Is There A Law To Pay Taxes?

[ViRedd]

"Taxation is one of the restraints that is consistent with a free society. There are some things, such as roads and military defense, that wouldn't get done if we didn't pay for them collectively. They have to be paid for with some kind of tax. That's why taxation has been a hallmark of nearly all societies for a long time."

Picasso ...

Your little essay reads as though it was taken from notes written by an IRS prosecuting attorney.

I agree that taxation is necessary in order to live in a free society ... but I don't agree that a tax on labor is one of those necessary taxes.

Interstate highways are funded (or should be) by the federal tax on gasoline. The military could be funded by a consumption tax, or tariffs.

In your article, the author, whom ever he is, makes the common mistake of equating "slavery" with whips and chains. The type of "slavery" I'm referring to is economic slavery. Why in the world would you, or anyone else, want to live in a society where government reaches it's hand 3000 miles across the country, to grab a portion of one's paycheck before one even has the chance to see the money? Do you realize, that by allowing government that leeway, you/we are losing the chance to invest your/our own money AS WE SEE FIT in order to earn a profit on it.?

There is a much better way ... and it was spelled out by the founders of the country: excise (sales) taxes and tariffs. Think about this for a second ... When you pump the gasoline into your car, a portion of the price as indicated on the pump register is going for local, state and federal taxes. When you're done pumping, you put the pump back, get into your car and drive away. The taxes are paid, but there are no forms to fill out, no audits, no fines, no levies, no courts and no jails. Excise taxes are the taxes of free men. A tax on income (labor) is a tax on economic slaves.

The federal income tax (16th Amendment) was the fruition of the love-child of the envious welfare statists/communists who lived in the United States in the late 1890s and early 1900s. It was their way of reducing wealth, while at the same time, building their welfare state. And now, as a result, we are saddled with having to turn over to Cesare our financial confessions every April 15. If every penny isn't reported, every "I" dotted, every "T" crossed, the goons at your local IRS office can make your life a living hell. At last count, the IRS code numbers in excess of 66,000 pages ... an impossibility to understand. That's not the America I want to live in, nor do I want my children or grand children living in it either ... not when there is a much better way.

Vi

 

[ViRedd]

free man should be able to write off the cost of his own labor against his income taxes as well

What a flawed statement. How could one write off what he recieves as compensation, as expences? A total oxymoron.

Med ...

Your stupidity is only exceeded by your stone-blindness to truth.

Vi

 

[Jointsmith]

In your article, the author, whom ever he is, makes the common mistake of equating "slavery" with whips and chains. The type of "slavery" I'm referring to is economic slavery. Why in the world would you, or anyone else, want to live in a society where government reaches it's hand 3000 miles across the country, to grab a portion of one's paycheck before one even has the chance to see the money? Do you realize, that by allowing government that leeway, you/we are losing the chance to invest your/our own money AS WE SEE FIT in order to earn a profit on it.?

You seem to miss the point Vi.....Income taxes are meant to pay for the things which usually don't (or aren't supposed to) make a profit.

No one should profit from a public road, or the education of your children, or the defense of your country, etc etc.

Maybe if you didn't think of every thing in terms of 'Profit' (you greedy fuck), maybe you'd see fit to 'invest' in your countries roads....or schools.....or free hospitals...etc etc....but lets face it, you wouldn't make your return back.....so what's the point?

An employer get to write off his ERMPOLYEES LABOUR COSTS (not his own) because that labour COSTS HIM A FISCAL VALUE..... (if he'd carried out the labour themselves they wouldn't be able to write it off as an expence....because, it didn't 'cost' him anything)

 

[Picasso345]

In your article, the author, whom ever he is,

Vi

So forgetting the slavery argument for a second, are you still claiming that there is no law? And here is the answer to your question.

Glad you took the time to read the link, lol. He is a Professor of Law at George Washington University. He claims to have never worked for the IRS, but he was an attorney at the DOJ:

George Washington University Law School, Kahan Research Professor (2008-present)
Professor of Law (2001-present); Associate Professor of Law (1995-2001)
● Taught Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Federal Courts, Intellectual Property, and Lawsuits Against Governments.
● Published articles on administrative law, federal courts, lawsuits against governments, and statutory interpretation.
U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, Senior Legislative Fellow (Fall, 2007)
● Advised the Senator on legal and policy issues in legislation, nominations, and oversight.
● Prepared the Senator for hearings, press conferences, and other appearances.
Cornell Law School, Visiting Professor of Law (Fall, 2006)
Civil Division, Appellate Staff, United States Department of Justice
Attorney (1990-1995)
● Briefed and argued cases in the United States Courts of Appeals. Won 29 of 34 cases.
● Negotiated settlements of appellate cases.
● Advised the Solicitor General as to whether to take appeals.
● Assisted the Solicitor General in litigating cases in the Supreme Court.
The Honorable Patricia M. Wald, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Law Clerk (Aug. 1989 - June 1990) Decision Resources, Inc., Author and Product Manager, CHART-MASTER (1981, 1982, 1984-1986)
● Wrote CHART-MASTER, which became the IBM PC’s number one business graphics program.
● Helped found Decision Resources, Inc. to market CHART-MASTER
● Managed product design, development, and marketing as annual sales grew to over $5 million.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/default.htm

 

[medicineman]

Med ...

Your stupidity is only exceeded by your stone-blindness to truth.

Vi

WTF, now it is you that go on the attack when confronted with facts. Explain to me the wisdom of deducting your income from your taxes when your income is what you are paying taxes on. Your income is not an expense, at least not in the realm of any math I've ever heard of, ever heard the saying, "Stupid is as stupid does" Forest Gump? Now that ought to apply to your logic, or lack thereof in this arguement. Lets see, I made 60K last year, but wait, I get a 60K deduction for my wages, yeah big brains at work here VI, "stupid is as stupid does".

 

[ViRedd]

Lets see, I made 60K last year, but wait, I get a 60K deduction for my wages, yeah big brains at work here VI, "stupid is as stupid does".

Did I say deductions for your "wages?" No I didn't because that, as you pointed out, wouldn't make any sense. However, one's labor is worth something, Med. One's labor in trade for money is an even exchange, therefore, there is no "profit" to be taxed.

Vi

 

[ViRedd]

So forgetting the slavery argument for a second, are you still claiming that there is no law? And here is the answer to your question.

Glad you took the time to read the link, lol. He is a Professor of Law at George Washington University. He claims to have never worked for the IRS, but he was an attorney at the DOJ:

And Supreme Court Justices have found "penumbras" in the Constitution that makes murder legal and takes any choice in the matter out of state hands. So, what's your point?

Vi

 

[Picasso345]

So forgetting the slavery argument for a second, are you still claiming that there is no law? And here is the answer to your question.

Glad you took the time to read the link, lol. He is a Professor of Law at George Washington University. He claims to have never worked for the IRS, but he was an attorney at the DOJ:

And Supreme Court Justices have found "penumbras" in the Constitution that makes murder legal and takes any choice in the matter out of state hands. So, what's your point?

Vi

When asked a simple question about taxes you write about penumbras and murder? My point is that there IS a law. You just choose to ignore it.

This isn't complicated. Title 26 of the United States Code spells it all out.

You, like all the tax evaders of your ilk will never answer a question. When proven wrong on one point you slide into the next and argue about slavery and then proven wrong there you start rambling about what the meaning of income is...In a word your arguments are frivolous, but at least pick one and stick with it. Maybe this will help:

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html

 

[RayFromGG]

And there's the rub. Schiff and other patriots have continually requested the IRS to define the term "income." They have not and they won't .. for to do so would cause their entire house of cards to come crashing down.

As originally intended, the term "income" referred to a corporate profit. How can I, as a citizen, derive an income from my wages or commissions? Well, I'd have to invest a portion of my wages or commissions and earn a profit on those investments ... thereby deriving an income from my wages or commissions.

The way the law is interpreted today, the government is taxing a portion of our labor as well as our investment "income." When an outside entity taxes a portion of the citizen's labor, that outside entity, in this case the federal government, is taking ownership of the portion of labor that is being taxed.

There is a name for economic systems that "own" the citizen's labor ... slavery. In the case of the federal income tax, enforced by quasi-government thugs at the IRS, we have allowed ourselves to lose our financial liberty. As a result, we are rapidly losing our political liberty as well.

Vi

Libertarianism doesn't work, so we were forced to either a) tax the working class of their hard-earned labor that they actually WORKED for or b) abolish capitalism. We went with option a), because we lacked a big revolutionary movement at the time.

"Taxation is one of the restraints that is consistent with a free society. There are some things, such as roads and military defense, that wouldn't get done if we didn't pay for them collectively. They have to be paid for with some kind of tax. That's why taxation has been a hallmark of nearly all societies for a long time."

Picasso ...

If we're using Picasso's arguments within government, why not use his argument against the entire capitalist system, as he was a communist?

 

[ViRedd]

When asked a simple question about taxes you write about penumbras and murder? My point is that there IS a law. You just choose to ignore it.

OK, Picasso ... I'll cede your point. Now assuming that you are correct and there IS a law that states that "income" is the "fruit" one gains in an even exchange for one's labor, would you want to stick with that system, or change it for something simpler and fairer?

Vi

 

[ViRedd]

Libertarianism doesn't work, so we were forced to either a) tax the working class of their hard-earned labor that they actually WORKED for or b) abolish capitalism. We went with option a), because we lacked a big revolutionary movement at the time.


If we're using Picasso's arguments within government, why not use his argument against the entire capitalist system, as he was a communist?

Good question. In view of the fact that a heavy progressive tax on income is Marxian in principle, why would anyone other than a collectivist support our current tax system?

I'm not sure if Picasso is supporting the system, or just pointing out what he deems to be my error. Which is it, Picasso?

Vi

 

[Picasso345]

The system sucks. It should be simpler and fairer and corporations should pay their share.

When asked a simple question about taxes you write about penumbras and murder? My point is that there IS a law. You just choose to ignore it.

OK, Picasso ... I'll cede your point. Now assuming that you are correct and there IS a law that states that "income" is the "fruit" one gains in an even exchange for one's labor, would you want to stick with that system, or change it for something simpler and fairer?

Vi

 

[Picasso345]

But this is America and the price to live here has to be paid as well. If I am not willing to pay their price, I would move along to a country that had a tax system more inline with my moralities.

Just because I think a candy bar is overpriced, doesn't mean I can steal it.

 

[ViRedd]

The system sucks. It should be simpler and fairer and corporations should pay their share.

Well cool .. we're on the same page.

By the way, you can tax corporations to the sky and they will still pass that expense on to the end consumer ... you and me.

"Just because I think a candy bar is overpriced, doesn't mean I can steal it."

Yeah, well cool. Who's the thief and who's the victim in our present system of taxation?

Here's my take: In a free society, it is none of government's business how much money a citizen makes, how he/she makes it, or how they spend it ... providing the rights of another are not violated in the process. This is why a tax on consumption (sales tax) makes so much sense to me. If you don't agree, too bad for you.


Vi

 

[GrowRebel]

345 ... Since you believe there is a law can you point out the codes Schiff pointed out in his video ... what is bullshit?

 

[Picasso345]

The system sucks. It should be simpler and fairer and corporations should pay their share.

Well cool .. we're on the same page.

By the way, you can tax corporations to the sky and they will still pass that expense on to the end consumer ... you and me.

"Just because I think a candy bar is overpriced, doesn't mean I can steal it."

Yeah, well cool. Who's the thief and who's the victim in our present system of taxation?

Here's my take: In a free society, it is none of government's business how much money a citizen makes, how he/she makes it, or how they spend it ... providing the rights of another are not violated in the process. This is why a tax on consumption (sales tax) makes so much sense to me. If you don't agree, too bad for you.


Vi

So all the blather about laws and slavery and penumbras was really just so much jibberish. You just don't want to pay. Thank you for admitting it.

As for the corps, some pay their fair share in taxes, others have found ways to take advantage of the system - I would like all of them on a level playing field and not reward the ones who take advantage by dodging the laws.

 

[Picasso345]

345 ... Since you believe there is a law can you point out the codes Schiff pointed out in his video ... what is bullshit?

Here are the answers from a law professor, not an internet stoner like myself, lol.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm#not

 

[GrowRebel]

Yeah ... but this law professor is not addressing Schiff's arguments ... he's merely providing links to the IRS ... and since their credibility is in question do you really want to take them at their word?

I would like to see some one address Schiff's points ... when ever he has a one on one arguments with so called tax experts ... he wins ... why is that? ... and like I said before ... the ONLY reason he's in jail is because he wasn't allow to present evidence including supreme court rulings ... in his case ... that's why I ask is there some one in the audience that can look at Schiff's video and point out any bullshit they see to us tax dummies?

 

[Picasso345]

Yeah ... but this law professor is not addressing Schiff's arguments ... he's merely providing links to the IRS ... and since their credibility is in question do you really want to take them at their word?

I would like to see some one address Schiff's points ... when ever he has a one on one arguments with so called tax experts ... he wins ... why is that? ... and like I said before ... the ONLY reason he's in jail is because he wasn't allow to present evidence including supreme court rulings ... in his case ... that's why I ask is there some one in the audience that can look at Schiff's video and point out any bullshit they see to us tax dummies?

Nope. I see only one link to the IRS, all the other pages are him debunking the tax evader arguments in his own words.

 

[GrowRebel]

Schiff addressed the issue the tax code being the law the professor brought up in the video ... provided in this thread ... with that investigative reporter ... so there is nothing I see that the professor has to counter with ...