Originally posted by Sawtooth I say if someone doesn't want to pay taxes, that's fine. They just can't use the things taxes buy.
....like school, and roads, and access to police protection, and mail, and libraries, and...
You're going to die, and you're going to pay taxes. Both are unpleasant, but them's the breaks.
Please do a little research on the topic, admriker has a few posts on the forum all about the Fed and I think the IRS too. We as a country lived for many years without income tax. What you posted above sounds like an extremely tyrannical government.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
It's hard to grasp just where all our taxes are going... I mean, the nation is so large and so much crap is going on, to try to track were our individual money is going is pretty much impossible. So in all that hectic mumbo jumbo, I wouldn't be surprised if our taxes went to something completely unecessary. In fact, I'm sure of it...
As far as I know nobody running for Pres has said single thing about abolishing income tax so voting won't help. What you can do is stop paying taxes once you get educated enough to defend yourself.
edit: Watch Freedom to Fascism once it comes out and then decide what you want to do.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Originally posted by AlexAmore Originally posted by Sawtooth I say if someone doesn't want to pay taxes, that's fine. They just can't use the things taxes buy.
....like school, and roads, and access to police protection, and mail, and libraries, and...
You're going to die, and you're going to pay taxes. Both are unpleasant, but them's the breaks.
Please do a little research on the topic, admriker has a few posts on the forum all about the Fed and I think the IRS too. We as a country lived for many years without income tax. What you posted above sounds like an extremely tyrannical government.
Wow, no one gets sarcasm when the argument gets too rabid, I guess. Let's come down from our pulpits and have a laugh, shall we?
Most court cases I've read involving dodging Federal Income Tax attack the 16th amendment as either improperly ratified or outright unconstitutional, and most of them are shot down spectacularly. The problem is that the 16th amendment doesn't deal with the government's right to tax income so much as what it's allowed to do with those taxes. Hence, an argument stating a person doesn't have to pay the tax because the government has no right to levy it is doomed to failure, and arguments about the validity of the amendment are mercilessly shot down in court.
This is the second problem. There is a long history of these cases, and every time a judge rules on it, it makes the amendment that much more secure. Precedence is everything in law, and there is a long string of cases in which the judges rule in favor of the government. Many of these also involve the judges in question making scathing remarks about the individuals who try to defeat the income tax, which is unusual in most cases to this degree. Does this signal bias on the judge's part or the absurdity of these arguments? It's hard to tell sometimes.
Regardless, the legal documents that allow for federal income tax are now well cemented. Arguments about their validity or constitutionality are futile, the only way to change things is to lead the law in a new direction.
Wow, no one gets sarcasm when the argument gets too rabid, I guess. Let's come down from our pulpits and have a laugh, shall we?
Most court cases I've read involving dodging Federal Income Tax attack the 16th amendment as either improperly ratified or outright unconstitutional, and most of them are shot down spectacularly. The problem is that the 16th amendment doesn't deal with the government's right to tax income so much as what it's allowed to do with those taxes. Hence, an argument stating a person doesn't have to pay the tax because the government has no right to levy it is doomed to failure, and arguments about the validity of the amendment are mercilessly shot down in court.
This is the second problem. There is a long history of these cases, and every time a judge rules on it, it makes the amendment that much more secure. Precedence is everything in law, and there is a long string of cases in which the judges rule in favor of the government. Many of these also involve the judges in question making scathing remarks about the individuals who try to defeat the income tax, which is unusual in most cases to this degree. Does this signal bias on the judge's part or the absurdity of these arguments? It's hard to tell sometimes.
Regardless, the legal documents that allow for federal income tax are now well cemented. Arguments about their validity or constitutionality are futile, the only way to change things is to lead the law in a new direction.
Wrong.
Check into Joe Banister. Fought the IRS over income tax and won.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
Joe Banister? Are you freaking kidding me? Joe Banister is a con artist, a charlatan, and according to some conspiracy nuts an undercover IRS agent (I don't believe that last one). He exists to sell books and tax evasion schemes, loaded down with disclaimers so he can't get busted along with the fools who follow them. I am aware of no case in which Joe Banister himself got out of paying such taxes.
I am aware of Banister's buddy Bill Conklin, a fellow scam artist, who Banister and Conklin himself claim won six lawsuits against the government based on the 5th amendment. I've read the six cases. Several have nothing to do wtih the 5th amendment and are minor procedural victories (as in, he still pays taxes), others are minor procedural victories against the IRS (who promptly returns with litigation in different wording and wins). My personal favorite is the time he claimed he would pay $50k to anyone who could prove his 5th amendment argument wouldn't work, and managed to defeat the man who found a hole in it and sued when Conklin wouldn't pay (that's not a victory over the IRS). They have a couple other tax scam buddies in their group and none of them have produced any results, only more books to buy and tips to pass out.
Most of Banister's arguments are based on the aforementioned 16th amendment arguments, which do not work, or an even more ludicrous 5th amendment argument Conklin uses claiming that signing a 1040 form is somehow equivalent to incriminating yourself. There are people who tried that argument in court, and they all failed.
1040 is a fruad and invalid because the form doesn't display a valid control number assigned by the OMB Director in accordance with the PRA.
That's what i've got so far but i'm looking into it more.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Originally posted by AlexAmore 1040 is a fruad and invalid because the form doesn't display a valid control number assigned by the OMB Director in accordance with the PRA.
Better lawyers than us have tried these arguments. Look, I'm actually on your guy's side here, but get realistic. There is an entire industry of people trying to get away with not paying Federal Income Tax, and no one's found a solid argument that will really work. We know this because if someone really could get away with it and replicate those results for someone else, none of us would be paying taxes.
The attorneys for the government are well versed in tax law and can blunt just about anything you throw at them, which is all they really need. You have no chance with a judge, realistically, and here's why:
-First, no judge wants to go down in history as the judge who let the pin through to burst this bubble. If someone got such an argument by, it would collapse the economy. I'm not kidding, what does the government do when suddenly vast chunks of its income vanishes, and lawsuits begin to pile up demanding tax money returned.
-There are a thousand ways for a judge to throw your entire case the hell out of court. Little technicalities, they use them all the time. They're quite fond of the 'you can't claim something bad happened that you can recover losses from' angle. I don't know how it plays out legally, but I've seen wording similar to that in a bunch of the cases I've read through.
There is no legal way to do it. The courts are stacked against you, they will never let it happen. I don't believe the solution is trying to crack the law, but turning the laws slowly in new directions. No lawyer can possibly make a case survive the gauntlet.
Yeah i'm no lawyer, i'm simply doing some casual research into this; trying to figure things out. There are so many tax laws and regular laws that affect you indirectly and basically an infinite amount of like you said technicalities. Plus who knows maybe they got a valid OMB number this year.
Funny that we suddenly needed a federal income tax the exact same time we needed a privatized central bank, the same time we started accumulating a national debt. All just a coincidence...
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Comments
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
But what can we do but vote?
As far as I know nobody running for Pres has said single thing about abolishing income tax so voting won't help. What you can do is stop paying taxes once you get educated enough to defend yourself.
edit: Watch Freedom to Fascism once it comes out and then decide what you want to do.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Wow, no one gets sarcasm when the argument gets too rabid, I guess. Let's come down from our pulpits and have a laugh, shall we?
Most court cases I've read involving dodging Federal Income Tax attack the 16th amendment as either improperly ratified or outright unconstitutional, and most of them are shot down spectacularly. The problem is that the 16th amendment doesn't deal with the government's right to tax income so much as what it's allowed to do with those taxes. Hence, an argument stating a person doesn't have to pay the tax because the government has no right to levy it is doomed to failure, and arguments about the validity of the amendment are mercilessly shot down in court.
This is the second problem. There is a long history of these cases, and every time a judge rules on it, it makes the amendment that much more secure. Precedence is everything in law, and there is a long string of cases in which the judges rule in favor of the government. Many of these also involve the judges in question making scathing remarks about the individuals who try to defeat the income tax, which is unusual in most cases to this degree. Does this signal bias on the judge's part or the absurdity of these arguments? It's hard to tell sometimes.
Regardless, the legal documents that allow for federal income tax are now well cemented. Arguments about their validity or constitutionality are futile, the only way to change things is to lead the law in a new direction.
Wrong.
Check into Joe Banister. Fought the IRS over income tax and won.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
I am aware of Banister's buddy Bill Conklin, a fellow scam artist, who Banister and Conklin himself claim won six lawsuits against the government based on the 5th amendment. I've read the six cases. Several have nothing to do wtih the 5th amendment and are minor procedural victories (as in, he still pays taxes), others are minor procedural victories against the IRS (who promptly returns with litigation in different wording and wins). My personal favorite is the time he claimed he would pay $50k to anyone who could prove his 5th amendment argument wouldn't work, and managed to defeat the man who found a hole in it and sued when Conklin wouldn't pay (that's not a victory over the IRS). They have a couple other tax scam buddies in their group and none of them have produced any results, only more books to buy and tips to pass out.
Most of Banister's arguments are based on the aforementioned 16th amendment arguments, which do not work, or an even more ludicrous 5th amendment argument Conklin uses claiming that signing a 1040 form is somehow equivalent to incriminating yourself. There are people who tried that argument in court, and they all failed.
Yeah I've heard Joe Banister before.
1040 is a fruad and invalid because the form doesn't display a valid control number assigned by the OMB Director in accordance with the PRA.
That's what i've got so far but i'm looking into it more.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
The attorneys for the government are well versed in tax law and can blunt just about anything you throw at them, which is all they really need. You have no chance with a judge, realistically, and here's why:
-First, no judge wants to go down in history as the judge who let the pin through to burst this bubble. If someone got such an argument by, it would collapse the economy. I'm not kidding, what does the government do when suddenly vast chunks of its income vanishes, and lawsuits begin to pile up demanding tax money returned.
-There are a thousand ways for a judge to throw your entire case the hell out of court. Little technicalities, they use them all the time. They're quite fond of the 'you can't claim something bad happened that you can recover losses from' angle. I don't know how it plays out legally, but I've seen wording similar to that in a bunch of the cases I've read through.
There is no legal way to do it. The courts are stacked against you, they will never let it happen. I don't believe the solution is trying to crack the law, but turning the laws slowly in new directions. No lawyer can possibly make a case survive the gauntlet.
Yeah i'm no lawyer, i'm simply doing some casual research into this; trying to figure things out. There are so many tax laws and regular laws that affect you indirectly and basically an infinite amount of like you said technicalities. Plus who knows maybe they got a valid OMB number this year.
Funny that we suddenly needed a federal income tax the exact same time we needed a privatized central bank, the same time we started accumulating a national debt. All just a coincidence...
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American