>>>> WARNING: Don't waste your time debating with --------> "RetSquid."
He's either a paid dis-info agent of the IRS and/or the Federal Reserve, or he's simply a jack-off cheerleader for slavery incorporated.
Scroll through the old comments from this video and MANY others like it, and you'll see he's been trolling them for up to 4 YEARS. He trolls tax protest videos only. Strange, don't you think?
I had a Sheriff buddy of mine go to prison for 2 years, because he refused a social security number....its illegal to not have a social sec number....tax evasion
@shiba420ho This forces the question "Security for what?"
The wording "social security" leads you to believe it is for your own good and security - while partly true, it is often quite the opposite - since you by accepting it you "invite the vampires in" so to speak; this they assume.
Now, what is a "security bond"? What would a "social security bond" be?
"Social Security Bonds" do not exist. There is "Social Security" and there are "Security Bonds", but not "Social Security Bonds". You cannot opt out of Social Security.
1. You sidestep the essence of the train of thought; which would be the ... bond .. between "social security" and "security bond". And at your last remark there, why not? Even in the old days a slave was set free.
2. A "code" is an application, in this case a set of rules made by some dicks in some offices, you may or may not accept them. If you do not accept them, do not contract, leave or do not enter the area of the application (where the "code" applies).
1. There is no..bond.. between "social security" and a "security bond". You cannot opt out of it becasue the law requires your participation, and to compare it to slavery shows your ignorance of slavery.
A Law is an Act passed by Congress and signed by the President, when grouped together by subject matter they are called "Codes". No contract required, they are fully enforceable as Law/Statute/Code.
The area of application in this case is the United States. So, if you don't like it you will have to leave that area...the Fifty States, all Territories (i.e. Guam, Puerto Rico) the District of Columbia, and so on.
"Wright objects to the fact that the named plaintiff in this suit is the ‘United States of America.’ He argues that only the ‘United States’ and not the ‘United States of America’ has standing to bring this action. These arguments are patently frivolous and the motion is thus summarily DENIED.”
“The Daweses argue that the United States lacked standing and the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because (1) ‘United States of America’ and ‘United States’ are not synonymous, and the United States of America is not the proper plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 1345; ... and (4) the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is not an agency of the United States...Their first and fourth arguments are legally frivolous and do not merit further comment.”
If you stop posting things trying to decieve people, it would be much better. I post the law and court opinion, which are also the law, you post parts of the law and your own opinion trying to get people to get in trouble.
@Kenzofeis He could be working for them. I've heard he's been trolling videos on this subject matter for years now.. He seems to ignore anything brought forth and reverses it and ask more questions the very way he responds inclines me to think he is attempting to instill doubt. Don't fall for it.
@TopAce777 Aware of this, had encounters far back. Seems like the point is to help secure the yoke around people's necks - this is done either by very stupid and simple people, or people who has the straw into the honey-pot and wants it to stay that way.
@RetSquid You're talking about the truth? ......LOL You lie the same way they do. Presenting your so called "facts". We all know they are full of crap and so are you.
@RetSquid The fed and irs are illegal and immoral in so many ways its hard to keep track of all the ways. If you realy believe they are legal or right on the basis that the courts say so you are sadly out of touch with reality. But i think you are way too smart and know exactly whats going on, and are working realy hard to suppress the truth for the gov. If they win your kind will be one of the first to go. Almost always happens in these operations cuz they know they cant trust Traitors. :)
people youtube this 9 part series to see who is required to pay. One can easily see how the Banksters masterfully hid the truth in the code....... 1 of 9: It is Legal NOT To Pay Federal Income Tax (for most)
all i have seen is irs agents refuse to show the law that says we have to pay (they cant show what they dont have) ...and i have seen a breakdown that shows who does have to pay and its NOT us ... they can only tax gains from citizens. It looks like they can on the first few parts of code, but when you follow the definitions and the footnotes,(which you must do) they send you on a rediculous multi step maze thru a few different code books to find out who they list as taxable.They hid it well.
Actually it is very easy, If you have over the exemption amount you have to pay income tax. You are taxed on all gains unless specifically exempted, and it is for anyone in the U.S., Citizen or not. Title 26 Sections 1, 61, 63, 6012.
@RetSquid A "code" (codex) is not a law for just anyone, except those who indulges via a constructed persona in activities covered by the given codes and thereby accepting those terms.
It being so that codes are attempted forced down over ordinary peoples heads like yesterdays used condoms are another matter.
Those who benefit from such will of course defend it, as any thief will claim a "honor" in his "profession".
Those who are exploited will, if they "wake up", ask "Who invited these guys?!"
Incorrect. In Law, a "code" is the grouping of laws by subject matter. Title 26 is all of the income tax laws. "Codex" is just another word for "Book of Statutes". In the case of individual income tax, the law is aimed at "individuals" and individuals are defined as any human being.
Now, we can debate the legality of income tax, but first YOU have to know what you are talking about.
@prof5string However, in 1894 Congress enacted a flat rate Federal income tax, which was ruled unconstitutional the following year by the U.S. Supreme Court because it was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state.
The Federal Income Tax in 1861 was not constitutional either. It could not be because there was not a proper quorum, since the southern States succeeded. Nice try though.
When the South seceded, their Senators resigned from Congress. When they left the numbers for a quorum changed, because a quorum consists of a majority of SITTING Senators.
Pete Hendrickson was found guilty on all 10 counts, and on 4/19/2010 he was sentenced to 33 months in prison, along with six years of supervised release following his incarceration. He was also ordered to pay a $25,000 fine, almost $30,000 in restitution.
if a corporation buys a sheet of steel for 100 dollars and makes a widget and sells it for 100 dollars they have not a made an income (return on investment gain ) ....on the other hand a normal worker with (usually) no expenses makes100% of wages as an income( labor gain)... and a return on money made on an investment is a ( capital gain) and taxed at a different rate if not the primary way of making income... if a widget sells above 100 then the taxable income is anything oiver the 100.
@2237lemon The "normal worker" you referred to is not earning income it's his wage. That is the cost of his time and labor that he negotiated with the employer. You have twisted the terms like a pro and I commend your skill. As for me, My time is my property. If I wish to use that time to help in the construction of something in exchange for the advancement of my welfare and my pursuit of happiness, that is protected by the constitution. Any statutes that don't adhere to it, are null and void.
And like any other property you are taxed on the pofit from it's sale. There was no cost to produce that labor so what you got was all 'profit'...besides the fact that the laws have always held that wages are taxable.
@RetSquid Wrong. The laws have not always held that wages were taxable. When you say always, do you mean since 1913. I guess if you meant that you would be correct. If you were to go back to 1868, with the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which established the de facto government structure we are living under now. That was the first step towards the corporatism we are subject to.
"It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes."
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.,
The 14th Amendment did not change the structure of Government at all.
@RetSquid Would you stop it. You're making a fool out of yourself. Number 1: That was 1926 That doesn't help your first argument because that happened after 1913. Number 2: That doesn't make law for the taxation of wages. Number 3: Before the 14th Amendment we were State Nationals not UNITED STATES CITIZENS, who are subject to adhere to jurisdiction of the District of Columbia. I'm sorry but words have meaning and when it comes to the vipers that write the Statutes, they're serious about that.
I'm guessing you have an Engish comprehension problem? What part of "already had the power to tax all incomes" don't you understand? As far as wages go, why would you think they are not taxable like everything else? The law says they are taxable, as does case law.
“Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income.”
“The first observation we have to make of this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we state to have been the subject of differences of opinions. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.”
“By the original constitution citizenship in the United States was a consequence of citizenship in a state. By this clause [of the 14th Amendment] this order of things is reversed; ... and citizenship in a state is a result of citizenship in the United States.”
Colgate v. Harvey
The 14th did not change any jurisdiction of anything.
@ckairnes68 The first federal income tax was enacted in 1861, and it taxed wages. The constitutionality of the law was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1881. The 14th Amendment is irrelevant.
@ckairnes68 You are 100% correct. Our time is our personal property, and if we choose to give it in return for something that would benefit our well being, then we should not be taxed on it.
"Hello, I'm Pete Hendrickson and today I went to prison. You can write me Peter Hendrickson #15406-039, FCI Milan, P.O. Box 1000, E. Arkona Rd, Milan, MI 48160".
@bosunbilly If p ~p, then ~p Stick to the Topic 6001 = 51,54(a),(b),821(d),1007(a),(b),1720,1835,1928(b),2302,2303,2322(c),2324, 2352,2555,2569(d),2594(a),2653(b),2709,2724,3220(c),3233(a),3603
@asicit2b I'm going to stop you right there as it's obvious you're suggesting I read the entire dictionary just to find the definition of the word "moron".
@asicit2b Forget that one. This one will come up. 6001 = 51,54(a),(b),821(d),1007(a),(b),1720,1835,1928(b),2302,2303,2322(c),2324, 2352,2555,2569(d),2594(a),2653(b),2709,2724,3220(c),3233(a),3603
@RetSquid You do not know how to navigate do you ? I will explain what to do
Copypast it (the code)and place it in Google search should be the first one that comes up if not, find the match and read it. It is a supreme court case.
@asicit2b O.K now do this one 6001 = 51,54(a),(b),821(d),1007(a),(b),1720,1835,1928(b),2302,2303,2322(c),2324, 2352,2555,2569(d),2594(a),2653(b),2709,2724,3220(c),3233(a),3603
Sorry, you are correct, which means you are also a liar...again...or is it just "still"?
You said it was from the Supreme Court case, it is not. it is a petition of certiorari, which is the loser in a case asking for the Supreme Court to review their case. It MAY become a SCOTUS case, but it isn't yet. QED, you are wrong(again) or you lied (again).
We are still enslaved by the British system. 1913 and 1930 are key years in American history. In 1913 the federal reserve stole the right to print money out of thin air. In 1930 the United States officially filed for bankruptcy in Geneva Switzerland. Every piece of legislation and our court system that followed are designed to get American citizens to pay down debt from the bankruptcy reorganization. Truth. Look it up. Read. Understand why we are slaves.
@RetSquid I wish I was full of crap. Really, I wish I was wrong but sadly I am not. If you check the facts you will come to the realization that I did. The United States declared bankruptcy in Geneva Switzerland during the great depression and the bankers put their hooks into us. To this day they still own us. And I mean own us. Ever wonder why you have a Social Security number or pay taxes to the IRS?SEARCH - "1930 USA bankruptcy" It makes me sick....
@RetSquid There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them and 115* provide that the tax could not be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and CONTRACTS however skilfully devised to prevent the salary WHEN paid from VESTING even for a second in the man who earned it.
@RetSquid Ok smiley, WHAT CONSTITUTES WAGES in your case? Aren't they Profits from stocks, dividends, profits derived from income, profit on the sale of property or goods? Then your statement is bullsh*it. Why? Because, the question is "are American people working and residing in the United States not working for the federal government, in its territories liable to pay federal income tax on their exchange of personal labor for compensation, AKA "personal employment"? This is not self employment.
Wages: n. Payment for labor or services to a worker, especially remuneration on an hourly, daily, or weekly basis or by the piece.
"Wages" are not 'profit from stocks', etc. To answer your question YES, American people.... ARE "liable for Federal income tax on their exchange of personal labor for compensation." That is explicitly defined as gross income in Section 61:"Compensation for labor". Thank you for playing, but you lose...again..
@RetSquid Show me the money!! Hey Squid Texas law states that if you steal a horse you can be hung when caught. Does that mean if a person in New York steals a horse in New York and is caught in New York he can be hung?
The Law covers only those in its jurisdiction.
Stop reaching, I have learned the truth many years ago and have been free from my own mistake of erroneously giving what was mine away. I no longer make that error.
Good point about jurisdiction, but it doesn't help your case as the Federal Government has jurisdiction over violations of Federal law no matter where it happens in the United States and the income tax is Federal law.
@RetSquid Yes over federal law violations, but not non federal jurisdiction. See: NEW YORK v. U.S. 112 S.Ct. 2408 (1992) "Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress lacked the authority in most respects to govern people directly. In practice, CONGRESS COULD NOT DIRECTLY TAX OR LEGISLATE UPON INDIVIDUALS; it had no explicit "legislative' or governmental' power to make binding 'law' enforceable as such." Look at the date 1992, answers jurisdiction...don't it ! ! Watch out ship's a sink'n ! !
@prof5string How stupid are you. What do you think were the documents used to write the Constitution? Have you read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers? Why did the people force the Bill of Rights to be added? read the preamble to the Bill of Rights to find out how Pathetic you are. And you call yourself Prof5. Does that stand for professional idiot? Or some lame a*s musician that doesn't understand the law.
@xtaxplayer God, you're dumber than a box of hammers. The main reason that the Articles of Conferderation failed was that the central govt lacked the power to tax. Realizing that, the Framers gave Congress a very broad taxing power, including the power to tax anyone or anything in the U.S. (except exports). Just ask the Pennsylvania distillers who were subjected to the Whiskey Tax in the 1790's.
@prof5string Wrong not very broad taxing power, were do you come up with this information? Are you pulling this sh*t from thin air or what. The power to tax anyone or anything? Are you for real. You are really stupid to believe that. Show me that statement in the law. Whiskey tax is distillery tax not the same but since you bring it up: Why is it that anyone that makes, distills, bottles, or sells whiskey is liable for the tax but not every person that receives money is taxed on every penny?
@prof5string Loser you answer your own question, LICENSE TAX. Your are really stupid. How long did it take you to master the "g string" you clown. Your knowledge here is as good as using a screwdriver to hammer nails.
@xtaxplayer If you actually read the case (which, being the idiot that you are, you didn't), you'd see that the "license" was really a tax. The Constitution lists one and only one thing that Congress can't tax: exports. All else is fair game (with the exception of the States themselves and their instrumentalities).
@prof5string No kidding you fool a license tax is really a tax, wow your mom must be so proud. Does the fed have the right to restrict an American citizens right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Does the fed have the right to take a persons exchange of personal service for value. In other words, does the government have the right to tax where there is no profit? The Supreme Court says no. Go ahead over lord tell us what one day of a humans life is worth. Can't wait to hear this BS
@RetSquid How is it profit? Is your life cost less? Do you not need food, clothing, or an education to perform this "labor". Then there is cost and without a basis for figuring cost there is no profit. Read the case study on this subject, follow the basis for the law on taxes. You are wrong on this type of labor and your use of the term income.
All of those things you list are already figured into the personal deductions. Yoiu are wrong as all of the laws and case law agree with what I have been saying, and not your ideas.
@RetSquid Really the cost to heat your home, raise your children, get to work, educate yourslf in the field you are in, your ability to do the work, are all listed in your deductions? so a man in Tulsa OK has the same cost to live as a man in San Francisco? Good to know.
Those are covered by your personal exemptions, those expenses are not related to you working, they would be the same even it you did not work at all.
“One’s gain, ergo his ‘income,’ from the sale of his labor is the entire amount received therefor without any reduction for what he spends to satisfy his human needs.”
Thank you for pointing out a case which also proves your jurisdiction ideas wrong :)
"In the end, the Convention opted for a Constitution in which Congress would exercise its legislative authority directly over individuals, rather than over States"
@RetSquid Obviously you as usual only read part of the opinion. They were given the ability to exercise the legislative authority over persons living or working in the Federal territories as well as non-resident aliens. What this opinion also explained was the right of the states to allow for "dual-citizenship" Federal and state citizens to be treated the same as state citizens. By the way dick a moron has an IQ under 80 which I would guess it to be a few points above yours.
@xtaxplayer "The 8th section of the 1st article gives to Congress the 'power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,' for the purposes thereinafter mentioned. This grant is general, WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO PLACE." Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. 317 (1820)
@prof5string Read Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution and get back to me. It is a waste of time to go over this same Article ten times in this one post. You prove that you don't read the posts or understand this discussion. I'll tell you what you post Article 1 Sec 8 here and than I'll answer your stupidity.
@xtaxplayer You show me where in Article I, Section 8 it says that Congress' power to tax is limited to the federal areas or to federal employees.
You realize that no court in the history of the country has ever agreed with your idiotic theory, don't you? And that they have routinely rejected it as frivolous?
@prof5string Already showed you cases that do right here i this blog. You have shown none that can be used in this discussion intelligently. . . maybe that is the problem your intelligence or more direct lack there of.
@prof5string Ok listen up for the umteenth time. Yes everyone is liable for federal income tax on money DERIVED from income, ie: you sell your house, stock, car, child for a profit, whatever you need to understand this. You owe federal income tax on that profit. That is the Constitutionality that you are misinterpreting. It is confusing to those that are not well read in the regulations and rules. I honestly don't want to have to explain this 100 more times on this same blog. Try reading
@xtaxplayer So you've abandoned your inane claim that Congress can tax only in the federal areas or the income from federally-connected activity. Thank you for the concession.
The absurd notion that only income derived from income can be taxed leads logically to the conclusion that interest and dividends aren't themselves taxable, but only the income derived from them. Do you really want to go there, fool?
@prof5string No idiot, you are mixing Oranges and Tomatoes. An American citizen working and residing in the States outside of federal jurisdiction is not liable for a fed income tax on the money made in the act of personal employment. This you clown is what this whole discussion is about. If you still don't understand please pick up your drool bucket and move on. You seriously haven't a clue do you.
@xtaxplayer So you lied when you said "EVERYONE is liable for federal income tax on money derived from income"? You still cling to the preposterous notion that people working in the States in a non-federally connected activity can't be taxed even when this nonsense has consistently been rejected by the courts?
Well, I guess that proves how much you value your own claims/statements, huh?
We can debate the truth as long as you know that the starting point is that the income tax law is constitutional and applies to your wages from labor. Because that is the reality of the world we live in.
@RetSquid It's not B.S. I admit it is hard to find the Geneva documentation on the bankruptcy, just like it is hard to find the shareholders of the Federal Reserve banks. Right? The reason it is hard to find is because your government doesn't want anyone to know about it. The bankruptcy cycles is 70 years which leads us until now. Get where I am going with all this??? Another great depression. Hey I have no reason to lie to you. I wish I wasn't right on this but I am....
I understand it, it had nothing to do with the case. He owed the tax on his income even though he tried to hide it as a joint tenant with his wife. The court held that he owed the tax as of the instant he received the money.
@RetSquid HE DID NOT TRY TO HIDE IT ! The question was Tax the whole or half
Blaw blaw. You still proved my point This case has NOTHING to do with this
argument
He worked for someone as an OFFICER and had debatable tax liabilities upon receiving it There were contracrs involved That is why it is a waste of time doing this.
Yes, he tried to hide it by transfering half of it to his wife 'before' he had to pay income taxes on it. What corporation was he an officer of? The case only says that he was an attorney.
@RetSquid The question asicit is requesting you to clarify is the "income" you tout. We have gone over the difference between income earned "on top of" income worked for, and income made from an American person's "own hands" working inside the United States of America, not in federal territories or for the federal government. THE REASON YOU WILL NOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION IS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T WITH OUT LETTING THE PEOPLE KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT THEY OWE AND DON'T OWE . . . we all await your lie's
Why would you think that only income in 'federal territories" is taxable?
“Much of Becraft’ reply is also devoted to a discussion of the limitations of federal jurisdiction to United States territories and the District of Columbia and thus the inapplicability of the federal income tax laws to a resident of one of the states...this claim also has no semblance of merit.” Lowell H. Becraft (United States v. Nelson), 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989)
This has been flagged as spam show
>>>> WARNING: Don't waste your time debating with --------> "RetSquid."
He's either a paid dis-info agent of the IRS and/or the Federal Reserve, or he's simply a jack-off cheerleader for slavery incorporated.
Scroll through the old comments from this video and MANY others like it, and you'll see he's been trolling them for up to 4 YEARS. He trolls tax protest videos only. Strange, don't you think?
BRYAN351 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To understand the fraud, the real question of liability is: "what law gives force and effect to the IRC?" NeOn314.webplus.net
NeOne314IamOne 1 month ago
The irs, another great reason NOT to have children. To hell with a world that has an organization like the irs.
MrBeautifulba1 7 months ago
AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET US FREE
LoveVanillaRose 8 months ago
I had a Sheriff buddy of mine go to prison for 2 years, because he refused a social security number....its illegal to not have a social sec number....tax evasion
shiba420ho 10 months ago
@shiba420ho This forces the question "Security for what?"
The wording "social security" leads you to believe it is for your own good and security - while partly true, it is often quite the opposite - since you by accepting it you "invite the vampires in" so to speak; this they assume.
Now, what is a "security bond"? What would a "social security bond" be?
Kenzofeis 9 months ago
@Kenzofeis
"Social Security Bonds" do not exist. There is "Social Security" and there are "Security Bonds", but not "Social Security Bonds". You cannot opt out of Social Security.
RetSquid 9 months ago
@RetSquid
1. You sidestep the essence of the train of thought; which would be the ... bond .. between "social security" and "security bond". And at your last remark there, why not? Even in the old days a slave was set free.
2. A "code" is an application, in this case a set of rules made by some dicks in some offices, you may or may not accept them. If you do not accept them, do not contract, leave or do not enter the area of the application (where the "code" applies).
A Law is something else.
Kenzofeis 9 months ago
@Kenzofeis
1. There is no..bond.. between "social security" and a "security bond". You cannot opt out of it becasue the law requires your participation, and to compare it to slavery shows your ignorance of slavery.
A Law is an Act passed by Congress and signed by the President, when grouped together by subject matter they are called "Codes". No contract required, they are fully enforceable as Law/Statute/Code.
RetSquid 9 months ago
@Kenzofeis
The area of application in this case is the United States. So, if you don't like it you will have to leave that area...the Fifty States, all Territories (i.e. Guam, Puerto Rico) the District of Columbia, and so on.
RetSquid 9 months ago
@RetSquid The "United States" is a corporation, a business. It's not a land.
This also raises the question "When did peoples livingrooms and bedrooms become federal area".
"A Law is an Act passed by Congress and signed by the President" says you.
An "act" is what an "actor" do, it's theatre. It's fictious. Woe to those who takes the bait.
As long as people find their "number of the beast" on Wall Street because their parents signed them off at the hospital, there is a link indeed.
Kenzofeis 9 months ago 2
@Kenzofeis
The United States is not incorporated as a business, it is a Government entity, just like every State,City County and Town in the U.S is incorporated.
Your attempts at eytomology are an extemely lame joke, you need to try even harder to convince the idiots around here that you have a clue.
RetSquid 9 months ago
@RetSquid It is structured as corporation, the "United States" being not "The United States of America".
Your wording is very unclear, as is most of all the mumbo-jumbo you defend.
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
Some say the (A) is limited to this chapter, but it does not say so.
"Cracking Title 28" (Mitchell) might be an interesting read.
Kenzofeis 9 months ago
@Kenzofeis
Wrong, try again.
"Wright objects to the fact that the named plaintiff in this suit is the ‘United States of America.’ He argues that only the ‘United States’ and not the ‘United States of America’ has standing to bring this action. These arguments are patently frivolous and the motion is thus summarily DENIED.”
United States v. Wright
RetSquid 9 months ago
“The Daweses argue that the United States lacked standing and the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because (1) ‘United States of America’ and ‘United States’ are not synonymous, and the United States of America is not the proper plaintiff under 28 U.S.C. § 1345; ... and (4) the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is not an agency of the United States...Their first and fourth arguments are legally frivolous and do not merit further comment.”
United States v. Dawes
NEXT!
RetSquid 9 months ago
@RetSquid ".Their first and fourth arguments are legally frivolous and do not merit further comment.”"
- equals me saying that you talk bullshit no matter what. Because I say it it must be so. Because I say it.
Why do you for months and months run around parroting the same things, and NEVER respect people?
Why do you not address the points in the document I mentioned?
Kenzofeis 9 months ago
@Kenzofeis
If you stop posting things trying to decieve people, it would be much better. I post the law and court opinion, which are also the law, you post parts of the law and your own opinion trying to get people to get in trouble.
Do you have any specific questions?
RetSquid 9 months ago
@RetSquid You're the only one here who's "trying to deceive people".
TopAce777 1 month ago
@Kenzofeis He could be working for them. I've heard he's been trolling videos on this subject matter for years now.. He seems to ignore anything brought forth and reverses it and ask more questions the very way he responds inclines me to think he is attempting to instill doubt. Don't fall for it.
TopAce777 1 month ago
@TopAce777 Aware of this, had encounters far back. Seems like the point is to help secure the yoke around people's necks - this is done either by very stupid and simple people, or people who has the straw into the honey-pot and wants it to stay that way.
Kenzofeis 1 month ago
@Kenzofeis True I won't be deceived by them I will keep searching. They will not deter me from my path.
TopAce777 1 month ago
@Kenzofeis Also his arguments basically remain the same. Prove him wrong and he'll still parrot the old bull.
TopAce777 1 month ago
@RetSquid Seems like you have to "try even harder" to deceive us.
TopAce777 1 month ago
@TopAce777
Well, you have already been decieved, I'm just pointing out where and how, but you are too blinded by the lies to see truth.
Let me know when you have any facts to refute anything I say.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid You're talking about the truth? ......LOL You lie the same way they do. Presenting your so called "facts". We all know they are full of crap and so are you.
TopAce777 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TopAce777
As I said, "Let me know when you have any facts to refute anything I say."
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid The fed and irs are illegal and immoral in so many ways its hard to keep track of all the ways. If you realy believe they are legal or right on the basis that the courts say so you are sadly out of touch with reality. But i think you are way too smart and know exactly whats going on, and are working realy hard to suppress the truth for the gov. If they win your kind will be one of the first to go. Almost always happens in these operations cuz they know they cant trust Traitors. :)
rammer561 11 months ago
@rammer561
WOW, you are about stupid, you know that?
RetSquid 11 months ago
people youtube this 9 part series to see who is required to pay. One can easily see how the Banksters masterfully hid the truth in the code....... 1 of 9: It is Legal NOT To Pay Federal Income Tax (for most)
rammer561 11 months ago
@rammer561
Too bad that entire series is based on a lie (861 argument) that has NEVER succeeded in court.
RetSquid 11 months ago
all i have seen is irs agents refuse to show the law that says we have to pay (they cant show what they dont have) ...and i have seen a breakdown that shows who does have to pay and its NOT us ... they can only tax gains from citizens. It looks like they can on the first few parts of code, but when you follow the definitions and the footnotes,(which you must do) they send you on a rediculous multi step maze thru a few different code books to find out who they list as taxable.They hid it well.
rammer561 11 months ago
@rammer561
Actually it is very easy, If you have over the exemption amount you have to pay income tax. You are taxed on all gains unless specifically exempted, and it is for anyone in the U.S., Citizen or not. Title 26 Sections 1, 61, 63, 6012.
RetSquid 11 months ago
@RetSquid A "code" (codex) is not a law for just anyone, except those who indulges via a constructed persona in activities covered by the given codes and thereby accepting those terms.
It being so that codes are attempted forced down over ordinary peoples heads like yesterdays used condoms are another matter.
Those who benefit from such will of course defend it, as any thief will claim a "honor" in his "profession".
Those who are exploited will, if they "wake up", ask "Who invited these guys?!"
Kenzofeis 9 months ago
@Kenzofeis
Incorrect. In Law, a "code" is the grouping of laws by subject matter. Title 26 is all of the income tax laws. "Codex" is just another word for "Book of Statutes". In the case of individual income tax, the law is aimed at "individuals" and individuals are defined as any human being.
Now, we can debate the legality of income tax, but first YOU have to know what you are talking about.
RetSquid 9 months ago
All agents of the IRS that violated the Constitution should be legally jailed.
runrunawaynow 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this free to look at go to Google video Douglas County, OR - Special Tax Liens Meeting 09-07-2007
stanleymims 1 year ago
The IRS Chief Counsel and DoJ attorneys compete to get cases such as this.
These slam-dunks add in nicely to the win-loss record which helps determine their annual bonus.
Tubeusercomm 1 year ago
@prof5string However, in 1894 Congress enacted a flat rate Federal income tax, which was ruled unconstitutional the following year by the U.S. Supreme Court because it was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state.
The Federal Income Tax in 1861 was not constitutional either. It could not be because there was not a proper quorum, since the southern States succeeded. Nice try though.
ckairnes68 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ckairnes68
What do YOU think is a "proper quorum"?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@ckairnes68
When the South seceded, their Senators resigned from Congress. When they left the numbers for a quorum changed, because a quorum consists of a majority of SITTING Senators.
RetSquid 1 year ago
Interesting coming from a criminal
Pete Hendrickson was found guilty on all 10 counts, and on 4/19/2010 he was sentenced to 33 months in prison, along with six years of supervised release following his incarceration. He was also ordered to pay a $25,000 fine, almost $30,000 in restitution.
Any questions?
MrSupernova111 1 year ago 2
Lol
chrishufstetler 1 year ago
if a corporation buys a sheet of steel for 100 dollars and makes a widget and sells it for 100 dollars they have not a made an income (return on investment gain ) ....on the other hand a normal worker with (usually) no expenses makes100% of wages as an income( labor gain)... and a return on money made on an investment is a ( capital gain) and taxed at a different rate if not the primary way of making income... if a widget sells above 100 then the taxable income is anything oiver the 100.
2237lemon 1 year ago
@2237lemon The "normal worker" you referred to is not earning income it's his wage. That is the cost of his time and labor that he negotiated with the employer. You have twisted the terms like a pro and I commend your skill. As for me, My time is my property. If I wish to use that time to help in the construction of something in exchange for the advancement of my welfare and my pursuit of happiness, that is protected by the constitution. Any statutes that don't adhere to it, are null and void.
ckairnes68 1 year ago
@ckairnes68
"My time is my property"
And like any other property you are taxed on the pofit from it's sale. There was no cost to produce that labor so what you got was all 'profit'...besides the fact that the laws have always held that wages are taxable.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Wrong. The laws have not always held that wages were taxable. When you say always, do you mean since 1913. I guess if you meant that you would be correct. If you were to go back to 1868, with the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which established the de facto government structure we are living under now. That was the first step towards the corporatism we are subject to.
ckairnes68 1 year ago
@ckairnes68
The Supreme Court disagrees with you:
"It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes."
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.,
The 14th Amendment did not change the structure of Government at all.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Would you stop it. You're making a fool out of yourself. Number 1: That was 1926 That doesn't help your first argument because that happened after 1913. Number 2: That doesn't make law for the taxation of wages. Number 3: Before the 14th Amendment we were State Nationals not UNITED STATES CITIZENS, who are subject to adhere to jurisdiction of the District of Columbia. I'm sorry but words have meaning and when it comes to the vipers that write the Statutes, they're serious about that.
ckairnes68 1 year ago
@ckairnes68
I'm guessing you have an Engish comprehension problem? What part of "already had the power to tax all incomes" don't you understand? As far as wages go, why would you think they are not taxable like everything else? The law says they are taxable, as does case law.
“Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income.”
United States v. Connor
RetSquid 1 year ago
“The first observation we have to make of this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we state to have been the subject of differences of opinions. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States.”
-The Slaughterhouse Cases
RetSquid 1 year ago
@ckairnes68
“By the original constitution citizenship in the United States was a consequence of citizenship in a state. By this clause [of the 14th Amendment] this order of things is reversed; ... and citizenship in a state is a result of citizenship in the United States.”
Colgate v. Harvey
The 14th did not change any jurisdiction of anything.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@ckairnes68 The first federal income tax was enacted in 1861, and it taxed wages. The constitutionality of the law was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1881. The 14th Amendment is irrelevant.
prof5string 1 year ago
@ckairnes68 You are 100% correct. Our time is our personal property, and if we choose to give it in return for something that would benefit our well being, then we should not be taxed on it.
neverquit35 1 year ago
@neverquit35
You are not taxed on your time, you are taxed on your profit from selling your time i.e. "wages".
RetSquid 1 year ago
"Hello, I'm Pete Hendrickson and today I went to prison. You can write me Peter Hendrickson #15406-039, FCI Milan, P.O. Box 1000, E. Arkona Rd, Milan, MI 48160".
bosunbilly 1 year ago
@bosunbilly
Tax protestors everywhere are in mourning for the next 33 months.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid If they haven't already moved on to the next con artist.
bosunbilly 1 year ago
If you click that soccer ball on the bar on the right hand side under the video you can get a vuvuzela orchestra to play along with Pete.
It makes what he says much more entertaining.
bosunbilly 1 year ago
@bosunbilly (n x u)² = 2(m x u)²
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b 2 m² u x = n² u x. What's your point?
bosunbilly 1 year ago
@bosunbilly You have nothing intersting to say, Yet.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b N = R^* f_p n_e f_l f_i f_c L. Chew on that for a little while.
bosunbilly 1 year ago
@bosunbilly If p ~p, then ~p Stick to the Topic 6001 = 51,54(a),(b),821(d),1007(a),(b),1720,1835,1928(b),2302,2303,2322(c),2324, 2352,2555,2569(d),2594(a),2653(b),2709,2724,3220(c),3233(a),3603
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b I'm going to stop you right there as it's obvious you're suggesting I read the entire dictionary just to find the definition of the word "moron".
bosunbilly 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bosunbilly It takes you to a video Called Squids R us and it is about squids.(moron ?)
Copy past this and see what comes up. u post=I LOL
asicit2b 1 year ago
@bosunbilly Google R^* Down at the bottom of the list look under,
Blog posts about R^* Tell me what you find.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b That was a typo. If should read "R * ..."
bosunbilly 1 year ago
@bosunbilly I knew that. Do R^* and go to the BLOG posts for that at the bottom
of the page, tell me what you find.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b The first three results are: Perez Hilton, Dell and a website called Rap-Up.
bosunbilly 1 year ago
@bosunbilly At the botrtom of the page do you see blogs then books under that
or is blogs missing and you only see books ? Work with me here.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b Forget that one. This one will come up. 6001 = 51,54(a),(b),821(d),1007(a),(b),1720,1835,1928(b),2302,2303,2322(c),2324, 2352,2555,2569(d),2594(a),2653(b),2709,2724,3220(c),3233(a),3603
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b Why don't you tell me what it is?
bosunbilly 1 year ago
@bosunbilly Figure it out. Think for youself. You have enough info.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
I already know what it is, it just has nothing to do with this conversation. Therefore, it is spam...a distraction with no meaning.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@bosunbilly
I think N=1, unless you factor in people like asicit2b, then it drops.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid N=1 R=G then there is a new factor. Do not focus on "products"
don't care. The focus is learning the concept for communication.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
You should focus on not lying, that seems to be your weak point.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Also enjoy the internet while you can.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
I do, thank you very little, liar.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid ~o. o8-0 ~ 1 i ? ~ !,~:,R ~ G 2009
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
Wow, more stuff to mark as 'spam'!!
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid If you are afraid to
look.
That last code will take you to a supreme court case.
Just an example.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@RetSquid Now the problem with this form is that Google and youtube by way of
the Government treats this as suspicious code transfer and will get snatched.
This is the reason for public display and no personal messages.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
As I said, more spam. As long as you fail to provide a link to the subject at hand I'm not wasting my time.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@asicit2b
That post makes no sense. What code are you x-fering?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid ~o. o8-0 ~ 1 i ? ~ !,~:,R ~ G 2009
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
That is not a 'code', it's a link to a writ which has nothing to do with income tax.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Now do I have to explain what to do ?
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
No need, I just hit the little flag on the right.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid You do not know how to navigate do you ? I will explain what to do
Copypast it (the code)and place it in Google search should be the first one that comes up if not, find the match and read it. It is a supreme court case.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b O.K now do this one 6001 = 51,54(a),(b),821(d),1007(a),(b),1720,1835,1928(b),2302,2303,2322(c),2324, 2352,2555,2569(d),2594(a),2653(b),2709,2724,3220(c),3233(a),3603
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
Wrong again, it's a "PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI". Your research is getting even worse than it was before, unlikely as that is.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid How can it be wrong ? YOU found exactly what I wanted you to find.
So how is that wrong ?
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
Sorry, you are correct, which means you are also a liar...again...or is it just "still"?
You said it was from the Supreme Court case, it is not. it is a petition of certiorari, which is the loser in a case asking for the Supreme Court to review their case. It MAY become a SCOTUS case, but it isn't yet. QED, you are wrong(again) or you lied (again).
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid I do not know what else I can do for you to catch on.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
You can stop your lies for a start. You might want to also actually post things that make sense.
How was your post related to this subject in ANY way?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid raison d’être
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
I know, your whole existence is to be a liar.
RetSquid 1 year ago
Cheek v. United States That is what you get for trying something stupid like he did.
United States v. Kaiser "Labor" unions. That is obvious. You have helped prove
xtaxplayers points. I told you before the direction that the world court is going.
The Supreme Court is looking into being able to use WORLD case history for their agenda. I see you $upport that $y$tem concept.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
You really have no clue what this argument is about anymore do you?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid (n x u)² = 2(m x u)²
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
You have finally come up with a good description of your entire philosophy.
RetSquid 1 year ago
We are still enslaved by the British system. 1913 and 1930 are key years in American history. In 1913 the federal reserve stole the right to print money out of thin air. In 1930 the United States officially filed for bankruptcy in Geneva Switzerland. Every piece of legislation and our court system that followed are designed to get American citizens to pay down debt from the bankruptcy reorganization. Truth. Look it up. Read. Understand why we are slaves.
clearasvodka 1 year ago
@clearasvodka
You are full of crap. Where is this bankruptcy and why would the U.S. go to Switzerland to do something like that?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid I wish I was full of crap. Really, I wish I was wrong but sadly I am not. If you check the facts you will come to the realization that I did. The United States declared bankruptcy in Geneva Switzerland during the great depression and the bankers put their hooks into us. To this day they still own us. And I mean own us. Ever wonder why you have a Social Security number or pay taxes to the IRS?SEARCH - "1930 USA bankruptcy" It makes me sick....
clearasvodka 1 year ago
@clearasvodka
I looked it up, still nothing to prove your claims, just generic BS.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them and 115* provide that the tax could not be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and CONTRACTS however skilfully devised to prevent the salary WHEN paid from VESTING even for a second in the man who earned it.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@RetSquid Now the question. Why post this case when it is known that he had
'taxable income'. I thought 'taxable income' was taxable ?
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
His taxable income was based on his WAGES, which is proof that anyone wages, such as the ones you received from your neighbor, are taxable, liar.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid You did not answer the question. I may be ready to spit out the binky soon.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
It was too stupid a question to answer, even for your level of stupidity.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid So you choose not to answer the question. Why is it stupid ?
YOU use the case as an argument all the time, not me.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
No, the question would require that I think like you, which I don't and can't. I answered the part that was answerable.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid No you did not and he had a salary and fees. Not sure it even mentions
that he had "wages" maybe it did ? Still he was liable for 'taxable income' So why use
this case as an argument ?
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
Maybe you should read the posts before you try and comment, huh, liar?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid You are not making sense now.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
Maybe you should take ESL?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid huh,Watch what happens. That could mean whatever YOU want to I guess.
asicit2b 1 year ago
Comment removed
RetSquid 1 year ago
Comment removed
RetSquid 1 year ago
@asicit2b
Nothing happened, liar.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid The first time or the SECOND time. Which time did nothing happen ?
And YES English as a SECOND lauguage would help my learning disablities. But I
have skills that make up for that. Something happened Something happened.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@RetSquid Ok smiley, WHAT CONSTITUTES WAGES in your case? Aren't they Profits from stocks, dividends, profits derived from income, profit on the sale of property or goods? Then your statement is bullsh*it. Why? Because, the question is "are American people working and residing in the United States not working for the federal government, in its territories liable to pay federal income tax on their exchange of personal labor for compensation, AKA "personal employment"? This is not self employment.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
Wages: n. Payment for labor or services to a worker, especially remuneration on an hourly, daily, or weekly basis or by the piece.
"Wages" are not 'profit from stocks', etc. To answer your question YES, American people.... ARE "liable for Federal income tax on their exchange of personal labor for compensation." That is explicitly defined as gross income in Section 61:"Compensation for labor". Thank you for playing, but you lose...again..
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Show me the money!! Hey Squid Texas law states that if you steal a horse you can be hung when caught. Does that mean if a person in New York steals a horse in New York and is caught in New York he can be hung?
The Law covers only those in its jurisdiction.
Stop reaching, I have learned the truth many years ago and have been free from my own mistake of erroneously giving what was mine away. I no longer make that error.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
Good point about jurisdiction, but it doesn't help your case as the Federal Government has jurisdiction over violations of Federal law no matter where it happens in the United States and the income tax is Federal law.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Yes over federal law violations, but not non federal jurisdiction. See: NEW YORK v. U.S. 112 S.Ct. 2408 (1992) "Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress lacked the authority in most respects to govern people directly. In practice, CONGRESS COULD NOT DIRECTLY TAX OR LEGISLATE UPON INDIVIDUALS; it had no explicit "legislative' or governmental' power to make binding 'law' enforceable as such." Look at the date 1992, answers jurisdiction...don't it ! ! Watch out ship's a sink'n ! !
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer We're not under the Articles of Confederation, you pathetic idiot.
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string How stupid are you. What do you think were the documents used to write the Constitution? Have you read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers? Why did the people force the Bill of Rights to be added? read the preamble to the Bill of Rights to find out how Pathetic you are. And you call yourself Prof5. Does that stand for professional idiot? Or some lame a*s musician that doesn't understand the law.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer God, you're dumber than a box of hammers. The main reason that the Articles of Conferderation failed was that the central govt lacked the power to tax. Realizing that, the Framers gave Congress a very broad taxing power, including the power to tax anyone or anything in the U.S. (except exports). Just ask the Pennsylvania distillers who were subjected to the Whiskey Tax in the 1790's.
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string Wrong not very broad taxing power, were do you come up with this information? Are you pulling this sh*t from thin air or what. The power to tax anyone or anything? Are you for real. You are really stupid to believe that. Show me that statement in the law. Whiskey tax is distillery tax not the same but since you bring it up: Why is it that anyone that makes, distills, bottles, or sells whiskey is liable for the tax but not every person that receives money is taxed on every penny?
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer Read the quote from the License Tax cases, cretin.
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string Loser you answer your own question, LICENSE TAX. Your are really stupid. How long did it take you to master the "g string" you clown. Your knowledge here is as good as using a screwdriver to hammer nails.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer If you actually read the case (which, being the idiot that you are, you didn't), you'd see that the "license" was really a tax. The Constitution lists one and only one thing that Congress can't tax: exports. All else is fair game (with the exception of the States themselves and their instrumentalities).
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string No kidding you fool a license tax is really a tax, wow your mom must be so proud. Does the fed have the right to restrict an American citizens right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Does the fed have the right to take a persons exchange of personal service for value. In other words, does the government have the right to tax where there is no profit? The Supreme Court says no. Go ahead over lord tell us what one day of a humans life is worth. Can't wait to hear this BS
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer The Supreme Court has never held that salaries and wages can't be taxed, liar. To the contrary, it has held that they can be.
Wages are profit because a worker has no cost basis in his labor. Personal living expenses arren't deductible.
prof5string 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
Whatever money you receive for your labor is 100% profit as you did not invest any money to get it, that is what the Court says.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid How is it profit? Is your life cost less? Do you not need food, clothing, or an education to perform this "labor". Then there is cost and without a basis for figuring cost there is no profit. Read the case study on this subject, follow the basis for the law on taxes. You are wrong on this type of labor and your use of the term income.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
All of those things you list are already figured into the personal deductions. Yoiu are wrong as all of the laws and case law agree with what I have been saying, and not your ideas.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Really the cost to heat your home, raise your children, get to work, educate yourslf in the field you are in, your ability to do the work, are all listed in your deductions? so a man in Tulsa OK has the same cost to live as a man in San Francisco? Good to know.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
Those are covered by your personal exemptions, those expenses are not related to you working, they would be the same even it you did not work at all.
“One’s gain, ergo his ‘income,’ from the sale of his labor is the entire amount received therefor without any reduction for what he spends to satisfy his human needs.”
Reading v. Commissioner
RetSquid 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
Thank you for pointing out a case which also proves your jurisdiction ideas wrong :)
"In the end, the Convention opted for a Constitution in which Congress would exercise its legislative authority directly over individuals, rather than over States"
NEW YORK v. UNITED STATES, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)
What a moron you are turning out to be!!!
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Obviously you as usual only read part of the opinion. They were given the ability to exercise the legislative authority over persons living or working in the Federal territories as well as non-resident aliens. What this opinion also explained was the right of the states to allow for "dual-citizenship" Federal and state citizens to be treated the same as state citizens. By the way dick a moron has an IQ under 80 which I would guess it to be a few points above yours.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer "The 8th section of the 1st article gives to Congress the 'power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,' for the purposes thereinafter mentioned. This grant is general, WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO PLACE." Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. 317 (1820)
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string Read Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution and get back to me. It is a waste of time to go over this same Article ten times in this one post. You prove that you don't read the posts or understand this discussion. I'll tell you what you post Article 1 Sec 8 here and than I'll answer your stupidity.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer You show me where in Article I, Section 8 it says that Congress' power to tax is limited to the federal areas or to federal employees.
You realize that no court in the history of the country has ever agreed with your idiotic theory, don't you? And that they have routinely rejected it as frivolous?
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string Already showed you cases that do right here i this blog. You have shown none that can be used in this discussion intelligently. . . maybe that is the problem your intelligence or more direct lack there of.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer ""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." The License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866)
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string Ok listen up for the umteenth time. Yes everyone is liable for federal income tax on money DERIVED from income, ie: you sell your house, stock, car, child for a profit, whatever you need to understand this. You owe federal income tax on that profit. That is the Constitutionality that you are misinterpreting. It is confusing to those that are not well read in the regulations and rules. I honestly don't want to have to explain this 100 more times on this same blog. Try reading
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer So you've abandoned your inane claim that Congress can tax only in the federal areas or the income from federally-connected activity. Thank you for the concession.
The absurd notion that only income derived from income can be taxed leads logically to the conclusion that interest and dividends aren't themselves taxable, but only the income derived from them. Do you really want to go there, fool?
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string No idiot, you are mixing Oranges and Tomatoes. An American citizen working and residing in the States outside of federal jurisdiction is not liable for a fed income tax on the money made in the act of personal employment. This you clown is what this whole discussion is about. If you still don't understand please pick up your drool bucket and move on. You seriously haven't a clue do you.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer So you lied when you said "EVERYONE is liable for federal income tax on money derived from income"? You still cling to the preposterous notion that people working in the States in a non-federally connected activity can't be taxed even when this nonsense has consistently been rejected by the courts?
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string Get a brain you fool
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer 1 hour ago:
"Lets agree not to belittle in our responses."
Well, I guess that proves how much you value your own claims/statements, huh?
We can debate the truth as long as you know that the starting point is that the income tax law is constitutional and applies to your wages from labor. Because that is the reality of the world we live in.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer Tax on the white man starts on July 1st. 2010
asicit2b 1 year ago
@RetSquid It's not B.S. I admit it is hard to find the Geneva documentation on the bankruptcy, just like it is hard to find the shareholders of the Federal Reserve banks. Right? The reason it is hard to find is because your government doesn't want anyone to know about it. The bankruptcy cycles is 70 years which leads us until now. Get where I am going with all this??? Another great depression. Hey I have no reason to lie to you. I wish I wasn't right on this but I am....
clearasvodka 1 year ago
@clearasvodka
Where do you find this crap you post?
RetSquid 1 year ago
You still have proved MY point with each case you post.
asicit2b 1 year ago
Like I said JOINT TENANTS. Why did you not understand that. ?
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
I understand it, it had nothing to do with the case. He owed the tax on his income even though he tried to hide it as a joint tenant with his wife. The court held that he owed the tax as of the instant he received the money.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid HE DID NOT TRY TO HIDE IT ! The question was Tax the whole or half
Blaw blaw. You still proved my point This case has NOTHING to do with this
argument
He worked for someone as an OFFICER and had debatable tax liabilities upon receiving it There were contracrs involved That is why it is a waste of time doing this.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
You are back to the 'only corporate officers, etc.have to pay taxes' which has been proven wrong every single time it's tired in court.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Mr. Earl DID NOT TRY TO HIDE IT. I like how you always do this.
You are wrong. Being an Officer is what he was. Do you want to argue that point. ?
I have proven that he is an Officer So what. Go ahead and tell me he was not.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
Yes, he tried to hide it by transfering half of it to his wife 'before' he had to pay income taxes on it. What corporation was he an officer of? The case only says that he was an attorney.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid The petitioner's salary as an officer of the Great
Western Power Co. and fees received as an attorney were
deposited in these joint accounts immediately upon
receipt thereof. Mrs. Earl has at all times had the right to
draw against the accounts at will.
In the year 1920 the petitioner received as salary,
fees, etc., the sum of $24,839.00, and in the year 1921 he
received from the same sources $22,946.20.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@RetSquid In determining the deficiencies here
involved the respondent gave effect to the agreement set
out in the findings of fact in so far as income from
property was concerned, holding that one-half of the
amounts received from such sources was taxable to the
petitioner's wife, but held that the entire amounts of
$24,839 and $22,946.20 received in 1920 and 1921,
respectively, as salary, fees, etc., were taxable to the
petitioner.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@RetSquid The question asicit is requesting you to clarify is the "income" you tout. We have gone over the difference between income earned "on top of" income worked for, and income made from an American person's "own hands" working inside the United States of America, not in federal territories or for the federal government. THE REASON YOU WILL NOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION IS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T WITH OUT LETTING THE PEOPLE KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT THEY OWE AND DON'T OWE . . . we all await your lie's
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
Why would you think that only income in 'federal territories" is taxable?
“Much of Becraft’ reply is also devoted to a discussion of the limitations of federal jurisdiction to United States territories and the District of Columbia and thus the inapplicability of the federal income tax laws to a resident of one of the states...this claim also has no semblance of merit.” Lowell H. Becraft (United States v. Nelson), 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989)
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Let's see, because the laws of this land tell me so. I guess that covers it.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
LOL!! The laws of this land do NOT support your claims in any way. How about you post a SINGLE ONE that does?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@asicit2b They weren't joint tenants, idiot. There is a huge difference between the community property system and joint tenancy.
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string Answer my other questions first before you get straigtened out on this one
They weren't ???? Not the point anyways.
asicit2b 1 year ago