@TheJordo313 taxes are illegal and we DONT OWE THE IRS, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO A GOOGLE SEARCH ON IT BECAUSE I CANT REPOST THE LINK IN YOUTUBE, and americans are not obligated to go to court because we are citizens. court is for maritime merchandise
ShiZi999 9 months ago
stop driving on public roads
KripDrip 7 months ago
@KripDrip not until u stop being a slave to these people who dont give a shit if u live or die, and start being a man and not let ppl use you or lie to u. then i'll get myself a personal limo wherever i go and i wont drive anymore!
ShiZi999 2 months ago
@TheJordo313 Why don't you just do the research yourself and make up your own mind? You don't believe it, then go do your own research. If you don't have the character to do that, then do yourself a favor and keep those kind of statements to yourself.
Daddyo930 9 months ago
Even if you dont pay taxes you do becouse the government takes money out of your paycheck directly
theabomation 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theabomation taxes are illegal and we DONT OWE THE IRS, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO A GOOGLE SEARCH ON IT BECAUSE I CANT REPOST THE LINK IN YOUTUBE
ShiZi999 9 months ago
@theabomation no if u work under the table running your own busines. fuck paperwork. we dont need paperwork to survive. we need food and water and shelter to live, not some group of rich people saying we need to bow down to them. to hell with them.
ShiZi999 2 months ago
Do you know why we have to pay Income Taxes? Every dimes we worked for is not our money, for it belongs to the Federal Reserve. And they can take it all away if they wants. Yes we worked hard and earned it, but that doesn't means we own the money. Sorry, no offense, but it's very true.
dmana3172 10 months ago
@dmana3172 thats not our fault that the federal reserve wants to create money out of debt(no gold to back it up) or (they want to create mony out of thin air) and then forceit upon its own ppl to pay for it. and btw the federal reserve is privately owned which means it is not the property of the us government but some other rich guy who doesnt give 2 shits about us but he indeeds care about the money that he stealing from us.
StandUpAgainstOurGov 8 months ago
can this film, America, Freedom to Fascism be used as legal precedent in a tax court case?
libertyeagle777 10 months ago
You never felt more patriotic? M'am, You are a true patriot! God bless you for your wisdom and courage to stand up for what is right. It had to be difficult to speak the truth in that jury room.
JanBugg 10 months ago
BE VERY SPECIFIC FOR THIS IS THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE CRIME!!!!
se7ensnakes 10 months ago
The "happening of an event" is the work you performed that has earn you the income. Okay now show me an IRS indictment that says: you are a taxpayer because you were sweeping the floor. Or you are a taxpayer because you were picking fruits. Or you are a taxpayer because you were doing surgery on someone to save their life. So no more mumbo jumbo, just show me a IRS indictment that says this, and please no generalities.
se7ensnakes 10 months ago
Sandego
1) We know that the income tax is an indirect tax.
2) We also know that an indirect tax is " A tax laid upon the happening of an event.".
What do we need to know?
what is in question?
1) In an IRS indictment, how did an individual become a taxpayer. What did he do?
2) Since we know that "earning income" is not the subject of the tax, because "earning income" is the tangible fruit. Then the subject of the tax is what work you perform to earn money. The "happening of an event is..
se7ensnakes 10 months ago
If the IRS claims that you earn income, they are claiming that the subject of the tax is income but that is the "tangible fruits" which is not the subject of the tax. The subject is the event. When you sweep a floor to earn money, the receipt of money is not the taxable event, it is the sweeping of the floor.
se7ensnakes 10 months ago
Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;...
This means that I need to know what i did to become a taxpayer. Did i work?
se7ensnakes 10 months ago
However, we can sit here and talk about the minute differences between a direct and indirect tax, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the irs indictment says.
se7ensnakes 10 months ago
. 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 10 months ago
The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.
House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, page 2580.
se7ensnakes 10 months ago
Sherry Jackson was involved in a corporation....a corporation, unlike a person is a privilege according to title 26. However, I am certain that you are not sufficiently educated to understand
procedural errors in IRS indictments.
se7ensnakes 10 months ago
Sherry Jackson was involved in a corporation....a corporation, unlike a person is a privilege according to title 26. However, I am certain that you are not sufficiently educated to procedural errors in IRS indictments.
se7ensnakes 10 months ago
Didnt Sherry Jackson go to prison for trying the dame thing???
robshirah 11 months ago
Correction: The IRS indictment do address the subject of the income tax, when in fact, the event that is the subject of the tax is a bona fide taxable event, as mentioned in Title 26. The classic three:Alcohol, Tabacco, and Firearm are plainly mentioned in Title 26 and the indictment for violations are clearly stated. For wages it is a different story. The IRS indictment usually refers to: As required by law.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
The IRS never ever addresses the subject of the income tax in any of their indictment. In other words...they want to collect a tax, but they feel that they dont have to state what they are taxing. Knock knock...who is it? tax collector...how can i help you? we are here to collect 1200 dollars in taxes, what???? If you dont pay we are going to have to take you to prison. But But I paid all or of my taxes, what is this one? Maam we dont have to tell you...pay up or come along.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
The income tax is part of the FRICFR (FRACTIONAL-RESERVE-INCOME-TAX-FEDERAL-RESERVE system). This system as a whole is a systematic liability to the general population.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
The people benefiting from the FRICFR (fractional-reserve-income-tax-federal-reserve system), buy the politicians that pass the law. They dont seem to care if there is a constitution or not. The truth of the matter is that when you go against the IRS you are going against people who have the ability to finance both sides of a war, and bankrupt entire nations. The income tax is their money, dont mess with it or you will end up in prision. This is like the Italian Pizzo (protection money).
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
the FRICFR is Americas version of the Italian Pizzo. Except that the FRICFR is far more sophisticated than the Pizzo. A lot of people in Italy tried to stamp-out the Pizzo but the people benefiting from it have infiltrated politics and now they are so positioned that the people are helpless against this. If a society can be governed by blatant corruption, imagine what would happen if the criminals were more discrete, if they own the media and control education and the judicial?
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
Everyone is a tax protester. I dont know too many people that are glad to be paying taxes. These people exist, i just never met one.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@sadegoGG Well first off I am not a tax protester. I understand our government corrupt as it is has to have some revenue. But what part of the statement" The constitution expressly forbids unapportioned taxes is not clear. No matter how you dress it up or try to hid the fact it not legal, does not make it legal. A law or court ruling repugnant to the constitution is not a law, not matter what you try and do to make it otherwise. Besides the corrupt system is going to collapse soon anyway.
unclefixer 11 months ago
@unclefixer
The income tax does not need to be apportioned. Apportionment is only for direct taxes. The income tax is not..........repeat NOT a direct tax!
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@unclefixer
The income tax was amended and is Constitutional according to virtually every professional on the issue.
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@unclefixer
My answer to you kind of sucked. What I said was true, but if you want the specifics to why the income tax is Constitutional despite that statement I can give assist you.
It has to do with the income tax not being a direct tax. Only direct taxes have to be apportioned. So if you want me to go through a lot of the details just ask. I'll simply prove the income tax isn't a direct tax (With Supreme Court cases prior to 1913) defining what a direct tax.
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@SadegoGG
There is no doubt that the income tax is constitutional. The thing is, though your idea of the "income tax" and the supreme court's idea of the income tax are different. You are confuse as to what the subject of the income tax is. Since the income tax is an indirect tax, the subject of the income tax is the activity which produced the income. Therefore, we are talking about taxing an event. Have you ever seen an IRS indictment where the subject of the income tax mentined?
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Tomorrow I will supply you with a debunk of that part of the conspiracy theory.
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
It is difficult to understand how you can claim a property right in something you haven’t done yet. If your labor were “property” like other property, you could sell it and then sit back and do nothing. However, if you “sell” your labor and are paid for it, you still have to work to earn it.
Even if the major premise is correct, and labor is a form of property, the conclusion is still wrong because
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@SadegoGG
Well all that mumbo jumbo you just wrote only demonstrates that you are not clear as to what an indirect tax is. In an indirect is not taxing a property, it is taxing an event. When you pay a toll to cross a bridge, the tax is not "on" the bridge...the tax is on the event of crossing the bridge.
se7ensnakes 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Although the meaning of “direct tax” has sometimes been questioned, it was always understood that taxes imposed by Congress could apply to, and be collected from, individual citizens, and that not every tax collected directly from the population was a “direct tax” within the meaning of the Constitution.
SadegoGG 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
One common mistake made by tax protesters is in assuming that the phrase “Capitation, or other direct, Tax” in the Constitution is a reference to any tax that is collected “directly” from the person on whom it is imposed, while “indirect” taxes such as “Duties, Imposts and Excises” are collected on goods during manufacture, or in transit, and the ultimate burden is passed along to someone else (usually the consumer).
SadegoGG 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
That is a definition of “direct” and “indirect” that is frequently used by economists, but it is not the meaning of “direct” and “indirect” that has been applied by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), the Supreme Court was unanimous in its opinion that Congress could impose a tax on a citizen of Virginia for carriages held for personal use and that the tax was an excise or duty and not “direct.”
SadegoGG 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Of the four justices who heard the case, two (William Paterson and James Wilson) were members of the Constitutional Convention that drafted the Constitution, and presumably knew what it meant.
In Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an income tax against an individual, William H. Springer, finding that the income tax was a constitutional “duty or excise” and not a “direct tax.”
SadegoGG 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: .. .. (3) the income tax is a direct tax which is invalid absent apportionment, and Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S.Ct. 673, 39 L.Ed. 759, modified, 158 U.S. 601, 15 S.Ct. 912, 39 L.Ed. 1108 (1895),
SadegoGG 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
is authority for that and other arguments against the government’s power to impose income taxes on individuals.. ..”
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
“It is generally agreed that Article I of the Constitution authorizes Congress to tax the income of individuals, and that the Sixteenth Amendment eliminated the requirement that such taxes be apportioned among the states.”
SadegoGG 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
In re: Michael Fleming, 86 AFTR2d ¶2000-5138; No. 97-6342-8G3 (U.S.Bank.Ct. M.D.Fl. 8/9/2000). “Congress may impose taxes on individuals in the states without apportionment among the several States, and ‘without regard to any census or enumeration,’ and ‘on incomes, from whatever source derived.’”
SadegoGG 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Secora v. United States, 1997 WL 460162, at 6 (U.S.D.C. Neb.).
The meaning of “direct tax” urged by many tax protesters as a “tax imposed directly” would trivialize the Constitution, because it reduces the constitutional definition of “direct tax” to a mere question of how the tax is collected. So, if the U.S. were to impose a tax on employees for the wages they receive, that would be a “direct tax” according to the tax protester definition,
SadegoGG 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
but if the U.S. were to impose a tax on employers for wages paid (or a tax on banks for the payment of interest, or on corporations for the payment of dividends), that would be an “indirect tax” and constitutional, even though the net effect would be exactly the same (i.e., the employees or depositors or shareholders would bear the burden of the tax through reduced wages and salaries, interest, or dividends).
SadegoGG 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
The meaning of “direct tax” that has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court is much more sensible (as well as consistent with the known intent of the framers of the Constitution), because it focuses on what is being taxed (the value of property, but not transfers of property) rather than on how the tax is collected.
SadegoGG 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
A final note:
Some courts have referred to the income tax as a “non-apportioned direct tax,” which is unfortunate because it suggests that the income tax is a “Capitation, or other direct, Tax” that does not need to be apportioned, a suggestion that was explicitly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brushaber. Under the Constitution, a “direct tax” must be apportioned, while an “indirect tax” must be uniform throughout the United States.
SadegoGG 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
One of the questions raised in Brushaber was whether the 16th Amendment created a type of tax that need be neither apportioned nor uniform, and the court rejected that possibility, stating (in a rather convoluted sentence):
“[T]hat the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct,
SadegoGG 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the
SadegoGG 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class.”
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
The court then went on to hold that the income tax satisfied the requirement of geographical uniformity imposed by the Constitution, even though the rate of tax was not uniform on all incomes.
SadegoGG 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Did the court in Becraft, quoted above, mean to say that the income tax is a “non-apportioned direct tax” that need not be uniform? No, because the question of uniformity was not raised with the court. This is merely confusion in terminology, the court using the word “direct” to describe a tax that is imposed and collected by the government directly from citizens or residents of the United States, not that the income tax is a “direct tax” within the meaning of the Constitution.
SadegoGG 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Please, in the future, reply to my most recent comment. That will ensure to me you actually read all of my comments, and it makes it easier for you to read further replies.
Also, if your going to debate me...please include Supreme Court cases (Actually read the entire thing so you don't post anything out of context).
SadegoGG 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
the Internal Revenue Code does not tax labor itself, but the compensation received for labor (i.e., the income from labor).
If you go into your back yard and work for a week taking clay and making pots, there is no income and no tax. However, if you sell your pots, you have income because you have taken in money, and have more money than you had before.
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Similarly, if you “sell your labor” by agreeing to work in someone else’s factory (or farm) for a week, you have sold your labor and the compensation you receive is taxable.
As a general proposition, it is correct that Congress cannot tax the value of property directly (or at least not without apportionment), but can only tax exchanges or transfers of property.
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
For example, the federal estate tax is clearly a tax on the value of property, and yet it has been held to be constitutional as an excise tax on the transfer of the property at death. Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41 (1900). Similarly, Congress cannot tax the value of real property, but can tax sales or transfers of real property. So the income tax is a tax on the receipt of income, and the sale of labor is a transaction that allows the constitutional imposition of a tax.
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Of course, every court that has been forced to rule on this issue has ruled against the tax protester raising it. “Finally, the taxpayer argues that because wages are property, a tax on them is a property tax, and because the tax the Commissioner is attempting to collect is not apportioned, it is unconstitutional. However, as we and innumerable other courts have repeatedly explained, wages are income, and income taxes do not need to be apportioned.”
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985), (the court not only ruled against the taxpayer, but also imposed sanctions of $2,000 against the taxpayer).
“It is clear beyond peradventure that the income tax on wages is constitutional.”
Stelly v. Commissioner, 761 F.2d 1113, 1115 (5th Cir. 1985), cert. den. 106 S.Ct. 149 (1985).
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
I really don't know what your argument is...so let me show you that the founding fathers were not opposed to an income tax.
Another example of the triumph of hope over reason, because there is absolutely no historical evidence for such a belief.
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution says that “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises...” The only specific exemption is in Section 9, which prohibits taxes on exports.
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
In Hylton v. United States, the three justices who wrote opinions were unanimous in their view that the Congressional power to tax was a general (or “plenary”) power, the only exception being exports. Justice Chase stated that:
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
“The power, in the eighth section of the first article, to lay and collect taxes, included a power to lay direct taxes, (whether capitation, or any other) and also duties, imposes, and excises; and every other species or kind of tax whatsoever, and called by any other name. ...
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
I consider the Constitution to stand in this manner. A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports...”
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Chase; emphasis added).
In the same case, Justice Paterson (who was a member of the Constitutional Convention) stated:
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
"It was, however, obviously the intention of the framers of the Constitution, that Congress should possess full power over every species of taxable property, except exports. The term taxes, is generical, and was made use of to vest in Congress plenary authority in all cases of taxation.”
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Paterson; emphasis added).
And, finally, Justice Iredell stated:
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes “The Congress possess the power of taxing all taxable objects, without limitation, with the particular exception of a duty on exports.
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Iredell; emphasis added).
In a later decision, the Supreme Court confirmed these conclusions, stating that:
SadegoGG 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.”
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 471 (1866) (emphasis added).
In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton had stated that the Congressional power to tax would be “concurrent and coequal” with the power of the states to tax (Federalist #32) and the Supreme Court has agreed that “The subject-matter of taxation open to the power of the Congress is as comprehensive as that open to the power of the states....”
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Chas. C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581 (1937). See also, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 154 (1911). And, before and after the adoption of the Constitution, several states imposed taxes on professions, vocations, or employments. As explained by the Supreme Court:
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
“Taxes, which are but the means of distributing the burden of the cost of government, are commonly levied on property or its use, but they may likewise be laid on the exercise of personal rights and privileges. As has been pointed out by the opinion in the Chas. C. Steward Machine Co. Case [301 U.S. 548 (1937)], such levies, including taxes on the exercise of the right to employ or to be employed, were known in England and
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
the Colonies before the adoption of the Constitution, and must be taken to be embraced within the wide range of choice of subjects of taxation, which was an attribute of the sovereign power of the states at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and which was reserved to them by that instrument. As the present
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
levy [imposed by Alabama on wages paid] has all the indicia of a tax, and is of a type traditional in the history of Anglo-American legislation, it is within state taxing power, and it is immaterial whether it is called an excise or by another name.”
Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495, 508-509 (1937).
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
If the states had the power to tax wages, salaries, and other incomes from employment, then the Congress of the United States had the same power. (For other examples, see the cases cited in the discussion of whether a tax on wages is a “direct tax.”)
There have been a few Supreme Court decisions that have found incomes that Congress did not have the power to tax. However, all of those decisions arose out of considerations of federalism
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
(i.e., the relationship between the federal and state governments) or the separation of powers within the federal government, and all of those decisions were over-ruled by later decisions and are no longer good law. For example:
In Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. 113 (1870), it was held that Congress could not tax the salary of a state employee. That holding was explicitly overruled by Graves v. New York ex rel. O’Keefe, 306 U.S. 466, 486-487 (1939).
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920), held that the compensation received by federal judges could not be subject to income tax because Article III of the Constitution states that the compensation of judges ‘shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.’ Evans v. Gore was over-ruled by O’Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939).
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, (1895), the Supreme Court held that interest on the debts of state and local governments could not be taxed. That holding was reversed in South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988).
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
In Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393 (1932), it was held that the income from land owned by a state and leased to a private corporation could not be taxed if the lease was part of a “governmental function.” That holding was reversed by Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., 303 U.S. 376 (1938).
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
So, over the years, the Supreme Court has considered the possibility that certain types of income from government-related activities might be constitutionally exempt from income tax, but eventually decided that no such exemptions existed.
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Tax protesters sometimes find and quote those decisions, not realizing (or not caring) that the decisions represent relatively short-lived experiments in inter-governmental immunities and are simply not relevant to federal taxes on incomes unrelated to any governmental activity.
There is not a single decision in the history of the United States in which any judge has ever even suggested that Congress cannot tax wages and salaries generally.
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
And, if the salaries of state employees can be taxed by Congress, it is ludicrous to suggest that ordinary salaries paid by private employers might have some kind of immunity from tax.
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
In Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U.S. 115, 117 (1916), one of the appellants was an individual named Edwin Thorne, and he complained about the constitutionality of “a progressive tax on the income of individuals.” The Supreme Court denied the appeal saying that “we need not now enter into an original consideration of the merits of these contentions because each and all of them were considered and adversely disposed of in Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 60 L.Ed. __,
SadegoGG 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236.” (And the Brushaber decision upheld the constitutionality of an income tax under the 16th Amendment.)
More recent judges have rejected this argument as well:
“[Becraft’s] position can fairly be reduced to one elemental proposition: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens and thus such citizens are not subject to the federal income tax laws. ...
SadegoGG 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
We hardly need comment on the patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition. For over 75 years, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized the Sixteenth Amendment’s authorization of a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens residing in the United States and thus the validity of the federal income tax laws as applied to such citizens.”
SadegoGG 10 months ago
@se7ensnakes
In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir., 1989). “[W]e have rejected, on numerous occasions, the tax-protester argument that the federal income tax is an unconstitutional direct tax that must be apportioned. See, e.g., Lively v. Commissioner, 705 F.2d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam)”
United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. den. 510 U.S. 1193 (1994).
SadegoGG 10 months ago
Most importantly remember that the owners of the banks that set up this system of income tax, fractional reserve banking, federal reserve are extremely powerful. They control what is being taught in schools, they control the media, they control the courts, they control politicians who write the laws. Therefore the jury and the judge has already decided against you regardless of what you say in court.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
Whats worse is that the funds for the income tax go to pay the interest on the national debt. Private banks using the fractional reserve principle, loan money to themselves and thereby creating money out of thin air. The money is used to buy Treasury bonds. Then Mr Taxpayer have to pay taxes to the bank and pay off the interest on the treasury bonds. Amidst all of this paper and transaction, the only thing real is your work!
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Can you prove the money pays interest to the federal debt?
Can you PM me where in a CAFR, government websites, or distinguished economists who back their information through the presentation of their research and how they drew their conclusions that you used to fact check your statement before you began passing the word as truth on the internet?
Thank you.
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@SadegoGG
The 47 volumes and 21000 pages of the Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (PSSCC):
one-third of all income taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government, and another one-third escapes collection due to the underground economy. "With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
According to the budget reports of the United States (Fiscal Year 2006) the federal government earned $1.04 trillion off the income tax. 'Historical Tables. Budget of the United States Government. Fiscal Year 2008. Page 30'. In the same document, net interest expenses in 2006 were $226 billion (Page 54). About 20% of the income tax. Obviously we are not using gross interest (Which would only be 40% anyways) because we don't want to consider government trust funds.
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
In the trust funds the government just pays off debt to itself. ex: Moving money from one account to another.
This issue actually originated from the Grace Commission Report of 1984 under President Reagan.
The Grace Commission Report states the quote that you provided me. With Reagan's bias against the income tax, some professional even question how good this information is. However, lets analyze it.
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Even accepting the Commission's word as gospel, the Commission didn’t say that all income tax goes to interest. The Commission said it goes to interest and transfer payments. “Transfer payments” are payments for programs such as welfare. You may or may not like welfare programs, but many people regard them as an important government function. So there’s a big difference between saying that all income tax goes to interest and saying it all goes to interest and transfer payments.
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Moreover, the Commission put its statement in a misleading way. In the last quoted paragraph, the Commission said that “all” income tax goes to interest and transfer payments, but the prior paragraphs show that the Commission meant "all the income tax left over after the part we regard as wasted." The Commission wrote off 1/3 of income tax as wasted.
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
That’s obviously pretty contestable. Moreover, because the Commission regarded 1/3 of income tax as “not collected,” the 1/3 of income taxes that the Commission regarded as wasted represents 1/2 of all collected income taxes.
So what the Commission really said is “half of income taxes collected by the federal government go to interest on the national debt and welfare.” Again, even accepting the Commission's word, that’s pretty different from “all income taxes go to interest.”
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@SadegoGG
Does it matter what percentage of the income tax goes to pay off the interest on the national debt? What if someone extorts money from you, would it matter if it is 1%, 50% or 100%? The National Debt is an artificiality. There is computer digital exchange, but amidst all of this bookkeeping entries and paper work, the only thing real is a person's labor consolidated in money. Lets start to ask: Why the Federal Reserve Note over the United State Note? Why Treasury Bonds?
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
So the statement that 100% of income taxes go to pay interest on the national debt is completely wrong.
And what is the point of this statement anyway? Protestors who make this statement seem to be responding to the argument that we need the income tax to fund the government. They appear to be
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
claiming that we could eliminate the income tax without affecting any government programs that people might want. I guess they reach this conclusion by thinking something like this: "the income tax doesn't fund any government programs that anyone might want, because 100% of it just goes to pay interest on the
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
national debt. Some other source of revenue funds the programs people want." But even if that were true (which it isn't), so what? It's not as though we can stop paying interest on the national debt. That's mandatory. If income tax weren't available to fund that interest, some other revenue would have to be used to pay it, and the programs that rely on that other revenue would suffer.
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@SadegoGG
Wrong! Have you ever heard of a man called Abraham Lincoln? What taxes did he used to fund the war? Where is the debt as a result of the Civil War?
se7ensnakes 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
I don't see how this is applicable to the Constitutionality of the income tax, or what the income tax is paying off. Your initial statement was a complete lie. Are you trying to change the subject or do you have a point?
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Interest free money is a possibility, but it has nothing to do with the legalities of the Income Tax or what the income tax pays for. Did you read all of my comments? I know there were a lot of them...but I wanted to cover everything.
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
So we can't conclude that we could eliminate the income tax without hurting government programs that people want.
Think of it this way: suppose you had a large credit card debt, and you said to yourself, "too much of my income is going to pay interest on my credit card debt -- not enough of my income is going to pay for things I really want."
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
In such a case, the solution would not be to stop earning income! Eliminating your income wouldn't get rid of your debt. You'd just have to keep paying that credit card interest anyway, and you wouldn't have income to fund it. You'd be even worse off. The solution would be either to increase your income somehow, or to cut down on your discretionary spending, and pay down your debt.
SadegoGG 11 months ago
@se7ensnakes
Similarly, you may think that too much of federal income taxes go to pay interest on the national debt, but, again, eliminating the income tax wouldn't get rid of the debt. The debt has to be paid for somehow.
So go ahead and openly criticize the government for spending too much. I certainly do. But don't go out and lie to people saying the income tax only goes to the national debt, then post a text that disproves you...acting like paying off the debt isn't important.
SadegoGG 11 months ago