Income tax is theft

[Carthoris]

I can disagree there. FL has very little to it that not accesable by dirt road. In Alaska you need an airplane.

You can subsist in FL so the scum bags are wimps. In Alaska the scum bags will be not your problem. Bears, wolves, moose. Ice.

I am moving to NH towards the mountains. I don't have an issue with bears, moose, wolves, or ice. I just don't want to live around people. I like electricity and internet.

I am from IL, but the part of Florida I grew up in isn't accessible by road much of the time because it is a swamp. I don't live in that area anymore, but there were still places 10 years ago that didn't have electricity, phone access, and the only way you were getting there part of the year was with a air boat.

 

[Doer]

Ya know, I don't like people, that much, but I do like the city services....so I explore the Life of Mind as it pertains to the reality of Self.

That's all the frontier I need these days.

 

[Mr Neutron]

OK, that's seems simple and if not on a 300 baud modem, certainly easy enough for you to be more clear.

If SCOTUS does so declare, I'm all for it. But, it's quite the stretched hypothetical, that's why it went by me...If this, if that.

Thank you.

1894-income tax is illegal
1913-the 16th amendment confers no new power of taxation
1916-"in substance, the court holds that the 16th amendment did not empower the federal government to levy a new tax"
SCOTUS="your labor is your private property"
SCOTUS=definition of income, "gains or profits"
Sen Daniel Inoue/Congressional Research Service="There are no provisions which require an individual to pay an income tax"

 

[Mr Neutron]

i didnt read all 29 pages. but has anybody been down the "it wasnt ratified by enough states" rabbit hole?

"If you examined (the 16th) carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment"
US District Court Judge James C Fox, 2003

 

[Doer]

SCOTUS is currently satisfied, so am I.

 

[Doer]

Thank you.

1894-income tax is illegal
1913-the 16th amendment confers no new power of taxation
1916-"in substance, the court holds that the 16th amendment did not empower the federal government to levy a new tax"
SCOTUS="your labor is your private property"
SCOTUS=definition of income, "gains or profits"
Sen Daniel Inoue/Congressional Research Service="There are no provisions which require an individual to pay an income tax"

I'm saying if it ligates out or legally disappears, I'm for that. But, we owe a lot of money, by now. And there have been certain opinions over the years, so, this isn't new, etc..

SCOTUS has not ruled, and you and I know the 16th is still law.

So, tell me. Why is that? Why is the 16th still the Law of the land?

 

[Mr Neutron]

SCOTUS is currently satisfied, so am I.

... and you know this, how?

 

[Mr Neutron]

I'm saying if it ligates out or legally disappears, I'm for that. But, we owe a lot of money, by now. And there have been certain opinions over the years, so, this isn't new, etc..

SCOTUS has not ruled, and you and I know the 16th is still law.

So, tell me. Why is that? Why is the 16th still the Law of the land?

I and the SCOTUS agree, it IS the law but what does it say? Does it say that US citizens are liable for income taxes on wages earned within the US? If it does, please show me where. Even the IRS can't produce that one.

 

[Doer]

But, your sparse and not referenced quote snips, mean I can't follow your logic.

Was it not ruled that income is personal property? So, is not personal property subject to tax?

I can only wonder why is it that the states ratified it? Why has it been upheld, time and time again?

You just post opinions and I say the law is alive, and because we amateurs can't find the basis, and professionals line up one either side, ( no basis, give me money) doesn't change anything.

If it was credible that it was not lawful it would have been gone already. So, there are rules and regs that come from legal concepts and contracts, and there is settled Law. But, being alive, it is all under the most detailed struggle to define everyday.

There are a lot of things about this great Republic that you and I can't understand. That's the job of the govt employed and elected and appointed WE.

So, why is this not just hand wringing, again? Are you just venting? That's OK, by me.

If SCOTUS has not been challenged well enough, then keep up the charge, I say.

The Law is what juries and finally SCOTUS decide.
That is very different from the various laws.

 

[Mr Neutron]

But, your sparse and not referenced quote snips, mean I can't follow your logic. Just trying to give you another perspective.

Was it not ruled that income is personal property? So, is not personal property subject to tax? No. LABOR was ruled as private property. You trade your labor for wages, there is no gain or profit.

I can only wonder why is it that the states ratified it? Why has it been upheld, time and time again? Has the ratification been challenged?

You just post opinions and I say the law is alive, and because we amateurs can't find the basis, and professionals line up one either side, ( no basis, give me money) doesn't change anything. If it exists, it can be found.

If it was credible that it was not lawful it would have been gone already. So, there are rules and regs that come from legal concepts and contracts, and there is settled Law. But, being alive, it is all under the most detailed struggle to define everyday. huh?

There are a lot of things about this great Republic that you and I can't understand. That's the job of the govt employed and elected and appointed WE. OMG!!! I'm not sure you're ready for this.

So, why is this not just hand wringing, again? Are you just venting? That's OK, by me. I'm so glad.

If SCOTUS has not been challenged well enough, then keep up the charge, I say. You complain about my vagueness but I'm trying to lead you to find the answer for yourself.

The Law is what juries and finally SCOTUS decide. Unless it violates the Constitution.
That is very different from the various laws. huh?

Your comment about us not understanding a lot of things and thus the need for government employees and representatives to tell us what these various issues mean is extremely disturbing to me. I guess, I had to know this attitude existed but when confronted with it, it's shocking.

 

[Doer]

Your comment about us not understanding a lot of things and thus the need for government employees and representatives to tell us what these various issues mean is extremely disturbing to me. I guess, I had to know this attitude existed but when confronted with it, it's shocking.

You are talking about over a 100 year of professional, legal fighting about this. You don't have the skill to see what it means. You are no legal scholar and all the John Galts, and the other Everymen, don't have to understand every nuance. But, even you can study law and prepare to fight in the actual arena of ideas.

To me you are just twisting your mind into a forum fight and descending into insults again.

You are just reading in my "shocking attitude" while I'm just thinking, .......oh, grow up.

 

[Mr Neutron]

YOU asked questions. I tried to lead you to the answers but you don't want to look. You'd rather throw insults, I get it. You're just like abondonintellect, the duke of puke and honey boo boo buck. Duly noted.

 

[Doer]

Dude, calm down. We are on the same page, but you keep trying to fight. I am trying to figure out what your point is. To the thread title...

I think I see that now.

You are saying that personal income tax, has no real and actual basis in Law. You can't find a single phrase anywhere, many have also looked and can't find the establishment phrasing to continue with Federal Income tax.

It is a weird accident? Or.....See now, i'm getting lost again. I don't want to be lead from a high horse, not do i constantly change from one stance to another.

I don't take these stances folks claim. I think that is because no one understand that there is a middle and a discussion without taking sides. See?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Doer,

Then don't try to make Che out to anything but a murdering rapist who thought it was ok to steal like Robin Hood. The CIA gave him what he had coming. He wasn't a hero, revolutionary or any other cool kid bullshit. He was a rich brat who didn't live in reality.

I hate government and all, but exterminating assholes like him is about all it's good for.

 

[UncleBuck]

Thank you.

1894-income tax is illegal
1913-the 16th amendment confers no new power of taxation
1916-"in substance, the court holds that the 16th amendment did not empower the federal government to levy a new tax"
SCOTUS="your labor is your private property"
SCOTUS=definition of income, "gains or profits"
Sen Daniel Inoue/Congressional Research Service="There are no provisions which require an individual to pay an income tax"

here's some info about sending back a frivolous return, mister mustachioed armchair lawyer.

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-010-012r.html

 

[UncleBuck]

YOU asked questions. I tried to lead you to the answers but you don't want to look. You'd rather throw insults, I get it. You're just like abondonintellect, the duke of puke and honey boo boo buck. Duly noted.

what was that you said about you would love to have debates but too much childish ad hominem?

hypocrisy, you are mounted by a mustachioed hooker.

 

[cannabineer]

sounds like someone is butthurt and got fined for sending back a "frivolous return".

the only way to not pay taxes is to not sign a W4, and no one is making you do that.

give up the grudge already, tiffany.

I challenge the ... oh look! Ambulances! cn

 

[UncleBuck]

I challenge the ... oh look! Ambulances! cn

it's true. you can't be forced to sign a W4. it is something you do of your own volition.

by the way, what do you have against baby coffins? i think they really add to the forum.

 

[cannabineer]

it's true. you can't be forced to sign a W4. it is something you do of your own volition.

by the way, what do you have against baby coffins? i think they really add to the forum.

And I have repeatedly countered that there is indeed serious coercion going on to sign a W-4 whenever a position is offered. Had i not signed, I'd not have been given the job. THAT is the application of force, or presenting the credible and reliable threat of it.

I also note that you've abandoned your qualifying phrase "at gunpoint". Indirect force is still a mighty thing.
Do you imagine that people WANT to sign a W-4? Can you imagine what would transpire if the threat of force went away? Do you really think that you can get hired by the sort of corporation that has jobs for those who've received an advanced degree ... and say No, Thank You to the W-4? Examples? cn

 

[Mr Neutron]

here's some info about sending back a frivolous return, mister mustachioed armchair lawyer.

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-010-012r.html

Thank you for your unrelated input. If you can't keep up, stay on the porch.