The Illegal Income Tax

[Laughingblades]

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America says the income tax isn't illegal.

[MrBeautifulba1]

The IRS> Another reason not to have children.

[xxdiogenescynicxx]

It makes me so angry that people like Sherry Peel Jackson had to go to jail for this bullshit.

[xxdiogenescynicxx]

Usura slayeth the child in the womb

It stayeth the young man's courting

It hath brought palsey to bed, lyeth

between the young bride and her bridegroom CONTRA NATURAM

They have brought whores for Eleusis

Corpses are set to banquet

at behest of usura.

[waterchildtera]

your birth cert makes you a corporation by treachery

and signing up for social security makes you liable through treachery

it is all a lie to make you a slave and not free

[wellifthemediasaysit]

retsquids a shill, copy and pasting like mad

[zentner18]

When you are shown the law time and time again, why should it be shown to you an tenth time or a hundreth time. If you ask my name five times and I give it to you and then you ask it again and I say I'm not going to give it to you, according to your logic, I have no name.

[asicit2b]

The "Individual" What, is listed under "NORMAL" taxes and Surtaxes

Study what is meant by "NORMAL"

[heffer84]

Pay no attention to RetSquid. He's either on the IRS payroll or he's some other paid shill. No normal person goes to income tax videos to try convince people they owe tax. I still need to research it myself, but RetSquid's comments have been shot down over and over and it's clear its an agent or troll or someone else working for the people. PAY NO ATTENTION TO RETSQUID!

[RetSquid]

@heffer84

"I still need to research it myself,"

Yes, you obviously do. My comments have been shot AT, never DOWN.

[MrEurowolf]

We would do violence to the plain meaning of the statute and restrict a clear legislative attempt to bring the taxing power to bear upon all receipts constitutionally taxable were we to say that the payments in question here are not gross income. See Helvering v. Midland Mutual Life Ins. Co., supra, at 300 U. S. 223.

Key words "constitutionally taxable"

and glenshaw glass relates to corporate "statutory creatures" not flesh and blood private citizens

[RetSquid]

@MrEurowolf Taxpayers' argument that compensation for labor is not constitutionally subject to the federal income tax is without merit. There is no constitutional impediment to levying an income tax on compensation for a taxpayer's laborsthe term income includes the compensation a taxpayer receives in return for services rendered. Taxpayers' argument that wages received for services are not taxable as income is clearly frivolous. Funk v. Commissioner

[MrEurowolf]

@RetSquid Nice try with the words of art. Keyword =Taxpayer

As the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, it only applies to activities specifically called out in the law; to persons having taxable income. Persons made liable for an income tax in the Code; persons defined in Section 7701(a)14 as Taxpayers.

[RetSquid]

@MrEurowolf

"The term taxpayer means any person subject to any internal revenue tax."

And "Individuals" have the tax imposed on them, so what is your point? There are no "activities" listed in the law, every kind of income is taxable unless specifically exempted.

[MrEurowolf]

@RetSquid your logic is backwards, it is not what is exempted rather what is defined as that is applicable, and what is not included is exempted. You must be a product of the public school system

Blacks Law Dictionary defines the legal principle inclusio unius est exclusio alterius as dictating that where law expressly describes a particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.

[RetSquid]

@MrEurowolf

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I >

§ 61. Gross income defined

General definition

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items

[MrEurowolf]

@RetSquid

[MrEurowolf]

@RetSquid the Federal Regulations do define individual:

26 CFR 1.1441-1 Requirement for deduction and withholding of tax on payments to foreign persons.

(c) Definitions

(3) Individual.

(i) Alien individual. The term alien individual means an individual who is not a citizen...

(ii) Nonresident alien individual. The term nonresident alien individual means a person described in section 7701(b)(1)(B), an alien individual who is...

i am not an individual

[RetSquid]

Person is the generic term; it usually refers to human beings; when it is extended to include other entities...they are included in the definition of person and...the term individual is applied to human beings. Petitioners are individuals within the meaning of the IRC. The fact that the term individual is not defined in the IRC is also of no moment. As previously stated, words in the IRC have their commonly accepted meanings as used in common speech.

Liddane v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1998-259

[RetSquid]

@MrEurowolf

You profile says you are from the U.S., so section 1441 does not apply to you in any way, nor does 7701(b)(1)(B)...or the '861 argument'...

[RetSquid]

@MrEurowolf Income defined in Title 26: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items; (2) Gross income derived from business; (3) Gains derived from dealings in property; (4) Interest; (5) Rents; (6) Royalties; (7) Dividends; (8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments; (9) Annuities; (10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts; (11) Pensions; (12) Income from discharge of indebtedness....

[matrixm777]

Keep truth alive!!

[captnkirk4]

I say beat taxation buy turbo tax. It help Giethner

[captnkirk4]

Hey guys and gals everyone has to pay taxes except CHARLIE RANGEL

[Goofy8687]

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of— yeah, the problem is, your taxable income is that from interest, or investments appreciation of your possessions, not your labor.

[asicit2b]

TAKE NOTICE

25K penalties for "frivolous" arguments

Tax denier

What kind of "person" talks like that ? Yep.

Frivolous is a good study.Double speak.

[asicit2b]

Find in there that your exercise of your fundamental constitutional rights are exempt from taxation argument.(I dident find it either) I think the irs also uses their own code as a frivolous argument (861)?

[asicit2b]

Go to IRS gov-Individuals-more topics-The truth about frivolous tax arguments

Find in there the argument that they refute,that there is no provision in the law that makes us liable argument

[asicit2b]

" Actually over 99% of people agree with me"???HAAAHaaa Haaaa. Wow are you deceived and brainwashed !Why deFEND and uphold a corrupt and vile corporation like the "federal" re$ERVE ?

[averageworkinggal]

dumbdumberandnowdumbest77,

How many times have you tax denier kooks droned away about the clause in Brushaber about the "16th Amendment not adding to the taxing power," a completely out-of-context delusion of you kooks, but you are quoting a SCOTUS clause, out of contect though, in it's deciding opinion to argue what the "Constitution says?"

There are SCOTUS clauses in Glenshaw Glass and Kowalski that say "what the Constitution says" as I described in context.

[asicit2b]

Fereral ?Just had my teeth done. I do mean "Federal"Google Fereral and see what you get.

[asicit2b]

Why deFEND a corrupt and vile corp. BEA$T like the "Fereral" re$ERVE ?It is all legle speak. Blaa Blaa NO aalB aalB.Not all "income" is taxable.

[asicit2b]

Looks like Retsquids girlfrend is involved in the posting now ?

[averageworkinggal]

One slight correction, the SCOTUS case is:

 Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass. (1955)

[averageworkinggal]

SCOTUS also held in Glenshaw Glass and reaffirmed in Cmsnr. v Kowalski that

"absent a specific exemption in the tax code all income (thus, all assessions to wealth) are included in gross income."

Yessiree, dumbnow77 is most definitely the stupidest thing on earth and exposed by self too. That really compunds the stupidity.

[freenow77]

Belowaverageworkinggal, lucky for us Courts do not make law. Our tax laws and requirements for anyone to pay are in Title 26. Income is not define at all in Title 26 subtitle A. The only individual made liable in Title 26 for subtitle A income taxes is the withholding agent in 1461. You are a ignorant little lapdog for the IRS.

[averageworkinggal]

dumbanddumbernow77, you're compounding your stupidity.

The tax code does not have to define 'income' since the Constitution defines income through the Glenshaw Glass SCOTUS ruling.

The Supreme Law of the Land already defines income.

No need for the tax code to duplicate it.

The Constitution also says that "absent a specific exemption in the tax code, all income is included."

If you don't see the tax code explicitly in writing exempt a source of income, it's taxable income!

[freenow77]

Waybelowaverageworkingmutant says, The Constitution says that "absent a specific exemption in the tax code, all income is included." Really where does it say that in the Constitution? It doesn't. You are a lying retard. Our tax laws are in the Internal Revenue Code, not in the Constitution, and not in the Supreme Cour rulings. There is no law in the Internal Revenue Code that makes American citizens liable for income taxes. Oh wait, unless you are a withholding agent under 1461.

[averageworkinggal]

Like I said, dumbanddumbernow77, when it comes to views on SCOTUS jurisprudence, you are the most unqualified in the world.

The Constitution says that "absent a specific exemption in the tax code, all income is included" when the SCOTUS held that in Glenshaw Glass.

[freenow77]

Seriously, what kind of drugs are you taking? The Constituion does not say "absent a specific exemption in the tax code. all income is included." Which article in the Constitution do you believe says that? Why are you so retarded? You must be taking the flu vaccines.

[averageworkinggal]

dumbdumberandnowdumbest77,

it's been obvious from the get go that you're just one of those corrupt tax denier idiots.

You're totally incapable of making an intelligent argument and you show conclusively that you have absolute no grasp of legal principles.

SCOTUS through judicial review decides what the Constitution says and they said the Constitution says that "given the all embracing nature of the tax law written by Congress, absent an exemption written in the code all income is included..."

[freenow77]

Look gal, I will send you $500.00 in CASH if you can cite me the court case which said "the Constitution says that given the all embracing nature of the tax law written by Congress, absent an exemption written in the code all income is included..." I know my money is safe because no judge ever said that. Nobody with a brain would ever make that claim, because the Constitution says no such thing! Gal, you are totally delusional! Now earn your $500.00 or shut the fuck up!

[RetSquid]

Amendment 16 - "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

"That the authority conferred upon Congress...[is] EXHAUSTIVE AND EMBRACES EVERY CONCEIVABLE POWER OF TAXATION...that there was authority given, as the part was included in the whole, to lay and collect income taxes.

BRUSHABER v. UPRR

How about that $500??

[averageworkinggal]

dumbdumberand nowdumbest77,

you're going to need that $500 even though that's not going to come close to covering those $25K penalties for frivolous arguments you'll be paying.

I gave you the two cases to read in my prior comments but it's obvious you lack the ability to comprehend the English language.

Just google "The Truth about Frivolous Tax Arguments" to get to the IRS webpage that makes an absolute fool out of you and read and heed.

You do seem to lack the ability to read and heed.

[freenow77]

Gal, you have done nothing to earn the $500. No Court has ever said that the "the Constitution says that given the all embracing nature of the tax law written by Congress, absent an exemption written in the code all income is included..." No Court said this because the Constitution does not say this! You are RETARDED!! YOU are the one who cannot read. In fact, you simply make stuff up! Something is wrong with your brain. You really appear to be delusional.

[averageworkinggal]

dumbdumberandnowdumbest77,

you not worth the time of anyone who's rational.

You're clearly not rational.

You were given the names of the two SCOTUS case to go read and were told to go read them.

You chose to continue to make a fool of yourself.

I'm not stupid like you, so I just ignore phony 'offers' from crackpots who would never pay up.

[freenow77]

Gal, you are the one who is irrational. The court never said what you said it said. The Constitution says no such thing. The Constitution does not say anything about what "income" is. You simply make shit up out of thin air. No you are not stupid. You are beyond stupid. You are delusional. Seek help.

[RetSquid]

WRONG (again)...

TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter A, PART I,

§ 1. Tax imposed

There is hereby imposed a tax determined in accordance with the following table[s]:

[RetSquid]

WRONG (yet AGAIN)!!!

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I >

§ 61. Gross income defined

General definition

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items

[averageworkinggal]

Yessiree, dumbnow77, is the self-exposed stupidest thing on earth.

[averageworkinggal]

SCOTUS in Pollock struck down the income tax because it held that Congress could not have intended the income tax to fall exclusively on wage and salary earners and burden them disproportionately.

[averageworkinggal]

The reason why SCOTUS struck down an income tax due to issues of fairness so as not to burden wage and salary earners, was due to SCOTUS' own error in holding that certain types of income related to property, such as rents and royalties, were a direct tax.

SCOTUS corrected this error in Glenshaw Glass v. Cmsnr. (1955) and simplified the definition of income as assessions to wealth, thus eliminating the need for the 16th Amendment, enacted to correct the SCOTUS rents/royalties error in Pollock.

[fx36590]

RetSquid- who are you? you are offensive and a down right unamerican. You are either a socialist or a IRS agent hell bent on destroying what is fair and honest in this country!!! Shame on you.

[MrEurowolf]

RetSquid, entire issue pivots on a particular word,

[T]he verb includes imports a general class, some of whose particular instances are those specified in the definition. This view finds support in 2(b) of the Act, which reads:

"The terms includes and including, when used in a definition contained in this title, shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined. Helvering v Morgans, Inc 293 U.S. 121, 126 fn. 1 (1934)

Checkmate:)

[MrEurowolf]

only pertains to federal government nexus- activities associated with exercise(income tax is an excise tax) of federal power (thats why it says FEDERAL INCOME TAX) or privilage-any who says different is a liar-EVERY SINGLE SCOTUS ruling confirms this and this only

RetSquid can only rely on lower court rulings to make his case

[RetSquid]

"lower court rulings"

Which, until overturned by SCOTUS, are the law just as if SCOTUS had ruled on it already.

How about you post a SCOTUS ruling to support YOUR claims?

[freenow77]

Lower court rulings such as Tax Court or District Court rulings do not become law. Lower court decisions are only binding on the petioner and the respondents in the case. Even the IRS knows this and the Tax Court Website admits this.

[RetSquid]

"Lower court decisions"...

Are precendent which is binding in that jurisdiction.

[freenow77]

More bullshit lies by Squid. "Decisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts, or Claims Court, are binding on the Service only for the particular taxpayer and the years litigated. Adverse decisions of lower courts do not require the Service to alter its position for other taxpayers {IRM 4.10.7.2.9.8} Why not simply give up Squid and crawl back to your IRS cubicle? Nobody is falling for you erroneous crap.

[pipesbitch]

the coporate there refurrung to is your STRAWMAN

[asicit2]

The "income"tax ,Title 26 ( A Non-Positive law) works when "applied' correctly.Applies to a very few, WHEN MADE LIABLE.Who is MADE liable and when ?Dig into yourself.Ignorance IS the beast that is used against oneself..........HR1207

[RetSquid]

You are made liable when you have income (as defined in Title 26) over the exemption amount.

[torque222]

We The People of the United States of America own the Federal government, state government, local government.

The squad cars, the government buildings, the badges, the missles, the aircraft carriers, the ICBM's, and everything between....it is all ours.

The People of the United States own THEM.

Don't be told different.

[cowbaisin]

Neither the IRS or our own judicial system can come up with laws to back up their supposed "facts". When asked by jurors to find written documents stating that it is legal for the govenment to tax income on individuals, one judge could never come up with anything. No one comes up with anything, ever.

[RetSquid]

It's called title 26

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1. Tax imposed

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income...

[719freethinks]

When he says apportionment, does he mean tax money given back to the payers in the form of roads and stuff, or money taken from the people in proportion to population, or both?

[eklypse0]

Which he are you talking about, and what is the apportionment issue?

Based on the common aspects, The federal government can only acquire money from direct taxes though apportionment. Which means, each 'state' pays based on it's population.

This aspect is offset based that Congress is also seated based on the population of their states. Bills of direct taxation have to be voted in on, where as the higher the population, the more the money has to come from, but the stronger the vote count is.

[eklypse0]

What that means is the federal government already has in place the means to generate all the revenue it needs based directly in the constitution.

The only problem for the government is when too much is being siphoned off in direct taxes. Congress and the Senate will be at a loss to get reelected.

What happened is that the government squirmed a meaning into the 16th in which 'income taxes' become a federally collected tax on the individual, which is a buffer between the tax and the elected.

[RetSquid]

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

How much 'squirming' did it take? It comes right out and says it!

Broughton v. United States, 632 F.2d 706 (8 th Cir. 1980)

[eklypse0]

[It comes right out and says it!]

However, that would give congress a new power, assuming that it had allowed congress to collect direct taxes without apportionment.

Supreme court stated, "The 16h amendment gave Congress no new powers or subjects of taxation".

However, the 16th Amendment did not repeal any part of the apportionment clause. Instead, all it did was take 'Income' as defined for the 16th and place it within Indirect taxation, where it belonged.

[RetSquid]

"CONGRESS ALREADY HAD THE POWER TO TAX ALL INCOMES." Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co

It didn't give Congress any new powers, it just changed HOW the income tax was figured.

[RetSquid]

The purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, ***and place it in the class of direct taxes.*** Brushaber v. UPRR Company

[eklypse0]

OK We hear the courts decision. But how does that decision apply to the exact written word of the 16th Amendment.

Not one aspect of the Amendment in question states that it repeals the requirement of the apportionment of direct taxes.

It states 'without apportionment', but that is construed that the income tax has been placed under indirect taxing.

[RetSquid]

"repeals the requirement of the apportionment of direct taxes."

...power to lay and collect taxes on incomes...without apportionment...

Do you mean to say that it is required that it states exactly what is being replaced/changed? Only the 21st Amendment does that.

[zackmcnell]

i aint payin ill take my chances in court

END THE FED

END THE IRS

STOP new world order

[ImNotYourFriend212]

Even though there isn't a law stating that I must pay an income tax, somehow I feel as if I still should, simply because I'm too afraid that I'll get locked up. I can't risk that. I earn my money hard, working, but...still, who wants to go to jail? I wish that there were a way that U.S. citizens who oppose this could fight and overturn the IRS and their ways.

[RetSquid]

Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable. . . . [Taxpayer] seems to have been inspired by various tax protesting groups across the land who postulate weird and illogical theories of tax avoidance all to the detriment of the common weal [sic] and of themselves. United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).

[eklypse0]

Constitutionally, Congress has the power of indirect Taxes: "To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises".

If Congress needs more money then can be raised by their power, they must make a bill for the year that the states have to raise money based on Census. This is the Direct Taxes must be Apportioned clause.

Since it is a Bill, it has to be voted on. The people then get to know 'first' exactly what Congress wants to use the money for.

[almartin77]

What is a man's life worth in money? Can any man place a monetary value on the sort time in which we have to live our lives? How much is a single day out of our lives given up to labor in order to survive worth? No man can sell his labor for more than the value of his own life. He cannot buy back a single minuet of that time. It is gone forever. People work to survive. They sell their time for much less than it is worth because NO one knows if today will be their last day on Earth.

[eklypse0]

A story with consequences:

newswithviews(dot)com/loeffler­/loeffler21(dot)htm

[averageworkinggal]

THE LAW THAT ALWAYS WAS - IRC sections 1, 61, 63.

Only idiots fall for this nonsense.

This video depends on the viewer being ignorant. Those knowledgable in the law laugh at this nonsense.

AFTF is a conspiracy theory kook piece and anyone who cites it as something informative are conspiracy theorists or idiots.

[eklypse0]

"Income" is profit from federal privilege. So yes, the government has every right to tax money you make from their properties.

There is no federal privilege in private contract, working for someone to trade labor for compensation.

[averageworkinggal]

eklpse, you're still spouting kook nonsense.

The SCOTUS made it CRYSTAL CLEAR in Glenshaw glass, because they walked through all the prior SCOTUS decisions about income in that opinion, that any assession to wealth was income and included in gross income, absent a specific congressionally-specified exemption. Period.

Stop spouting nonsense.

[eklypse0]

Requiring the average American to pay taxes on occupations that are a common 'right' as covered under the "Bill of Rights". The big point here is if government can tax a right, and you have to come though this step by step with me, they have the power to destroy that right.

Without the 'right' to provide a living for yourself, I would say it is impossible to exercise any other right.

[averageworkinggal]

eklpse, none of your arguments have any substance. They're stupid.

Congress has the income taxing power and they exercised it.

If you work and make money and you're paid the minimum wage, you're going to be above the miniumum income threshold and you're going to have taxable income.

You have an affirmative obligation (It's mandatory.) to act and pay the tax owed.

Stop your whining.

You can email your congressman and ask him to introduce a bill to repeal the income tax law. But that's it.

[eklypse0]

Government does not have the right to tax everything at any time. They have been given powers to tax, yes. I agree. But they have to follow certain rules on what they can tax. They don't have the right to tax certain things. Otherwise there would never have been any court cases dealing with such limits of power, and there have been many times.

There is court cases stating a limitation on Congresses ability to define Income, in which they can't define everything as Income.

[averageworkinggal]

eklpse, you're simply bonkerz.

There are occasional cases where some esoteric form of payment is questionable in some way as to whether it should be construed as income, but that is far removed from the totally settled case of wages or salary.

Read Glenshaw Glass and read Kowalski and stop wasting time with your nonsensical theories.

[eklypse0]

The truth is that the Constitution give the government no right to tax hard working Americans doing common work to put a roof over their head and feed their family.

They were allowed only to tax privilege and 'sins'. Property tax is another matter, in which all it was meant to do is keep a person's property in the books to prove it was theirs.

Any other direct tax was apportioned, and that sort of tax was only a two year tax that had to be voted on each other year to keep it in the books.

[averageworkinggal]

eklpse can't handle the truth.

Congress was given the power to tax by the Constitution.

In the SCOTUS, cases such as Hylton, Springer, Pollock, Brushaber, Glenshaw Glass, Kowalski made it crystal clear that the Constitution gives the Congress the power to tax wage and salary income of individual citizens.

The 'direct tax' tax denier argument is a destroyed, frivolous red herring argument.

[eklypse0]

I don't deny that Congress has the power of taxation granted by Congress. But Congress does not have a Cart Blanch right to tax everything from everybody.

The governments 12% payment into the school system to control 100% of the schools' indoctrination of 'truth' has had a 100% success rate with you.

You will believe anything the government tells you despite any common sense and critical thinking to the contrary. No mater any historical evidence.

[RetSquid]

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;

[RetSquid]

That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is ***EXHAUSTIVE AND EMBRACES EVERY CONCEIVABLE POWER OF TAXATION HAS NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED***, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine. Brushaber v. UPRR Company

[eklypse0]

[crystal clear that the Constitution gives the Congress the power to tax wage and salary income of individual citizens.]

It isn't so crystal clear to me. Reading the literal translation of the USC, statutes and regulations.

The biggest Linchpin is the use of 'Includes' which has been ruled in the favor that I have been using it, exactly just this month.

Courts have ruled that a Tax Court, while a court in the common sense, does not fit under the 'term' court as constructed using includes.

[freenow77]

Belowaverageslut, Hylton and Springer were overruled by Pollock. Pollock ruled that the income tax act passed in 1894 was unconstituional because it was a direct tax that wasnt apportioned. There goes your stupid argument out the window. Brushaber ruled that the income tax was constitutional as an excise tax, not a direct tax. You have shit for brains. As I ordered, leave America right now!

[averageworkinggal]

You clearly have determined to go through life as the stupidest thing on earth.

Your comments clearly show that when it comes to views on SCOTUS jurisprudence, you are the most unqualified in the world.

The use of vulgarities show that you are a scum-sucking bottom feeder.

Pollock made it clear that the income tax on wages and salaries was totally constitutional and that due to issues of fairness so as not to burden workers, SCOTUS struck down an income tax law.

[RetSquid]

"Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable. . . . [Taxpayer] seems to have been inspired by various tax protesting groups across the land who postulate weird and illogical theories of tax avoidance all to the detriment of the common weal [sic] and of themselves." United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).

[eklypse0]

As for paying taxes owed, I pay every tax I am liable for. Overpaying or paying taxes I am not liable for is, in my opinion, destructive.

So while the thought of 'freeloader' might come into your mind because you believe I should pay 'my fair share' just because you pay the tax. It is a false assumption.

I am a productive member of society. I earn my living lawfully. I help support others truly 'voluntarily'. The money earned goes back into the economy, and not to 'entitlement' freeloaders.

[freenow77]

Belowaverageworkinggal, get a life. You know nothing. Everything you say in here is a lie. You are a terrorist. Leave this country right now. If I rebuild my neighbors car and he pays me for it, i traded my time and labor for his money. The Federal Government did not do a damn thing and is not entitled to any tax from that transaction. You are a dimwit little whore!

[freenow77]

"Any assession to wealth" is income? What the fuck does that even mean? Its a meaningless statement. Anways, I bet you don't even know that the Treasury Regulations admitted in 1939 that there are items of income NOT taxable by the Federal Government. So in addition to income being exclude by statute, there is also income that, under the constitution, is not taxable by the federal government. Hmmm, I wonder what kind of income that may be? Hmm, could it be the income of Americans? Yes!

[RetSquid]

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I >

§ 61. Gross income defined

(a) General definition

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;

[eklypse0]

[all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:]

It all comes down to _INCOME_. Income can include all the items as written. However, The reverse does not have to be true. Compensation, fees, etc, can be a non-taxable nature. Work with your general logic skills.

My math facts still include that only 3.6% of the population in 1945 filed income taxes. If 'Subsection A Tax' was supposed to be all encompassing, this number would have to be far higher.

[eklypse0]

[Work with your general logic skills.]

For example, A dog color list can include (Golden, Spotted, Brown, and Black). However just because an object or animal you are viewing is black doesn't mean it is a dog. It could be a cat, a car, or anything else.

The definition specifically lists possible sources of income. But the list doesn't exempt that the possible sources may not be income.

As matter of fact, one thing that is excluded is non-taxable sources by law. But that list is not defined.

[RetSquid]

"[Work with your general logic skills.]"

Exactly, which is why some TP's get in trouble with the argument of 'only Government/Corporate officers are liable'. The definition INCLUDES them not EXCLUDES all others.

[RetSquid]

You are getting closer to the truth.

Not ALL income is taxable, there are types that are exempt.

That is not the same as saying 'all income is not taxable, with some exceptions'.

If I remember correctly in the '40s', income over $4,000 was taxed, the average income was only $800. Some people take that and say,'Most people didn't pay any tax.' without adding that most people didn't make enough.

[eklypse0]

No, actually, married 'couple' exemption for Income Tax for 1945 was $1000. Anything over that would have been taxed.

Based on Department of Commerce report for 1945, only 10.6% of the single and Family population had -less- then $500 income. 29.3% has less then $1,000. Which means, by your account, 70.7% of that population was eligible for being taxed.

16.6% of the population had an income of over $4,000.

The numbers are really killing your argument.

[eklypse0]

['all income is not taxable, with some exceptions'.]

What can be said, without jumping to far fetched conclusions, is that there is income that can not be lawfully taxed. However, despite that, no list of that type of 'income' is even touched by any subtitle A statute.

However, since 'Rights' can not be taxed. Taxing rights would amount to regulation and the ability to destroy them. Taxing of 'Rights' would be unconstitutional and unlawful. Every American has the right to work in America.

[RetSquid]

"The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, 'from whatever source derived' without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. CONGRESS ALREADY HAD THE POWER TO TAX ALL INCOMES." Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co

[eklypse0]

[POWER TO TAX ALL INCOMES."]

This would be 16th Amendment Income, which would be 'true' as to the encompassing effect of the Income as defined for use in the 16th Amendment.

However, as we go round and round, It is historically proven that Congress did not have any power to tax normal earnings, and SCOTUS slapped their hand for it.

[RetSquid]

You missed part of that quote:

"CONGRESS ALREADY HAD THE POWER TO TAX ALL INCOMES"

"The authority is EXHAUSTIVE AND EMBRACES EVERY CONCEIVABLE POWER OF TAXATION..."

"this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,***AN AUTHORITY ALREADY POSSESSED AND NEVER QUESTIONED.*** "

Brushaber v. UPRR Company

[eklypse0]

You keep quoting that same line, and it just isn't doing anything for me.

The quote only proves that the Court is either deliberately Lying or completely ignorant of history the history of Taxation and SCOTUS's previous ruling on it.

[RetSquid]

"You keep quoting that same line, and it just isn't doing anything for me."

I don't really care if it's 'doing anything for you', I'm just pointing out that it is the LAW.

[eklypse0]

[I don't really care if it's 'doing anything for you', I'm just pointing out that it is the LAW.]

Income Tax is a law based on a certain type of earnings and ascension to wealth. However, it has been twisted, over decades and decades, to make people assume that it includes all earnings, not just what the 16th encompassed when it was enacted.

The IRS is only a collection agency, It's only purpose is to generate as much revenue as possible. It has overstepped it's granted powers into terrorism.

[freenow77]

No squidbrains, you are aren't pointed out any law. You are pointing out the opinion of a human being who happens to where a black robe. These are not deities. There are fallible homosapiens. And as Brushaber said, the income tax is an excise tax, and our compsensation for labor is not an excise tax, so there goes your argument out of the water too.

[RetSquid]

'so there goes your argument out of the water too.'

Your opinion does not matter, only the court's and the LAW. Brushaber approves of the income tax, on compensation for labor i.e. wages/salary.

[RetSquid]

"Taxing rights would amount to regulation".

Rights can be and are regulated.

Can I yell 'fire' in crowded theater?

Can I post that you are a convicted child molester?

NO! Because the right of free speech (or any other) is NOT absolute.

[eklypse0]

[NO! Because the right of free speech (or any other) is NOT absolute.]

This action violates the rights of other people to be safe. That is why you can't yell 'fire', because injury can be caused by the action.

On the other hand, you have every 'Right' to work in a common, lawful occupation, while not interfering with any other individual's right.

[RetSquid]

So, rights CAN be regulated??

You do have a right to work.

You also have an obligation to pay taxes on your wages.

[eklypse0]

Freedom of speech is a right, up to, but not including interfering any other individual's right. All rights stop at the point that you are interfering in other person's rights.

Some people may 'feel' obligated to pay taxes on their work, but that is where 'income taxes are 100% voluntary'. Voluntary legally meaning being that there is no penalty if you do not perform it.

[RetSquid]

To the extent that income taxes are said to be "voluntary," however, they are only voluntary in that one files the returns and pays the taxes without the IRS first telling each individual the amount due and then forcing payment of that amount. The payment of income taxes is not optional, however, see, e.g., Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988); Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460, 467 (8th Cir. 1985)

[eklypse0]

["voluntary," however, they are only voluntary in that one files the returns and pays the taxes without the IRS]

That is not 'Voluntary' That is it's antonym, 'Mandatory'. Only a lawyer, or lawyer in black robes can say that without laughing at the stupidity of the comment.

[RetSquid]

"Only a lawyer, or lawyer in black robes can say that without laughing at the stupidity of the comment."

Kind of like saying 'income' isn't income, huh?

How about this one I just thought of: by 'volunteering' to work you also 'volunteer' to pay taxes.

[eklypse0]

[Kind of like saying 'income' isn't income, huh?

How about this one I just thought of: by 'volunteering' to work you also 'volunteer' to pay taxes.]

"Income isn't Income." Let's just say the Legal defining of Income that the 16th Amendment was structured around is not the common meaning of Income as used today.

You have a right to work for your living. You can volunteer any amount of your normal earnings as Income. However, those earnings are not part of 'Gross Income' unless you agree to it.

[eklypse0]

[Kind of like saying 'income' isn't income, huh?]

And I gave you hard physical evidence that while 3.6% of the population filed an income tax return during 1945, four times that population was considered in the well off bracket which 'should' have been included in an income tax, if it were imposed on them.

You on the other hand want to only believe what the government or the IRS tells you, for some ungodly reason, with no critical thinking on your part.

[RetSquid]

"And I gave you hard physical evidence"

Comments on youtube do not constitute evidence, nor are they 'hard' or 'physical'.

[eklypse0]

[Comments on youtube do not constitute evidence, nor are they 'hard' or 'physical'.]

I gave you the literature that I used. Which is 'Department of Commerce' statistical report of 1945. Since you can verify that report, that is considered 'hard evidence'

[freenow77]

No, anyone who says that sections 1, 61, or 63 of TItle 26 require Americans to pay income taxes is a freaking idiot. Oh wait, that would be you douschebag! Your name is averageworkinggal? What the fuck is that? Are you a CPA or tax preparer? You don't know shit.

[RetSquid]

"freenow77'

You are just a clueless troll. Come back whan you actually have an argument.

[freenow77]

Troll? YOU retsquid are the DEFINITION of a troll! I see you posting in ALL of these comment sections of Income Tax videos! Nobody agrees with you, yet you keep posting as if you are going to change anybody's mind. Get a life and do something with it. Why waste your time spreading lies which nobody is falling for?

[RetSquid]

"Nobody agrees with you"

Actually over 99% of people agree with me, including all of the courts.

You guys are the 1% lunatic fringe who are unable to read a law or abmit that income taxes are the law.

[asimplekindofman]

So that's why hispanics don't have to pay taxes, they're not in debt.

[SpraxIAKS]

WELL. They got Wesley Snipes though.

[sodasoap]

yup the tax is illegal!it is unlawful to govern anyone unless they consent to it.

[Charlie8417]

Thats not WHY the income tax is illegal. If you live within the boarders of a country and count yourself as a citizen then you fall under than country's jurisdiction in regards to being taxed as long as the government follows the LAWS written regarding being taxed. The issue is that there is no LAW that says the average American citizen has to pay a direct and unapportioned tax on their income. The constitution even FORBIDS the government from taxing you under this basis.

[alfunk23]

where can i read up on this??

[jude1849]

You can go on Google and see a documentary that is over an hour and a half that gives you more details on this or look up United States Constitution. I found a lot on many sites by doing that search.

[alfunk23]

so its really true, there is no law the requires american citizens to pay taxes?

[paleocrat]

Watch the movie Freedom to Fascism. You can watch it online for free. It is as telling as it is infuriating.

[passitkitdotcom]

There IS A Law By Which Any Person Can Become Liable For The "Income" Tax,...can become.. not having to file or answer to false information returns would be a bad call if you were accused of a crim would you make no responce ? look over this list perticulary 1 and 5. goole "lost horizons misunderstandings" should set you in a good direction

[Drulandir]

This is the message, charlie8417, that all citizens need to know.

[Tony63efc]

Hmm today I have seen videos warning of a descent into fascism from contributors from both ends of the political spectrum.

[JohnK75136]

26 USC § 1.

You can send me the $50,000 now.

[paleocrat]

Send it to the organization that offered it.

Do you have a link?

[ggadguy]

If you want to promote Ron Paul in your neighborhood, get some Ron Paul Cards at LibertyCard . org.

[SavedTru8]

Fair tax!!!

[sleuth51]

Cool! keep this up!! Ron Paul rocks!

[GabeTheArchAngel]

5 stars