How do you obtain material of which your disapproval governs?
 

The content I'm trying to obtain is anti-IRS stuff, specifically stuff the Save-a-Patriot Fellowship endorses. Last I checked, months ago, the site hadn't been updated in a while, so maybe I should be searching for some sort of sister site, perhaps an onion address.

[url]http://www.save-a-patriot.org/[/url]

The site says the books aren't available for sale. But, if I'm not mistaken, when the government rescinded the right to sell them, the authors stopped caring about protecting their copyright. So my question becomes "Where can I go to try to find digital copies of these books?"

Mind you, I'm not looking to commit copyright infringement with books, I'm just looking for specific books that aren't available for sale. I feel the cost to enjoyment ratio with Kindle books is phenomenal, so no worries there. :)

Anyway, anyone have any idea what I could do? I'm assuming asking on a torrent site is my best bet, but I figured I'd plumb you guys for knowledge first.

[QUOTE=jasong;408915]But, if I'm not mistaken, when the government rescinded the right to sell them, the authors stopped caring about protecting their copyright.[/QUOTE]Just for the sake of my own curiosity and entertainment what do you mean by "the government rescinded the right to sell"? Especially in light of this:
[QUOTE]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.[/QUOTE]

BTW, claiming that you don't have to pay taxes is one way to get free room and board.:jail:

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;408929]Just for the sake of my own curiosity and entertainment what do you mean by "the government rescinded the right to sell"? Especially in light of this:


BTW, claiming that you don't have to pay taxes is one way to get free room and board.:jail:[/QUOTE]
I'm not claiming I have the right not to pay taxes, I'm claiming the IRS is lying about how the taxation works.

Edit:I'm guessing that this might be split off into the Soap Box at some point. If or when that happens, can we keep part of this thread here to help me figure out how to obtain the books? I know getting a forum account at a torrent website is probably the best idea, but with all the websites being broken into in the last few years, and user details leaked, I'm looking for a different method.

[QUOTE=jasong;409018]I know getting a forum account at a torrent website is probably the best idea, but with all the websites being broken into in the last few years, and user details leaked, I'm looking for a different method.[/QUOTE][URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Web[/URL]

[QUOTE=jasong;409018]How do you obtain material that your government disapproves of?[/QUOTE]
The same way you drive with a speed that your government disapproves of. You just press the pedal a little harder. Then you deal with consequences: fines, accidents, ... It is rather easy!

Then again, while the government quite likely disapproves of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf#United_States"]certain books[/URL] - you can still get them at almost any public library.

[QUOTE=Batalov;409036]Then again, while the government quite likely disapproves of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf#United_States"]certain books[/URL] - you can still get them at almost any public library.[/QUOTE]The high school that I went to had a copy of that. One day while the cats were away, I "checked out" that book and many others. (Just marked off that I did on the card.)

[QUOTE=jasong;409018]If or when that happens, can we keep part of this thread here to help me figure out how to obtain the books?[/QUOTE]
Again, can you please answer my question?
[QUOTE=Uncwilly;408929]Just for the sake of my own curiosity and entertainment what do you mean by "the government rescinded the right to sell"? Especially in light of this:
[CODE]1[SUP]st[/SUP] ammendment[/CODE][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=jasong;408915]The content I'm trying to obtain is anti-IRS stuff, specifically stuff the Save-a-Patriot Fellowship endorses. Last I checked, months ago, the site hadn't been updated in a while, so maybe I should be searching for some sort of sister site, perhaps an onion address.

[URL]http://www.save-a-patriot.org/[/URL]

The site says the books aren't available for sale. But, if I'm not mistaken, when the government rescinded the right to sell them, the authors stopped caring about protecting their copyright. So my question becomes "Where can I go to try to find digital copies of these books?"

Mind you, I'm not looking to commit copyright infringement with books, I'm just looking for specific books that aren't available for sale. I feel the cost to enjoyment ratio with Kindle books is phenomenal, so no worries there. :)

Anyway, anyone have any idea what I could do? I'm assuming asking on a torrent site is my best bet, but I figured I'd plumb you guys for knowledge first.[/QUOTE]So, how much searching did you do? I can get a hardcover of "Piercing the Illusion" for $250 on Amazon (plus $3.99 shipping). If you like, I can digitize it for you into a PDF for just a small nominal fee above that cost.

If you want to read the pamphlet above that, "Do Courts Have Law Making Powers?" and if you know how to use archive.org, you can find an archived copy of the page that has a link to a PDF that is also archived in the Wayback Machine.

If you really get fancy, you can probably also search and find a mirror of the .org site that was created that has the full text of "Piercing the Illusion" available online for download as a zipped PDF.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;408929]Just for the sake of my own curiosity and entertainment what do you mean by "the government rescinded the right to sell"?[/QUOTE]Not so much rescinding the right to sell, so much as:[quote=US District Court for the District of Maryland]1) That Defendants and their representatives, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them are hereby permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly:

. . . .

c) Promoting, marketing, organizing, selling, or receiving payment for any plan or arrangement regarding the securing of any tax benefit that they know or have reason to know is false or fraudulent as to any material matter;

d) Engaging in any other activity subject to penalty under IRC §§ 6700 or 6701 or other penalty provision of the Internal Revenue Code; [/quote]Just hand-waving here, without having downloaded and perused the book, I am going to make a wild guess and assume the book talks about how (try) to avoid paying taxes to the (US) Government. (Make of that what you will.)

[Edit before posting: Ah, it looks like they marketed a "Patriot Defense Fellowship" which was a mutual aid society that would pay up to $15,000 toward the costs to defend against an action initiated by the IRS or a state taxing agency; the cost of which would be apportioned among the active members of the "PDF" at the time. To join the Fellowship you also had to be a member of the SAP Fellowship, which cost $697 (first year) and $99 per annum after that. The SAPF assesses (assessed?) a $10 fee from all active members and forwards it to any member who loses real or personal property in a civil case or is/was incarcerated for a criminal conviction. {Weird bit of inconsistency in the agreement: one place says the payments are not limited, with the only cap being the membership count at the time the claim is placed, while another place says the civil coverage is limited to $150,000 and the criminal coverage is limited to $25,000 per annum.}]

Also, to get a taste of their feeling about the (US) goverenment, they actually quote the above prices/coverage in "FRNs" which are[quote=save-a-patriot.org]

FRNs -- "Federal Reserve Notes" -- the proper term for the fiat currency that most Americans commonly refer to as "dollars." [/quote]

[QUOTE=schickel;409087]Not so much rescinding the right to sell, so much as:[/QUOTE]Please don't do Jason's homework for him.:tantrum:
He made a specific claim with specific words. He needs to back that claim up or change it. He dodged the answer the first time.
(Know the history of various anti-tax groups I could have guessed what transpired in this case.
Kind of like the people that claim that they are "free inhabitants".

[QUOTE=schickel;409087]So, how much searching did you do? I can get a hardcover of "Piercing the Illusion" for $250 on Amazon (plus $3.99 shipping). If you like, I can digitize it for you into a PDF for just a small nominal fee above that cost.

If you want to read the pamphlet above that, "Do Courts Have Law Making Powers?" and if you know how to use archive.org, you can find an archived copy of the page that has a link to a PDF that is also archived in the Wayback Machine.

If you really get fancy, you can probably also search and find a mirror of the .org site that was created that has the full text of "Piercing the Illusion" available online for download as a zipped PDF.[/QUOTE]
When Google was first released, I thought I was so smart that I started using it. Guess I learned my lesson. :)

Thanks much.

[quote]Not so much rescinding the right to sell, so much as:Just hand-waving here, without having downloaded and perused the book, I am going to make a wild guess and assume the book talks about how (try) to avoid paying taxes to the (US) Government. (Make of that what you will.) [/quote]If I may mangle the original quote from the Save-a-Patriot Fellowship:

"It is illegal for someone not officially trained in the law to give legal advice, but there is no law against sharing publicly available material about the law."

[quote][Edit before posting: Ah, it looks like they marketed a "Patriot Defense Fellowship" which was a mutual aid society that would pay up to $15,000 toward the costs to defend against an action initiated by the IRS or a state taxing agency; the cost of which would be apportioned among the active members of the "PDF" at the time. To join the Fellowship you also had to be a member of the SAP Fellowship, which cost $697 (first year) and $99 per annum after that. The SAPF assesses (assessed?) a $10 fee from all active members and forwards it to any member who loses real or personal property in a civil case or is/was incarcerated for a criminal conviction. {Weird bit of inconsistency in the agreement: one place says the payments are not limited, with the only cap being the membership count at the time the claim is placed, while another place says the civil coverage is limited to $150,000 and the criminal coverage is limited to $25,000 per annum.}]

Also, to get a taste of their feeling about the (US) goverenment, they actually quote the above prices/coverage in "FRNs" which are[/quote]

In answer to Uncwilly's question(kind of):

I'm not sure what, precisely, the government did, but if you go to the website I linked in the first post you'll find that the books they were originally selling are no longer available. They left the advertisements, but deleted the ability to purchase them and put a comment about them no longer being available because of the US governments legal actions.

I'm no expert on that part of the law, haven't even done a little bit of research, so maybe "rescinded the right to sell," has a meaning, or lack of meaning, offensive to someone who knows a bit more(anything really) about the laws surrounding the sale of books in the US.

What, specifically, are you taking issue with?

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;409094]Please don't do Jason's homework for him.:tantrum:[/quote]
I think I've lost quite a bit of my creativity in the 20 years or so, the poster did go above and beyond what I asked of them, which I appreciate.
[quote]He made a specific claim with specific words. He needs to back that claim up or change it. He dodged the answer the first time.
(Know the history of various anti-tax groups I could have guessed what transpired in this case.
Kind of like the people that claim that they are "free inhabitants".[/QUOTE]
Are you asking why I believe the IRS acts illegally? If you're willing to go down that rabbit hole, I promise I will not not make any demands of your behavior. Though, I must ask, are you a US citizen? I'll be significantly less enthusiastic answering questions from a non-US citizen, unless of course you involve an American in the discussion. :)

Sorry for the stiff speech, my personality temporarily changes when I'm trying to convince someone of something I think is highly logical, but rejected by most people.

Quadruple post sorry, but

Schickel, you have lots of posts and have been a member for a while, but you don't seem familiar. Where do you usually post on mersenneforum? Have you returned from a long absence?

I apologize if I simply forgot about you.

Edit:Quintuple post would be a little much, but maybe this edit is a cheat? Anyway, it looks like more material has been made available since the last time I was interested in this stuff. "A few years..." is a long time in internet terms.

I'm not an idiot, but I'm really good at looking like one. :)

[QUOTE=jasong;409140]In answer to Uncwilly's question(kind of):

I'm not sure what, precisely, the government did, but if you go to the website I linked in the first post you'll find that the books they were originally selling are no longer available. They left the advertisements, but deleted the ability to purchase them and put a comment about them no longer being available because of the US governments legal actions.

I'm no expert on that part of the law, haven't even done a little bit of research, so maybe "rescinded the right to sell," has a meaning, or lack of meaning, offensive to someone who knows a bit more(anything really) about the laws surrounding the sale of books in the US.

What, specifically, are you taking issue with?[/QUOTE]

From that link's court order: [QUOTE]This Court has found that Defendants John Baptist Kotmair and Save-A-Patriot Fellowship have engaged in conduct subject to penalty under IRC §§ 6700 and 6701 in connection with their fraudulent promotion of the "U.S.-Sources" or "Section 861" argument. This argument has no basis in law and has been consistently rejected by the courts. This Court has further found that Defendants have engaged in conduct that interfered with the enforcement of the internal revenue laws and, absent an order restraining their activity, Defendants will continue said interference and conduct in violation of the Internal Revenue Code. [/QUOTE]

So they're violating well-established tax law.

What's Section 861 argument? Let's see what the old Google has to say: [url]http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/861.htm[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_861_argument[/url]

In other words, they were ordered to stop selling materials that encouraged attempt tax fraud/dodging based on wholly and completely refuted "legal" arguments.

These people always think they've found a way to game the system. Here's a hint: if corporations like Exxon, GE, and so on have to hire armies of tax attorneys and lobbyists to get their tax bills to an [B]effective[/B] low tax rate, you're not going to somehow discover a loophole in the tax code. If it exists, it will have been found already.

[QUOTE=jasong;409142]Quadruple post sorry, but

Schickel, you have lots of posts and have been a member for a while, but you don't seem familiar. Where do you usually post on mersenneforum? Have you returned from a long absence?

I apologize if I simply forgot about you.[/QUOTE]My posting record here has its ups and downs. Every once in a while I find that things that started occupying my time shortly after I joined tend to go around in circles. I even thought I had terminated my interest here, but that only happened once. Unofrtunately my interests have been just getting larger and larger, tending to occupy more and more of my computing power (and time) lately. Sometimes I think it might be interesting to look for amiable companions but I keep putting off joining that kind of search.

Actually, I've taken a break a little bit from my main activity to spend some time on proving the factorDB PRPs prime with Primo. I check the forum every day, but my posting has become very infrequent and I usually don't post much in the discussion sub-forums.

I have always enjoyed your avatar.

A simple search of the forums will supply an exhaustive list of JasonG's various wrong-headed notions about taxation. I realize pixels are cheap, but do we really need to cover that ground again?

You don't need to join any forum to find torrents. Just google what you want with filetype:torrent

[QUOTE=wombatman;409145]From that link's court order:

So they're violating well-established tax law.

What's Section 861 argument? Let's see what the old Google has to say: [url]http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/861.htm[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_861_argument[/url]

In other words, they were ordered to stop selling materials that encouraged attempt tax fraud/dodging based on wholly and completely refuted "legal" arguments.

These people always think they've found a way to game the system. Here's a hint: if corporations like Exxon, GE, and so on have to hire armies of tax attorneys and lobbyists to get their tax bills to an [B]effective[/B] low tax rate, you're not going to somehow discover a loophole in the tax code. If it exists, it will have been found already.[/QUOTE]
It's not a loophole, it's irs agents lying their asses off and the judges lying with them.

There's a verse in the Bible that I think applies here, it says you cannot hide a city on a hill or a lit lamp under a bush. Even if I personally lose a case having to do with this, I'm helping to continuously make the judges face up to the fact that they're supporting a lie.

The devil will always lie, but lawyers and judges will be given second chances until they're dead.

[QUOTE=chappy;409305]A simple search of the forums will supply an exhaustive list of JasonG's various wrong-headed notions about taxation. I realize pixels are cheap, but do we really need to cover that ground again?

You don't need to join any forum to find torrents. Just google what you want with filetype:torrent[/QUOTE]
Your mistake is trusting judges and lawyers to tell you what the law says. The law is written in plain English, especially the laws in the Constitution.

Try asking yourself the following questions:

(1) If the 16th Amendment legalized the taxation of a citizen, which laws did it repeal? Why doesn't it say which laws it repealed?

(2) If the 16th Amendment allows the direct taxation of a citizen, why is there no reference whatsoever to a person, human being, citizen etc.? People say people are suggested by inference in the 16th Amendment, but this is the law we're talking about, why not state things right out? Unless the writers of the 16th Amendment were trying to deceive, why don't they just say person, citizen, or whatever?

The 16th Amendment is an intentional clusterfuck of a sentence, intended to confuse people to the point that they're willing to accept any interpretation given to them so that they can move on to less confusing things. It doesn't actually repeal or change anything, it agrees with everything already written in the Constitution, but it a very obtuse way.

[QUOTE=jasong;409459]It's not a loophole, it's irs agents lying their asses off and the judges lying with them.

There's a verse in the Bible that I think applies here, it says you cannot hide a city on a hill or a lit lamp under a bush. Even if I personally lose a case having to do with this, I'm helping to continuously make the judges face up to the fact that they're supporting a lie.

The devil will always lie, but lawyers and judges will be given second chances until they're dead.[/QUOTE]

Well, enjoy your time in prison then. But, hey, maybe you are actually smarter than literally thousands upon thousands of legal scholars, judges, lawyers, etc.

Also, if you're going to apply Bible verses, you can consider the one about rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

[QUOTE=wombatman;409463]Well, enjoy your time in prison then. But, hey, maybe you are actually smarter than literally thousands upon thousands of legal scholars, judges, lawyers, etc.

Also, if you're going to apply Bible verses, you can consider the one about rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.[/QUOTE]

:goodposting:

And maybe get the ones that you think you know correct.
Matthew 5:15 from a modern version that seeks accuracy:
"Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a grain measure, but on a lampstand, and it shines for all who are in the house."

"Let every soul be subject to the higher authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are ordained by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will receive judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. [B]Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the Law[/B]."
Romans 13:1-8

"Beloved, I beg you as foreigners and sojourners, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your behavior honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation. [B]Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man[/B] because of the Lord; whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men; as free, yet not using liberty as a pretext for evil, but as bondservants of God. [B]Honor all people.[/B] Love the brotherhood. Fear God. [B]Honor the king.[/B]"
1 Peter 2:11-17

I believe that I have previously pointed these out to Jason.

I'll add this one this time too (if Jason feels that the Judges are evil).
"But I tell you, Do not resist evil. But whoever hits you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and from him who wants to borrow from you, do not turn away. You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who abuse you and persecute you, that you may become sons of your Father in Heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not also the tax collectors so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in Heaven is perfect."
Matthew 5:39-48

[QUOTE=jasong;409461]Your mistake is trusting judges and lawyers to tell you what the law says. The law is written in plain English, especially the laws in the Constitution.[/QUOTE]

I believe your mistake is thinking that whatever crazy online source you get your tax info from is better than the prevailing legal opinions of all history. Graduation from Google University is no substitute for an actual J.D.


[QUOTE=jasong;409461]
Try asking yourself the following questions:

(1) If the 16th Amendment legalized the taxation of a citizen, which laws did it repeal? Why doesn't it say which laws it repealed?
[/QUOTE]

You realize, of course, that your questions are nonsensical, right? The Amendment to the Constitution IS LAW. It is THE LAW OF THE LAND. All other laws that disagree with it are no longer laws and any laws that are passed later in disagreement with them were never laws. See my earlier commentary on Google University.


[QUOTE=jasong;409461]
(2) If the 16th Amendment allows the direct taxation of a citizen, why is there no reference whatsoever to a person, human being, citizen etc.? People say people are suggested by inference in the 16th Amendment, but this is the law we're talking about, why not state things right out? Unless the writers of the 16th Amendment were trying to deceive, why don't they just say person, citizen, or whatever?
[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you don't recall the actual words of involved: [QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=jasong;409461]
The 16th Amendment is an intentional clusterfuck of a sentence, intended to confuse people to the point that they're willing to accept any interpretation given to them so that they can move on to less confusing things. It doesn't actually repeal or change anything, it agrees with everything already written in the Constitution, but it a very obtuse way.[/QUOTE]

Remember all the way back at the beginning of your post where you said the language is clear and written in plain English and that we don't need Lawyers and Judges to interpret them? Which is it?

Seriously, I'm only discussing this because you are crazy wrong about this. If your argument was that Corporations can hire lawyers to get out of paying taxes and that they exploit loopholes (all true) and that we should work to end that practice so that these companies can start contributing to the society which makes them rich--Then I'd agree whole-heartedly.

But, since your argument always seems to be the opposite, to wit, "I also want to be a scum-sucking parasite on this society and not pay taxes" especially given your history and current economic situation, I find the your whole world view repugnant. Worse even, than those huge mega-corporations who hire legions of lawyers.

Have you considered the following?
[URL="http://mersenneforum.org/search.php?searchid=1672364"]JasonG on taxes[/URL]

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;409469]Have you considered the following?
[URL="http://mersenneforum.org/search.php?searchid=1672364"]JasonG on taxes[/URL][/QUOTE]

[url]http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=372862&postcount=8[/url]

An interesting point of view WRT the non-payment of taxes:

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_%28Thoreau%29#Summary[/url]

[QUOTE]Paying taxes is one way in which otherwise well-meaning people collaborate in injustice.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Paying taxes is one way in which [STRIKE]otherwise well-meaning[/STRIKE] people collaborate [STRIKE]in injustice[/STRIKE]. [/QUOTE]
FTFY

@axn

[QUOTE=wombatman;409463]Well, enjoy your time in prison then. But, hey, maybe you are actually smarter than literally thousands upon thousands of legal scholars, judges, lawyers, etc.

Also, if you're going to apply Bible verses, you can consider the one about rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.[/QUOTE]
Reread that verse, the idea was to give Caesar all the gold and share the food.

Also, I'm not such a patriot that I'm willing to be a martyr, I basically intend to be in your face to the judge about the lie, and if I lose I'll just follow the pamphlets as if they're telling the truth.

If you are really are interested in following Bible verse about taxation, try Matthew 17:24-27, it's basically saying that if you directly tax the citizens of your own country, then the citizens are slaves. And when they do decide to pay the tax, it isn't from their own labor, it's money from a fish that didn't even ask for bait. So they wouldn't be offended, whatever that part means, I guess because it was a religiously based tax.

So, two lessons in one, taxing your own citizens is slavery and being a Christian is the equivalent of being a citizen of another country.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;409467]:goodposting:

And maybe get the ones that you think you know correct.
Matthew 5:15 from a modern version that seeks accuracy:
"Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a grain measure, but on a lampstand, and it shines for all who are in the house."[/quote]
The whole point of the verse is that the righteous shall "shine like a beacon." But you can also extend that to saying you should shine your light in ways that glorify God, including to rebuke sin.

[quote]"Let every soul be subject to the higher authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are ordained by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will receive judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. [B]Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the Law[/B]."
Romans 13:1-8[/quote]
(1) It has been said repeatedly, the US is not a Christian nation
(2) The written law is supposed to be the true overarching authority of the nation, if the judges don't approve of the actual law, they should do what they can, legally, to have it repealed. Lying about what the law says is not acceptable.

[quote]"Beloved, I beg you as foreigners and sojourners, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your behavior honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation. [B]Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man[/B] because of the Lord; whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men; as free, yet not using liberty as a pretext for evil, but as bondservants of God. [B]Honor all people.[/B] Love the brotherhood. Fear God. [B]Honor the king.[/B]"
1 Peter 2:11-17[/quote]
Yep, sounds about right.

[quote]I believe that I have previously pointed these out to Jason.

I'll add this one this time too (if Jason feels that the Judges are evil).
"But I tell you, Do not resist evil. But whoever hits you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and from him who wants to borrow from you, do not turn away. You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who abuse you and persecute you, that you may become sons of your Father in Heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not also the tax collectors so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in Heaven is perfect."
Matthew 5:39-48[/QUOTE]
Tax collection worked a lot differently when and where those verses were written, the tax collectors kept a portion of the taxes as payment for their services, so there was a lot of dishonesty. Additionally, I don't think it's the least bit hypocritical to point out a person's mistakes as you submit to them.

[QUOTE=chappy;409468]I believe your mistake is thinking that whatever crazy online source you get your tax info from is better than the prevailing legal opinions of all history. Graduation from Google University is no substitute for an actual J.D.[/quote]
My rationale for believing I don't owe taxes from my paycheck is the literal law itself.

When I did my research, one of the foremost things on my mind was the fact that the law is positive, which means it only states what is true, it doesn't do things in the negative sense. So, if I owe income taxes, then the law should be pretty straightforward in telling me that. Except it doesn't. There are multiple layers of proof, or at least smoking guns, when it comes to the idea that US citizens owe their country income tax, one of them being the literal definition of income as it pertains to the Internal Revenue Code. The official definition doesn't exist in any modern copy of Title 26, but it was never repealed.

The basic premise is "citizens abroad, foreigners here at home." This means citizens owe taxes on foreign-earned income and foreigners owe taxes on US-derived income. And then, of course, there's profit from other's labor, which includes money earned from stocks and any businesses one owes. Lastly(maybe I missed a few, not sure) is the true direct taxation, which applies to things like sales tax, alcohol and tobacco tax, gas tax, property tax, etc.




[quote]You realize, of course, that your questions are nonsensical, right? The Amendment to the Constitution IS LAW. It is THE LAW OF THE LAND. All other laws that disagree with it are no longer laws and any laws that are passed later in disagreement with them were never laws. See my earlier commentary on Google University.[/quote]
It IS the law, I agree. But, as I said, it doesn't repeal or contradict what's already stated in the US Constitution. It's written the way it is in order to maximise confusion while not actually changing anything. It isn't even technically an Amendment, since it didn't actually change anything.
[quote]Remember all the way back at the beginning of your post where you said the language is clear and written in plain English and that we don't need Lawyers and Judges to interpret them? Which is it?[/quote]

The 16th Amendment was created to intentionally confuse, most laws weren't written with that intent.

[quote]Seriously, I'm only discussing this because you are crazy wrong about this. If your argument was that Corporations can hire lawyers to get out of paying taxes and that they exploit loopholes (all true) and that we should work to end that practice so that these companies can start contributing to the society which makes them rich--Then I'd agree whole-heartedly.[/quote]
I'm talking about people with paychecks, not corporations. That's a totally different issue.

[quote]But, since your argument always seems to be the opposite, to wit, "I also want to be a scum-sucking parasite on this society and not pay taxes" especially given your history and current economic situation, I find the your whole world view repugnant. Worse even, than those huge mega-corporations who hire legions of lawyers.[/QUOTE]
You haven't even comprehended my argument a little bit. If I say that you're a smurf, I'm Gargamel and that gives me the right to eat you, that's obviously a lie and should be rejected as one. I'm claiming that I should be subject to what the law actually says, rather than what a bunch of liars claim it says.

The law says what it says, independent of public opinion. You don't even want to look because you're so convinced of your position.

[quote]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[/quote]
This is the crux of the matter, the literal 16th Amendment. People read it and think they understand it, but they don't. First we have that part that says,"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes," and people say,"Aha! Gotcha." The problem is that the sentence doesn't end there, it has some additional qualifiers.

"from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

This second part is a reference to indirect taxation, "from whatever source derived" BY LAW, "without apportionment among the several States," indirect taxes don't need to be apportioned,"and without regard to any census or enumeration." Of course they don't need to rely on a census or enumeration, they're indirect, they're based on the various privileges.

Ever read John Brunner? For example, Stand on Zanzibar?
edit: available on torrents too

[QUOTE=jasong;409630]Also, I'm not such a patriot that I'm willing to be a martyr, I basically intend to be in your face to the judge about the lie, and if I lose I'll just follow the pamphlets as if they're telling the truth.[/QUOTE]

Well, again, enjoy your time in prison then. You are not a special snowflake who has cracked a secret code. Many before you have made this (wrong) argument, and they have lost every time.

[QUOTE=jasong;409630]So, two lessons in one, taxing your own citizens is slavery and being a Christian is the equivalent of being a citizen of another country.[/QUOTE]

So you want to take full advantage of what the US has to offer, but you're not willing to contribute to it. Got it. You sound dangerously close to a sovereign citizen type.

Still have no idea how you can read "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived" and think "BUT THEY CAN'T TAX MY INCOME!". The 16th amendment was literally passed/ratified so that Congress could legally levy taxes on income. None of the qualifying phrases in the single sentence negate that.

[QUOTE=jasong]My rationale for believing I don't owe taxes from my paycheck is the literal law itself.[/QUOTE]

And your rationale is countered by decades of consistent legal decisions by all manner of judges that say you're wrong. You may believe that your way of thinking is right, but at this point, you would have to get the 16th amendment amended (a la Prohibition) to change it. And that's not gonna happen.


Lastly, here's a nice summary of various tactics people have taken (and lost) against income tax and the 16th amendment in general: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_Sixteenth_Amendment_arguments[/url]

Note that the bulk of your argument(s) is present there.

[QUOTE=wombatman;409663]Well, again, enjoy your time in prison then. You are not a special snowflake who has cracked a secret code. Many before you have made this (wrong) argument, and they have lost every time.



So you want to take full advantage of what the US has to offer, but you're not willing to contribute to it. Got it. You sound dangerously close to a sovereign citizen type.[/quote]
I don't know where you're from, but around here people who enjoy unnecessarily giving money to the government are considered to be a little out there. While you're at it, why don't you pay what you think I owe, since you enjoy handing your money to the government.

[quote]Still have no idea how you can read "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived" and think "BUT THEY CAN'T TAX MY INCOME!".[/quote]
It's not that they can't tax my income, I'm saying the law doesn't actually tax my income. It goes further than the 16th Amendment. You ever wonder why you never see an accountant referring back to Title 26? Because they trust the judges and learning materials not to steer them wrong. This is the same government that tortures prisoners and gives dishonest billionaires free rides.

[quote]The 16th amendment was literally passed/ratified so that Congress could legally levy taxes on income. None of the qualifying phrases in the single sentence negate that.[/quote]
Okay, smart guy, go back and read some other Amendments that contradicted earlier stuff and see if you can find a pattern. The pattern is that they repealed those other statements and acknowledged that fact in the Amendment. The 16th Amendment didn't repeal anything so it doesn't say it repealed anything.



[quote]And your rationale is countered by decades of consistent legal decisions by all manner of judges that say you're wrong. You may believe that your way of thinking is right, but at this point, you would have to get the 16th amendment amended (a la Prohibition) to change it. And that's not gonna happen.[/quote]
You're obviously so stuck in a rut that your brain is no longer in gear. Here's a suggestion, have someone diagram the sentence that is the 16th Amendment and then tell you if it contradicts anything about indirect taxation. Guess what, it doesn't, because that's what it's talking about, indirect taxation. They legalized something that was already legal so that others could lie to American citizens about what it means.


[quote]Lastly, here's a nice summary of various tactics people have taken (and lost) against income tax and the 16th amendment in general: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_Sixteenth_Amendment_arguments[/url]

Note that the bulk of your argument(s) is present there.[/QUOTE]
I'll give it a look and come back. But if it doesn't quote Title 26 as proof, I'll just treat it as the same old shit.

Okay, I partly read the entry, I assumed that the first paragraph under each subheading gave all the information needed. I've never been that interested in history(omg, accidental flamebait) so I'm averse to reading the whole damn thing.

Let's assume for the moment that the 16th Amendment legalized the direct taxation of a citizen. So, then, the law would have to be applied. Why I owed the tax would have to be established, and then the tax would be levied, possibly according to certain mathematical rules.

This is where the fun starts, the point where you guys are either so confident that you walk away self-assured in your wrong knowledge, or you actually take the time to verify that these laws you've been told about actually exist.

There have been IRS agents that have literally quit their jobs in disgust because of taking the challenge I'm giving you. Hell, man, you probably know an IRS agent or two, so save yourself some time and just say you intend to quote their Title 26 proof to me so I can look it up and then apologize. Maybe a regular accountant would be interested in doing the research. Ooh, ooh, what about a high school student getting extra credit, they'd win no matter what the result.

[QUOTE=jasong;409755]I don't know where you're from, but around here people who enjoy unnecessarily giving money to the government are considered to be a little out there. While you're at it, why don't you pay what you think I owe, since you enjoy handing your money to the government.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's a damn shame that I understand that a country requires revenue to function.


[QUOTE=jasong;409755]It's not that they can't tax my income, I'm saying the law doesn't actually tax my income. It goes further than the 16th Amendment. You ever wonder why you never see an accountant referring back to Title 26? Because they trust the judges and learning materials not to steer them wrong. This is the same government that tortures prisoners and gives dishonest billionaires free rides.[/QUOTE]
I'm gonna go ahead and bet that more than a few accountants representing very wealthy people have read the tax code front to back looking for ways to duck taxes.


[QUOTE=jasong;409755]Okay, smart guy, go back and read some other Amendments that contradicted earlier stuff and see if you can find a pattern. The pattern is that they repealed those other statements and acknowledged that fact in the Amendment. The 16th Amendment didn't repeal anything so it doesn't say it repealed anything.[/QUOTE]

Why does an amendment have to repeal something? Why could it not be an affirmative statement or a clarifying one? The 16th specifies Congress's ability to tax. The 12th clarifies how representatives are selected. The 14th defines what a US citizen is. I suggest you take 30 seconds and read the subheading "The Repeal Clause" here: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_Sixteenth_Amendment_arguments[/url]


[QUOTE=jasong;409755]You're obviously so stuck in a rut that your brain is no longer in gear. Here's a suggestion, have someone diagram the sentence that is the 16th Amendment and then tell you if it contradicts anything about indirect taxation. Guess what, it doesn't, because that's what it's talking about, indirect taxation. They legalized something that was already legal so that others could lie to American citizens about what it means.[/QUOTE]

Read that same link, subheadings Stanton and Summary. This is addressed.

[QUOTE=jasong;409755]I'll give it a look and come back. But if it doesn't quote Title 26 as proof, I'll just treat it as the same old shit.[/QUOTE]

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_statutory_arguments#Specific_Code_provisions[/url]

There. Title 26 provisions.

Edit: I'll even save you time. It's literally the first damn section: [url]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1[/url]

Something you might find interesting is Title 26, section 61, definition of gross income.

No mention of paychecks, though you may want to argue about services rendered part.

Haven't researched this stuff for a little under a decade, it's a lot easier to do with a tablet and the Play store to help me. If you're on Android, search title 26 and download the free one that says it has all 51 codes. It'll cost an additional 99 cents to get Title 26, but then you can research it to your heart's content.

I was wrong, it isn't tedious to search the code, you just need some sort of research goal more complex than simply randomly reading.

Since I generally render some kind of service for my paycheck, yes, I believe I will argue that that falls under taxable income. Can I have your job where I get a paycheck for doing nothing? (Insert your own joke about government employees here :tu:)

On a more serious note, what kind of income specifically are you talking about? If it's a paycheck, you're gonna have to show that it's not for some kind of service. If it's something else, I'd like you to give enough of a definition of its source (obviously you can retain the anonymity you might want) that we can talk about whether it falls under taxable income.

Also not sure why I'd download the code on Android...the link I provided is the full Title 26 code (and you can get the full code here: [url]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text[/url] with 54 sections, not 51).

[QUOTE=wombatman;409759]Yeah, it's a damn shame that I understand that a country requires revenue to function.



I'm gonna go ahead and bet that more than a few accountants representing very wealthy people have read the tax code front to back looking for ways to duck taxes.[/quote]
Did you know that a lot of wealthy people don't even have social security numbers? The IRS can't even have them in their system because of that.




[quote]Why does an amendment have to repeal something? Why could it not be an affirmative statement or a clarifying one? The 16th specifies Congress's ability to tax.[/quote]
It would have to repeal the part about not being allowed to directly tax a citizen. From a legal standpoint, it doesn't really matter, since the 16th doesn't contradict what comes before, people only think it does because that's what they've been taught.



[quote]Edit: I'll even save you time. It's literally the first damn section: [url]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1[/url][/QUOTE]
I read that part, it doesn't determine liability, it only talks about what to do if you're liable.

Let's review:

I contend the 16th Amendment didn't legalize direct taxation of a citizen, but simply repeats the law in an intentionally confusing fashion.

I also contend that even if the 16th Amendment is determined by a judge to legalize direct taxation of a citizen, that the ability to tax doesn't mean that I'm taxed, the law still has to state liability. I also contend that wages aren't services rendered, wages are something separate. I further contend that the definition of income in Title 26, which was removed but never struck down, fully substantiates my claim that an American citizen doesn't owe tax on their paycheck, and definitely doesn't owe a wage, since that's a legal term which I've unfortunately been using incorrectly because of my upbringing.

The thing that really saddens me is that sometimes I'm inconsistent with my statements because of the hypnotic effect school and the media has had on me. I'll sometimes use incorrect terms because of the juxtapostion between the truth and so-called common wisdom.

Here's a tip:Google peonage and compare it to your idea of the American income tax. The government is taking our money before it even gets to our hands.

[QUOTE=jasong;409767]Did you know that a lot of wealthy people don't even have social security numbers? The IRS can't even have them in their system because of that.





It would have to repeal the part about not being allowed to directly tax a citizen. From a legal standpoint, it doesn't really matter, since the 16th doesn't contradict what comes before, people only think it does because that's what they've been taught.




I read that part, it doesn't determine liability, it only talks about what to do if you're liable.

Don't feel bad, a lot of non-autistic people only think they think logically. Try this little puzzle. Pretend like you're holding a gun. Now look at your hand, and ask yourself,"Am I pretending to hold a gun, or am I pretending my hand IS a gun?" Not the same thing at all, but if I ask the question,"Are you pretending to hold a gun?" they're convinced that's what they're doing.[/QUOTE]

Ready to renounce any and all government support?

[QUOTE=jasong;409767]Did you know that a lot of wealthy people don't even have social security numbers? The IRS can't even have them in their system because of that.[/QUOTE]

Oh no shit? There are non-US citizens living in the US? Know what they DO have? Tax identification numbers, which the IRS does track. And which those wealthy people pay taxes under.

[QUOTE=jasong;409767]It would have to repeal the part about not being allowed to directly tax a citizen. From a legal standpoint, it doesn't really matter, since the 16th doesn't contradict what comes before, people only think it does because that's what they've been taught.[/QUOTE]

In Abrams v. Commissioner, the United States Tax Court stated: "Since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, it is immaterial with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or indirect tax. The whole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from [the requirement of] apportionment and from [the requirement of] a consideration of the source whence the income was derived."


[QUOTE=jasong;409767]I read that part, it doesn't determine liability, it only talks about what to do if you're liable.[/QUOTE]

Did you have any income as defined in Section 61? Then you owe taxes.

Lastly, I love that little comment of yours that you edited out that was caught by kladner's quote. I know you think you're above it all and totes smarter than everyone else, but given that you can present exactly zero evidence to support your wild-assed theory while I've shown you multiple instances of your supposedly novel ideas already being tested and rejected (repeatedly), you might want to hop down off that high horse. I also can't help but notice that you either can't or won't answer any of my questions and choose to throw out another statement. Try and stay focused instead of hauling your goalposts around.

[quote]Read that same link, subheadings Stanton and Summary. This is addressed[/quote]
Okay, I went back and read that part. The problem is that they've taken a very short amendment and given it pages and pages of meaning.

Holy shit, if everything they said was really compressed into the 16th Amendment, imagine if you could accomplish the same thing with video codecs.

Before politicians got a hardon over saying the word "democracy" everybody knew that we're a constitutional republic. This means that

(1) If it isn't written in some form, including things like video, it isn't legally binding. If you shake on something, you might have a moral obligation, but if the deal isn't recorded in some verifiable way, you're in the clear legally.

(2) Case law isn't the same as actual law. If case law contradicts the written law, it's void. And when it isn't void, it only applies to the litigants.

(3) Saying nuuuuuuuuuuuu, you're wrong isn't a legal argument. You seem to think I've adopted this idea like the album of the month or something. I'm a logical, sane individual.

I've been flamed numerous times on this forum simply because a lot of posters are overeducated assholes that like to think my mental illness equates to mental retardation. I'll think about something and then post the end component. When Einstein says the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference he sounds like a madman until you have time to think about the idea of time slowing down at high speeds. I'm not saying I'm a genius, just that it's difficult to express things quickly in a written medium.

I can assure you I've done tons of research on this and travelled down multiple paths of inquiry. Unfortunately, I destroyed my research because my mom shed a few tears and said she was fearful I'd either go to jail or have a lot of people laughing at me. In the last decade or so I've realized my mom sheds way more tears for my father than me, so I'm seriously thinking about redoing the research, which should be faster since I don't need to ride my bike a couple miles each way to access the documents.

Lastly, and this is just a random aside, but getting Title 26 on the tablet only cost me 99 cents. Functionally the tablet works better for taking notes and whatnot. Instead of doing word searches, I'll be digging into the code, reading, backing out, and digging in again. So a touchscreen works way better. Still haven't figured out the bookmarking feature in the app, maybe there's a button I'm just not seeing.

Well, case law is not actual law, but it is used to inform where and how laws apply. Look at everything that's been argued over the other amendments (1st and 2nd in particular)--you have to use case law to establish the full scope of written law because no law can predict the future (for instance, should the 2nd amendment cover tanks and atomic bombs?). That's been the case for a couple hundred years now.
I don't doubt that you believe you're reaching your conclusions in a logical fashion, but you have not, thus far, laid it out in any coherent or cogent way. Einstein made his statement about the speed of light, but he also had to present some kind of evidence to back up his theory or he would have been laughed at. I can't speak for anybody else, but I don't consider autism to be a form of mental retardation, so I'm not approaching you in that manner. I'm asking that you actually respond to my questions, which you still haven't done, and that you take the time to lay out exactly how you reached your conclusions. To borrow a line from Einstein:
[QUOTE="Albert Einstein"]If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.[/QUOTE]

I suspect that jasong is correct here. No one should have to pay taxes, especially jasong since he was kind enough to point it out. So I encourage jasong to withhold all taxes and he gets my full support.

[size=1][color=grey]BTW: I hear that the prison food isn't too bad on some days.[/color][/size]

[QUOTE=retina;409792][size=1][color=grey]BTW: I hear that the prison food isn't too bad on some days.[/color][/size][/QUOTE]Sheriff Joe agrees with you. [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/27/joe-arpaio-thanksgiving_n_4351729.html[/url]

[QUOTE=retina;409792]I suspect that jasong is correct here. No one should have to pay taxes, especially jasong since he was kind enough to point it out. So I encourage jasong to withhold all taxes and he gets my full support.[/quote]
I know no one enjoys paying taxes, but this topic is a bit of a sacred cow, in that people's brains shut down when you suggest they're wrong.

I'll repeat myself ONCE AGAIN. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN BREAKING THE LAW REGARDING TAXATION, I BELIEVE THE IRS IS LYING ABOUT THE LAW.

Do not repeat the notion that I think I "deserve" to not have to pay taxes unless you want to be categorically ignored by me for the remainder of this thread.
[quote]BTW: I hear that the prison food isn't too bad on some days.[/color][/size][/QUOTE]
I hear that people subconsciously believe thinking is overrated when it comes to unadmitted to sacred cows. Try discussing black superiority in many athletics with certain black people and you'll see in them what I see in you. There are some things people just refuse to engage their brains about.

(deleted post, ADD sucks)

off-topic: I have some minor anger management issues. I say minor because the police have never been involved, but I've scared the hell out of my mother on many occasions.

I say these things because I'm prone to post some very rude things when I'm frustrated. You may notice that the main participant, other than me in this thread, posting something that was in response to something I deleted. To say I'm appreciative of his self-control and respect is a bit of an understatement.

Someone said, no idea who it's mainly attributed to,"You are your own worst enemy." Maybe someone will see this as an opportunity to suggest I want to go to jail, or some other snarky thing, but I felt the need to post an apology anyway.

Even with the insults aimed my way, this is my favorite forum.

It is so disappointing to see jasong attack the person rather than actually answer the questions and/or present an argument that makes sense.

Anyhow, if you are so sure then just refuse to pay taxes. I already said you have my full support. But I also suspect that you will have a brief fight with whatever body in your country that enforces tax laws, and you will lose, and you will be penalised in some way. But I would be very happy to be proved wrong and see you not have to pay paxes as you suggest, because that would mean that you are much smarter than all the thousands of others that tried exactly the same things and lost.

Here is another take: Even if you are 100% correct about how to interpret tax laws and constitutional amendments, and you can prove it in court, I suggest that a new law/amendment would quickly be made to close the loophole and get everything back to the way things are currently enforced.

As a constitutional republic, interpretation of our laws is based on grammar and very specific definitions. When misunderstandings are introduced, intentionally, or unintentionally, it can create confusion.

You have been taught to believe certain things. Even atheists accept some things on faith, without proof. It would be difficult to live life in this modern world if we demanded proof of everything stated as fact.

A perfect example is the simple statement 1+1=2. It's a true statement, most would agree. Some people believe that it's such a universally true thing that proof isn't necessary. I've been told the proof is a bit long and involves multiple areas of mathematics.

The thing is, not a lot of people are able to conclusively prove that 1+1=2, people just accept that it is true. If someone invented a new, revolutionary form of computing that benefited from making this statement temporarily untrue, people wouldn't believe it, they would think it was a lie or that they were misunderstanding the explanation.

I'm suggesting that this is the situation with the American income tax and American "wage slaves."

Edit: I'm also not suggesting people do what they perceive as breaking the law. If you believe you owe the tax, by all means, pay it. As someone who's been in various mental wards for a decent chunk of my life, I've learned to despise the idea of demanding people do certain things. I may disagree enthusiastically, but any anger I have is simply frustration.

[QUOTE=jasong;409854]I'm suggesting that this is the situation with the American income tax and American "wage slaves."[/QUOTE]Stop, your killing me.:missingteeth::missingteeth::missingteeth::missingteeth:
[URL="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/international.cfm"].[/URL]

:davar55::davar55::davar55::davar55::davar55::goodposting:

EDIT: And thanks for the data.

[QUOTE=jasong;409854]As someone who's been in various mental wards for a decent chunk of my life...[/QUOTE]

Who paid for that?

[QUOTE=chalsall;410004]Who paid for that?[/QUOTE]
Mostly the US government. It was helpful that my dad was in the military and I got sick when I was under 18. That being said, it's cheaper to help mentally ill people be as independent as possible rather than continuously hospitalizing them.

Mental health issues is one of those things where it's cheaper to be proactive than to simply ignore.

In response to the "between the lines" question, I don't object to taxation in general, I object to the taxation of a person's paycheck before they even have it in their hands.

For those in the US, how are gas taxes collected, how is sales tax collected, what about alcohol and cigarettes? If the IRS didn't demand to see your paycheck, was forbidden in fact, would that affect the collection of the taxes I just mentioned? That's the type of taxation that I approve of, privilege-based. That is the form of taxation I'm claiming Title 26 is actually talking about, if you take the time to read it.

You know you don't have to have taxes taken out of your paycheck automatically, right? At most places, you can choose to have no withholding of taxes done. You'll simply then owe the taxes yearly. Most people choose to spread out what they owe over the entire year rather than make a lump sum payment all at once, but it's certainly not required.

[QUOTE=jasong;410025]For those in the US, how are gas taxes collected, how is sales tax collected, what about alcohol and cigarettes? If the IRS didn't demand to see your paycheck, was forbidden in fact, would that affect the collection of the taxes I just mentioned? That's the type of taxation that I approve of, privilege-based. That is the form of taxation I'm claiming Title 26 is actually talking about, if you take the time to read it.[/QUOTE]Usage taxes disproportionately affect the very poor.

[QUOTE=retina;409853]It is so disappointing to see jasong attack the person rather than actually answer the questions and/or present an argument that makes sense.

Anyhow, if you are so sure then just refuse to pay taxes.[/quote]
Dude, I'm done with you. I already stated that if you repeat the notion that I don't believe I deserve to pay taxes, I'd ignore you for the rest of the thread, so bye bye.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;410028]Usage taxes disproportionately affect the very poor.[/QUOTE]
Well, there are plenty of privileges to tax. Swimming pools, computer gear that isn't absolutely necessary. Lots of stuff we can tax.

Plus, the income tax as the IRS claims it exists tends to be retrograde according to the way they implement it, so not a huge change.

[QUOTE=wombatman;410026]You know you don't have to have taxes taken out of your paycheck automatically, right? At most places, you can choose to have no withholding of taxes done. You'll simply then owe the taxes yearly. Most people choose to spread out what they owe over the entire year rather than make a lump sum payment all at once, but it's certainly not required.[/QUOTE]
This doesn't solve the problem of legality.

If I may change the subject a bit, I'd like to talk about the concept of logic, as it pertains to US law.

With the number of people on here that love logic and numbers, aren't we, as a group, the most likely to be unhappy when there are logical gaps in a concept? Even if we think the IRS is an awesome institution, shouldn't we want to plug the holes in our laws, even if only for comprehension sake?

I like for things to make sense. Even if our laws are non-christian in my opinion, if they lined up logically, I'd stop complaining.

Can we at least say that I make sense in a pedantic sort of way? And isn't the legal system a really smart place to be pedantic?

This assumes a common sense of "logic". I think my interpretation of the law as we've been discussing is logical (as do the multitude of lawyers and judges who have argued/ruled similarly). You think your interpretation is logical.

Even logic, when applied to something like wordings of law, is subjective.

[QUOTE=jasong;410032]I'd like to talk about the concept of logic[/QUOTE]
First do this course - [url]https://www.coursera.org/course/thinkagain[/url]
Then you will be prepared to talk about logic. Right now, in my honest opinion, you are not.

[QUOTE=wombatman;410035]This assumes a common sense of "logic". I think my interpretation of the law as we've been discussing is logical (as do the multitude of lawyers and judges who have argued/ruled similarly). You think your interpretation is logical.

Even logic, when applied to something like wordings of law, is subjective.[/QUOTE]
This is the crux of the matter. In a republic, as defined by the Founding Fathers of the US, if the law has any sort of ambiguity in it, the part that has ambiguity is to be rejected as law until the ambiguity is dealt with by the lawmakers. Judges, again, according to what I've read about the Founding Fathers, are not lawmakers, they are law enforcers. Given enough complexity, a computer should be able to do what judges do, judges aren't supposed to have a an opinion about stuff. I mean the general word opinion, not the legal term we use in court.

So, we have a situation where there's ambiguity, and instead of fixing things like we're supposed to, we tell the complainers that they interpreted it wrong. Except that fact that it can be interpreted is the whole problem.

[QUOTE=Batalov;410037]First do this course - [url]https://www.coursera.org/course/thinkagain[/url]
Then you will be prepared to talk about logic. Right now, in my honest opinion, you are not.[/QUOTE]
I bookmarked the page. Not sure how much effort it takes, or even what it teaches, so no guarantee I'll go through with studying it.

We're getting back into your opinion of what things should be. Here ([url]http://www.law.uchicago.edu/alumni/magazine/fall10/strauss[/url]) is a nice article that talks about the pros and cons of a so-called "Living Constitution".

Beyond that, how are we to practically know what the Founding Fathers would think of our modern world and the issues that come up? You can't rely solely on a document written before some of our technology (like, say, the Internet) was even conceived of. That's where judges, and especially the Supreme Court, come in to play. Their job is to interpret, as best they can, how the Constitution applies to a given case based on previous cases and any new information.

Edit: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation[/url] This is good to read as well. It also covers how legislation overrules case law. In other words, if Congress doesn't like the common law that has been established, they can pass a law to overrule it.

[QUOTE=wombatman;410043]We're getting back into your opinion of what things should be. Here ([url]http://www.law.uchicago.edu/alumni/magazine/fall10/strauss[/url]) is a nice article that talks about the pros and cons of a so-called "Living Constitution".[/quote]
The only book that deserves to be classified as living is the Bible, and only Christians believe that. If you want to know what a law says and you're confused, the proper thing to do is put yourself in the mindset of the people who wrote the law. No living document required, either respect the original lawmakers, or try to have the law repealed.

[quote]Beyond that, how are we to practically know what the Founding Fathers would think of our modern world and the issues that come up? You can't rely solely on a document written before some of our technology (like, say, the Internet) was even conceived of. That's where judges, and especially the Supreme Court, come in to play. Their job is to interpret, as best they can, how the Constitution applies to a given case based on previous cases and any new information.[/quote]
That's precisely why we shouldn't think of our laws as living documents.

Judges aren't elected to write the law, their job is to apply the law. If citizens want to be ruled by judges, they can go in and change the law to legalize judges writing law.

[quote]Edit: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation[/url] This is good to read as well. It also covers how legislation overrules case law. In other words, if Congress doesn't like the common law that has been established, they can pass a law to overrule it.[/QUOTE]
Common law and the definition of a republic don't really go together, we're either a nation of written law or we're not. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse when I say they need to deal with the fact that the law doesn't say what people are claiming it says.

You don't see a lot of 2-headed animals, or even humans, in the world. That's because the setup kind of sucks. If we're not going to behave like a republic, we need stop calling ourselves one and abolish the parts of the various legal documents that say we're a republic.

Common law is fine with me, but when what is written contradicts what is being done, that's not okay. Not even a little bit.

Well, at this point we're going in circles. You've yet to present any evidence for anything you've claimed, so I'm tired of trying.

Judges have never written laws. That's Congress's job. Judges apply the law by interpreting the law as written along with any applicable previous case law. That's the basis of our entire judicial system. If you don't understand that, you're lacking a fundamental fact of how the law works. You can believe it [I]shouldn't[/I] be that way, but I'm telling you that that's how it works. Look at the

It's been covered before, but this is the definition of a republic:
[QUOTE]a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.[/QUOTE]

Until you can provide a definition that includes "and is governed solely by written law" or something similar, you are objectively wrong.

As for your simplistic idea that the text should be taken only as written, how do you interpret the 2nd amendment? [QUOTE]A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/QUOTE]

Those are all basic words with easily identifiable definitions. Now answer these questions (and note that if you can't handle that, I'm done with this discussion):

1) What does well-regulated mean?
2) What does militia mean, and why are individual civilians not aligned with any organized group able to own firearms?
3) What limits, if any, are there on what firearms can be owned? Can you own a ground-to-air missile launcher? Biological weapons? Nuclear bombs?
4) Should felons lose the right to own firearms? I mean, the 2nd amendment clearly states that the right shall not be infringed, and yet tens/hundreds of thousands of people aren't allowed to own firearms.

For extra credit, explain how you would have ruled on Loving v. Virginia. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the 14th amendment prohibited anti-mixed race marriage laws, but the amendments says nothing at all about marriage. By your logic, because marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, they shouldn't be able to do that, right?

:tu:

[QUOTE=wombatman;410126]Well, at this point we're going in circles. You've yet to present any evidence for anything you've claimed, so I'm tired of trying.[/quote]
My proof is English grammar. The court cases say,"No, you're wrong," but they contradict wording that's as plain as day.

Forget about the various court cases, can you prove it's legal to directly tax an American citizen while only using the law. The answer to that question is a big fat NO.

[quote]Judges have never written laws. That's Congress's job. Judges apply the law by interpreting the law as written along with any applicable previous case law. That's the basis of our entire judicial system. If you don't understand that, you're lacking a fundamental fact of how the law works. You can believe it [I]shouldn't[/I] be that way, but I'm telling you that that's how it works. Look at the

It's been covered before, but this is the definition of a republic:


Until you can provide a definition that includes "and is governed solely by written law" or something similar, you are objectively wrong.[/quote]
The definition of a republic is a nation ruled by written law. Period. The quoting system on these forums is broke, so I have no idea what you said, but that's the definition of a republic. The republic referred to in the pledge of allegiance and in our legal documents refers to a country run by written law. Not case law, written law.

[quote]As for your simplistic idea that the text should be taken only as written, how do you interpret the 2nd amendment?[/quote]
I don't give a damn about the 2nd Amendment, but if I were to interpret it, I'd start by trying to put myself in the mindset of the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment.

[quote]Those are all basic words with easily identifiable definitions. Now answer these questions (and note that if you can't handle that, I'm done with this discussion):

1) What does well-regulated mean?
2) What does militia mean, and why are individual civilians not aligned with any organized group able to own firearms?
3) What limits, if any, are there on what firearms can be owned? Can you own a ground-to-air missile launcher? Biological weapons? Nuclear bombs?
4) Should felons lose the right to own firearms? I mean, the 2nd amendment clearly states that the right shall not be infringed, and yet tens/hundreds of thousands of people aren't allowed to own firearms.

For extra credit, explain how you would have ruled on Loving v. Virginia. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the 14th amendment prohibited anti-mixed race marriage laws, but the amendments says nothing at all about marriage. By your logic, because marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, they shouldn't be able to do that, right?[/QUOTE]
I refuse to play this game because it's a change of topic. Stop behaving like a cable news journalist and come back to being a rational participant.

Ay ay ay! :no:

Ok, I'm done. You are willfully ignorant and undeservedly arrogant. Your "logic" starts with your unwavering belief that your interpretation is infallible. You won't (can't) answer direct questions, and you repeat the same arguments, ignoring anything that contradicts them.

Either grow a pair and go to court over this, or quit posting the exact same tired crap.

[QUOTE=chappy;409305]A simple search of the forums will supply an exhaustive list of JasonG's various wrong-headed notions about taxation. I realize pixels are cheap, but do we really need to cover that ground again?

[/QUOTE]

Those who forget the forum's history are destined to repeat it. And repeat it.

[QUOTE=wombatman;410152]Either grow a pair and go to court over this, or quit posting the exact same tired crap.[/QUOTE] If one is on the dole, how can one refuse to pay their taxes? AFAIK, Jason has yet to [B]-[COLOR="Red"]e[/COLOR][COLOR="DarkOrange"]a[/COLOR][COLOR="Sienna"]r[/COLOR][COLOR="DarkOliveGreen"]n[/COLOR]-[/B] an income. It is a moot point.

[QUOTE=chappy;410153]Those who forget the forum's history are destined to repeat it. And repeat it.[/QUOTE]

I know it. I just like to give chances, I guess.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;410154]If one is on the dole, how can one refuse to pay their taxes? AFAIK, Jason has yet to [B]-[COLOR="Red"]e[/COLOR][COLOR="DarkOrange"]a[/COLOR][COLOR="Sienna"]r[/COLOR][COLOR="DarkOliveGreen"]n[/COLOR]-[/B] an income. It is a moot point.[/QUOTE]

This is also infuriating. If you're the recipient of the benefits of taxation without contributing, you sure as shit don't get complain about it.

Could someone please remind me of the details concerning the aphorism about undesirability of fighting with a pig? I've a vague feeling that it might be relevant to the present situation.

[QUOTE=xilman;410158]Could someone please remind me of the details concerning the aphorism about undesirability of fighting with a pig? I've a vague feeling that it might be relevant to the present situation.[/QUOTE]
GB Shaw is the author of it. Is that enough detail?

[QUOTE=xilman;410158]Could someone please remind me of the details concerning the aphorism about undesirability of fighting with a pig? I've a vague feeling that it might be relevant to the present situation.[/QUOTE]

"Don't hop in the mud with a pig because then you're just going to want some bacon, and that's a lot of work at this late hour."

Something like that, I think. :smile:

[QUOTE=wombatman;410161]"Don't hop in the mud with a pig because then you're just going to want some bacon, and that's a lot of work at this late hour."

Something like that, I think. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Err...sort of.[INDENT][QUOTE]I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.[/QUOTE]

George Bernard Shaw

[/INDENT]

[QUOTE=wombatman;410152]Ok, I'm done. You are willfully ignorant and undeservedly arrogant. Your "logic" starts with your unwavering belief that your interpretation is infallible. You won't (can't) answer direct questions, and you repeat the same arguments, ignoring anything that contradicts them.

Either grow a pair and go to court over this, or quit posting the exact same tired crap.[/QUOTE]Be careful. jasong might threaten to ignore you for the rest of this thread. :hankie::bang:

[QUOTE=kladner;410166]Err...sort of.[INDENT]

George Bernard Shaw

[/INDENT][/QUOTE]

:tu:

[YOUTUBE]yTwpBLzxe4U[/YOUTUBE]

The streets and highways just magically appear.

Edit: The rest of the interview sounds an awful lot like someone...but I just can't place it. [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NWPcxT0jdE[/url]

[QUOTE=wombatman;410161]"Don't hop in the mud with a pig because then you're just going to want some bacon, and that's a lot of work at this late hour."

Something like that, I think. :smile:[/QUOTE]Definitely the best response so far.

[QUOTE=wombatman;410026]You know you don't have to have taxes taken out of your paycheck automatically, right? At most places, you can choose to have no withholding of taxes done. You'll simply then owe the taxes yearly. Most people choose to spread out what they owe over the entire year rather than make a lump sum payment all at once, but it's certainly not required.[/QUOTE]
Small correction: my understanding is that you owe payroll taxes at least quarterly; you can't just let them build up and pay them next April. Well you can, but will owe interest if you do. Interest on federal taxes is pretty modest, but some states have higher interest rates on late taxes than credit cards do!

Presumably this requirement is there for the same reason you probably don't want to be paid your entire salary once a year :)

[QUOTE=wombatman;410161]"Don't hop in the mud with a pig because then you're just going to want some bacon, and that's a lot of work at this late hour."

Something like that, I think. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Don't take finding the quotation as any rebuke to your version. That still has me smiling. :smile:

[QUOTE=jasonp;410185]Small correction: my understanding is that you owe payroll taxes at least quarterly; you can't just let them build up and pay them next April. Well you can, but will owe interest if you do. Interest on federal taxes is pretty modest, but some states have higher interest rates on late taxes than credit cards do!

Presumably this requirement is there for the same reason you probably don't want to be paid your entire salary once a year :)[/QUOTE]

Speaking from very recent personal experience, you don't HAVE to pay the taxes quarterly (at least not as an individual--a business of multiple people may be different), but it is suggested to keep from having to pay a lump sum at the end of the year. Of course, the IRS also does automatic payment plans, so it's not a huge deal.

[QUOTE=kladner;410186]Don't take finding the quotation as any rebuke to your version. That still has me smiling. :smile:[/QUOTE]

No offense taken at all. I thoroughly enjoy the actual quote. There's a similar one about arguing with a fool. Something like "Don't argue with a fool. He'll bring you down to his level and beat you with experience."

[QUOTE=wombatman;410189]Speaking from very recent personal experience, you don't HAVE to pay the taxes quarterly (at least not as an individual--a business of multiple people may be different), but it is suggested to keep from having to pay a lump sum at the end of the year. Of course, the IRS also does automatic payment plans, so it's not a huge deal.[/QUOTE]

Taxes on individuals are technically due when the income is earned; however, payroll withholding is treated specially in that it is considered to be withheld evenly throughout the year. That is, if you owed $10,000 in taxes for the year you COULD have $10,000 [URL="http://fairmark.com/estimate/withhold.htm"]withheld[/URL] from your last month's check and owe no interest for the year.

I estimate my tax liability for the year each September and adjust the withholding from my pension to make it come out even for the year so I receive as small a refund as possible.

[QUOTE=Chuck;410198]Taxes on individuals are technically due when the income is earned; however, payroll withholding is treated specially in that it is considered to be withheld evenly throughout the year. That is, if you owed $10,000 in taxes for the year you COULD have $10,000 [URL="http://fairmark.com/estimate/withhold.htm"]withheld[/URL] from your last month's check and owe no interest for the year.

I estimate my tax liability for the year each September and adjust the withholding from my pension to make it come out even for the year so I receive as small a refund as possible.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the clarification.

[QUOTE=Chuck;410198]Taxes on individuals are technically due when the income is earned; however, payroll withholding is treated specially in that it is considered to be withheld evenly throughout the year. That is, if you owed $10,000 in taxes for the year you COULD have $10,000 [URL="http://fairmark.com/estimate/withhold.htm"]withheld[/URL] from your last month's check and owe no interest for the year.[/QUOTE]Uh, actually you [URL="http://www.irs.gov/publications/p505/ch04.html#d0e14511"]shouldn't[/URL]. There is an underpayment penalty that can be triggered if you underpay by 10% of your last year's total taxes or any percentage of your year before last's taxes.

[COLOR=White]Of course, these are just IRS rules, so they may all be moot.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=wombatman;410190]No offense taken at all. I thoroughly enjoy the actual quote. There's a similar one about arguing with a fool. Something like "Don't argue with a fool. He'll bring you down to his level and beat you with experience."[/QUOTE]

Or: "Don't argue with a fool. People may not be able to tell the difference."

[QUOTE=wombatman;410156]This is also infuriating. If you're the recipient of the benefits of taxation without contributing, you sure as shit don't get complain about it.[/QUOTE]
I'm sick of this shit, I believe in paying taxes that I ACTUALLY FUCKING OWE. I don't believe in paying taxes that I'm stated to owe because of lies.

Get it right.

You guys can go ahead and call me a fool, but the facts are undeniable.

If you read the laws AS WRITTEN, and trust English grammar and dictionary definitions, then the law definitively DOES NOT STATE that an American citizen owes taxes on their paycheck.

Period, end of story.

If a judge says he's the king of the world, that doesn't make it so, but if a judge lies repeatedly about what the law says, and enough people repeat it, you appear to be willing to accept it despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

TL; DR of the ENTIRE FUCKING THREAD:

The written law of Title 26 is supposed to be the actual law and the dozens of cases that state otherwise don't deal with what it says, but simply state,"No, you're wrong," without dealing with why things are wrong. The reason they don't state corrections is because they're lying their asses off.

Title 26:

[url]http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title26/USCODE-2011-title26-subtitleA-chap1-subchapB-partI-sec61[/url]

Gross Income defined: (section 61)

[url]http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title26/html/USCODE-2011-title26-subtitleA-chap1-subchapB-partI-sec61.htm[/url]

[QUOTE]Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means [B][SIZE="4"][COLOR="Red"]all income from whatever source derived[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B], including (but not limited to) the following items:[/QUOTE]


No matter how many times you claim that the law should be easily understood but then refuse to understand what is written there, you will still be wrong.

[URL="http://openjurist.org/806/f2d/1451/grimes-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue"]There can be no doubt that the tax on income is constitutional and that, for the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment, income includes "gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.[/URL]

[URL="http://openjurist.org/898/f2d/942"] Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income. See, e.g., Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70 (7th Cir.1986); Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam); Perkins v. Commissioner, 46 F.2d 1187, 1188 (6th Cir.1984) (per curiam); Funk v. Commissioner, 687 F.2d 264, 264 (8th Cir.1982) (per curiam).[/URL]

In [URL="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/3/171.html"]Hylton v US in 1796[/URL] the courts ruled that the Government could tax citizen's property even if it were held for private use. Notably two of the four justices had been on the Constitutional Drafting committee, so presumably they would have understood the intent of the constitution, though obviously not as well as JasonG. Since that time no Court has made any decision calling in to question the Government's right to lay taxes upon the citizenry.

[QUOTE][URL="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/29/514/"]Consider “The power of legislation, and consequently of taxation, operates on all the persons and property belonging to the body politic.” Providence Bank v. Billings, 29 U.S. 514, 563 (1830). Furthermore, [B][SIZE="4"][COLOR="Red"]However absolute the right of an individual may be, it is still in the nature of that right that it must bear a portion of the public burdens, and that portion must be determined by the legislature. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/URL][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][URL="http://openjurist.org/791/f2d/68"][B][SIZE="4"][COLOR="Red"]Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B] "Tax protesters" have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes. [B][SIZE="4"][COLOR="red"]The government may not prohibit the holding of these beliefs, but it may penalize people who act on them.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B] - Coleman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue[/URL][/QUOTE]

(I've added some bolding of content that doesn't exist in the original texts.)

[QUOTE=jasong;410223]I'm sick of this shit, I believe in paying taxes that I ACTUALLY FUCKING OWE. I don't believe in paying taxes that I'm stated to owe because of lies.

Get it right.[/QUOTE]

Ok, I just can't help myself. What taxes do you think you owe? And to address the second tirade, could you please point to the specific part of Title 26 that you believe supports your case? I look at Section 1, which has [CODE]There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of...[/CODE] for a whole bunch of individuals (and corporations, but we're not dealing with that).

Section 61 defines gross income as: [CODE](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;
(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;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.[/CODE]

Section 63 defines taxable income: [CODE](a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).[/CODE]

Now, which of those incomes do you have that is not listed such that you believe you don't owe taxes on it? Keep in mind that the entire tax code is written law, passed (and altered, amended, etc) by Congress at varying points. As such, based on what you've said, you're ok with what is written.

[QUOTE=chappy;410232]Title 26:

[url]http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title26/USCODE-2011-title26-subtitleA-chap1-subchapB-partI-sec61[/url]

Gross Income defined: (section 61)

[url]http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title26/html/USCODE-2011-title26-subtitleA-chap1-subchapB-partI-sec61.htm[/url]
Even if that did apply to people's paychecks, show me where it says I'm liable for the tax. And don't say the 16th Amendment, because, again, it doesn't contradict anything that comes before about directly taxing things that aren't American citizens. Basically, if you just look at the law, it's impossible to prove liability. It's only when the judges create extra meaning that you obtain liability.

Edit:Multi-quoting is still broken. I suggest taking away the button until it's fixed. As it is, it's just a rude tease.




[quote][URL="http://openjurist.org/806/f2d/1451/grimes-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue"]There can be no doubt that the tax on income is constitutional and that, for the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment, income includes "gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.[/URL][/quote]
Again, this doesn't establish liability, it just includes them as things that could possibly be liable. Additionally, when it talks about labor, it doesn't specifically state it's the labor of the person paying the tax. If I profit from someone else's labor, like with stocks, I do indeed owe a tax "on labor." It's just that it isn't MY labor, it's the labor of the people who own and work for the company.

[quote][URL="http://openjurist.org/898/f2d/942"] Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income. See, e.g., Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70 (7th Cir.1986); Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2d Cir.1985) (per curiam); Perkins v. Commissioner, 46 F.2d 1187, 1188 (6th Cir.1984) (per curiam); Funk v. Commissioner, 687 F.2d 264, 264 (8th Cir.1982) (per curiam).[/URL][/quote]
Whether this is true or not, liability still isn't stated in the law.

[quote]In [URL="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/3/171.html"]Hylton v US in 1796[/URL] the courts ruled that the Government could tax citizen's property even if it were held for private use. Notably two of the four justices had been on the Constitutional Drafting committee, so presumably they would have understood the intent of the constitution, though obviously not as well as JasonG. Since that time no Court has made any decision calling in to question the Government's right to lay taxes upon the citizenry.[/quote]
Pure money isn't property when it comes to taxation. If I buy property with my money, then, maybe, it's taxable.

You're quoting court cases where people lied their asses off.

I'm saying, straight up:

It's impossible to prove that I owe tax on my paycheck without quoting case law. The written law supercedes case law, or at least it should. The fact that case law is being used INSTEAD OF THE ACTUAL LAW is a travesty that should not be encouraged.

When you quote case law, you are siding with the status quo which, while it has all the power, it bases it's power on the random ravings of judges that are proven to be liars by the very laws they are sworn to uphold.

While you're at it, why not quote some Stephen King. That's about as true as some of these case law rulings.

Let's assume for the moment that taxing my paycheck is legal. Where is the law that establishes liability?

People love to trot out section 61 as proof of liability, but it's just definitions and information on calculating tax after liability is already assumed. It doesn't actually determine liability.

I challenge you to actually show me something that says I'm liable to pay tax on my paycheck. Not what to do after liability is determined, I mean something that actually states that I'm liable.

[url]http://www.c4cg.org/republic.htm[/url]

a republic vs a democracy

Perhaps this thread should be closed?