Is There A Law To Pay Taxes?

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
This one's for you Vi ... I'm with you on the tax thing ... this is dated and Schiff is back in jail ... but ... check out the video(s) folks ... why wouldn't the IRS answer the question? They continue to show that the only thing they have to force us to pay taxes is the guns ... :spew:
Irwin Schiff vs. IRS on Fox TV News
[youtube]s0yqy06ZEzE[/youtube]

Now did you notice in the video when they asked the HR Block woman ... she got all defensive and started that ... "you better pay your taxes" shit ... but could not produce the law ... the same with the IRS ... and why did they raid Schiff's office ... while he was out? ... Answer those questions people who say there is a law ... why won't they produce it ... why are threatening people instead?
No argument they have the guns ... but do they have the law? Then why won't they show it? I think Mr. Schiff's web site is worth a look ...
:hump:

IRS Commissioner Evades THE Question
[youtube]6Xb3pKzWikk[/youtube]
 

joepro

Well-Known Member
the tax code itself is illegal......
16th Amendment of the constitution (the income tax amendment)
congress is the ones who can, will and does enforce this illegal law.
the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, therefore it's illegal.
Case after case the government has accused people of lying and prohibit them from presenting this as a defense in court. Stating that it's irrelevant and can't be used as a defense....
 

medicineman

New Member
The law is unwritten, like those that have the guns rule, so give me your money. There are laws that skirt the issue and appear to justify it but they have never written a specific law other than the 16th amendment, which by the way was ratified by 3/4 majority of the states making it official.

Amendment XVI (1913)

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 of enumeration.

According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:[20]
  1. Alabama (August 10, 1909)
  2. Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
  3. South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
  4. Illinois (March 1, 1910)
  5. Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
  6. Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
  7. Maryland (April 8, 1910)
  8. Georgia (August 3, 1910)
  9. Texas (August 16, 1910)
  10. Ohio (January 19, 1911)
  11. Idaho (January 20, 1911)
  12. Oregon (January 23, 1911)
  13. Washington (January 26, 1911)
  14. Montana (January 27, 1911)
  15. Indiana (January 30, 1911)
  16. California (January 31, 1911)
  17. Nevada (January 31, 1911)
  18. South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
  19. Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
  20. North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
  21. Colorado (February 15, 1911)
  22. North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
  23. Michigan (February 23, 1911)
  24. Iowa (February 24, 1911)
  25. Kansas (March 2, 1911)
  26. Missouri (March 16, 1911)
  27. Maine (March 31, 1911)
  28. Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
  29. Arkansas (April 22, 1911), after having previously rejected the amendment
  30. Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
  31. New York (July 12, 1911)
  32. Arizona (April 3, 1912)
  33. Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
  34. Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
  35. West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
  36. New Mexico (February 3, 1913)
Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by New Mexico. The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two of the forty-eight then existing:

37. Delaware (February 3, 1913) 38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913) 39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913) 40. Vermont (February 19, 1913) 41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913) 42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913), after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911 The following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently ratifying it:
  1. Connecticut
  2. Florida (rejected the amendment after it had already been ratified by three-fourths of the states)
  3. Rhode Island
  4. Utah
The following states never took up the proposed amendment:
  1. Pennsylvania So, maybe if you live in one of these two states. or the abpve 4, you may have a case, but since it is a federal law, I doubt it.
  2. Virginia
 

Jacksum

New Member
Either way, the constitution also says they are to be apportioned.

The law is unwritten, like those that have the guns rule, so give me your money. There are laws that skirt the issue and appear to justify it but they have never written a specific law other than the 16th amendment, which by the way was ratified by 3/4 majority of the states making it official.

Amendment XVI (1913)

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 of enumeration.
According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:[20]
  1. Alabama (August 10, 1909)
  2. Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
  3. South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
  4. Illinois (March 1, 1910)
  5. Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
  6. Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
  7. Maryland (April 8, 1910)
  8. Georgia (August 3, 1910)
  9. Texas (August 16, 1910)
  10. Ohio (January 19, 1911)
  11. Idaho (January 20, 1911)
  12. Oregon (January 23, 1911)
  13. Washington (January 26, 1911)
  14. Montana (January 27, 1911)
  15. Indiana (January 30, 1911)
  16. California (January 31, 1911)
  17. Nevada (January 31, 1911)
  18. South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
  19. Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
  20. North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
  21. Colorado (February 15, 1911)
  22. North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
  23. Michigan (February 23, 1911)
  24. Iowa (February 24, 1911)
  25. Kansas (March 2, 1911)
  26. Missouri (March 16, 1911)
  27. Maine (March 31, 1911)
  28. Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
  29. Arkansas (April 22, 1911), after having previously rejected the amendment
  30. Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
  31. New York (July 12, 1911)
  32. Arizona (April 3, 1912)
  33. Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
  34. Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
  35. West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
  36. New Mexico (February 3, 1913)
Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by New Mexico. The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two of the forty-eight then existing:
37. Delaware (February 3, 1913) 38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913) 39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913) 40. Vermont (February 19, 1913) 41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913) 42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913), after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911 The following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently ratifying it:
  1. Connecticut
  2. Florida (rejected the amendment after it had already been ratified by three-fourths of the states)
  3. Rhode Island
  4. Utah
The following states never took up the proposed amendment:
  1. Pennsylvania
  2. Virginia
 

medicineman

New Member
Either way, the constitution also says they are to be apportioned.

Please show me. [ without apportionment among the several states, ]
Apportionment:
The legal term apportionment (French apportionement; Med. Latin apportionamentum; derived from Latin portio, share) means distribution or allotment in proper shares.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Amendment XVI (1913)

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 of enumeration.
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
 

medicineman

New Member
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
Here you go VI:
Income, refers to consumption opportunity gained by an entity within a specified time frame, which is generally expressed in monetary terms.[1] However, for households and individuals, "income is the sum of all the wages, salaries, profits, interests payments, rents and other forms of earnings received... in a given period of time."[2] For firms, income generally refers to net-profit: what remains of revenue after expenses have been subtracted.[3] In the field of public economics, it may refer to the accumulation of both monetary and non-monetary consumption ability, the former being used as a proxy for total income.[1]
The International Accounting Standards Board uses this definition:
 

ViRedd

New Member
Yes ... like I said ... economic slavery.

Now then, is what you posted above actually law, or is it IRS administrative code that is treated and acted upon as if it were the law? If it was enacted as law, you would be able to find it in the Federal Register. To date, I don't believe that anyone has. This is the reason Irwin Schiff started filing "zero" returns showing zero income.

Vi
 

Cannabox

Well-Known Member
they can't jail everyone, cause it costs tax dollars to do it. think about that ;)

ps, the DMV/BMV whatever imposes these same kind of "laws" that aren't really laws, but since you signed a contract when you got your license you agreed to their terms.
 

NeoAnarchist

Well-Known Member
i can understand what both u guys are saying, and actually he is right about there not being an actual law stating what it is, and how income could not be defined. We dont have to pay taxes, because there is no law saying we do, but if we were to not pay taxes, the economy would crash, do u get what they are asking, they do not want the contry to fail and the markets fall because our taxes pay for our living, work buildings, houses, schools, roads, city labor, street lights, things we do just pay for, the government pays for it, because we as a society do not just fork over money for pot holes, its takin from our taxes and used as needed. but i can also understand the anger coming from having to pay taxes, but you also get taxes back. its not a law to pay taxes, its just the right thing to do, if we are build in a country............but then again, im high, and if china(one of the biggest societies) doesnt pay taxes, then i think im gonna have to start putting -0- in my tax forms, or just keep doing my taxes so i can get my money back.
 

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
Med ... you still haven't explain why the people reacted as they did in the video ... if you are right ... why didn't they site the things you did when asked? Why the bully approach? Why couldn't the IRS do as you did when asked? If there is a law would it be a simple matter to produce it? Why couldn't the great tax attorney site the law when offer $50G to do so?

What's up with that? :confused:
 

Cannabox

Well-Known Member
and if china(one of the biggest societies) doesnt pay taxes, then i think im gonna have to start putting -0- in my tax forms, or just keep doing my taxes so i can get my money back.
ya but man.. china has ALOT of problems..
i agree though, i dont wanna pay income tax, we pay so much sales tax that is taxed over and over again all the way down the line...
they COULD MANAGE THEIR MONEY BETTER.. o did i say that outloud.. my bad..
 

joepro

Well-Known Member
We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc. is a 501(c)( 3) organization, established November 24, 1997. They filed a People’s Petition for Redress claiming that the United States government has violated the U.S. Constitution seven times, as Bob Schulz, founder and chairman of the organization, explained.
“In July 2004, almost 2,000 Americans filed a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. Government seeking to have the federal judiciary declare—for the first time in history—the constitutional meaning of the First Amendment petition clause, including the right of the people to enforce the Right of Petition if Redress is denied,” Schulz explained, as he recited a passage from one of his statements published on his company’s website. “We the people believe the Right to Petition is, in fact, the capstone right of the Bill of Rights and that its effect is the direct exercise of popular sovereignty—the first grand right of the Founding documents that declares government is the servant of man.”
Schulz argues, as he has also indicated on his company’s website that “the right to petition is the profound, peaceful and constitutional solution that will save our Republic and restore constitutional order to our nation.” During a recent telephone interview between Schulz and this news correspondent in August, he explained, “the only course of redress we’re seeking is to have our elected representatives answer the questions that we’ve submitted in the Petition to Redress Grievance in June 2008.” “We’ve given the government 40 days to respond to our Redress, but still no response.”


“The constitution declares, that a capitation tax is a direct tax; and both in theory and practice, a tax on land is deemed to be a direct tax... The provision was made in favor of the southern states; they possessed a large number of slaves; they had extensive tracts of territory, thinly settled, and not very productive. A majority of the states had but few slaves, and several of them a limited territory, well settled, and in a high state of cultivation. The southern states, if no provision had been introduced in the constitution, would have been wholly at the mercy of the other states. Congress in such case, might tax slaves, at discretion or arbitrarily, and land in every part of the Union, after the same rate or measure: so much a head, in the first instance, and so much an acre, in the second. To guard them against imposition, in these particulars, was the reason of introducing the clause in the constitution,” according to the Columbia Law Review and written by Supreme Court Justice William Paterson in Hylton v. US (3US 171 1796)

............In 1894 Congress passed an income tax act very similar to very similar to the current income tax law. However that law was challenged on the basis that a tax on income is a direct tax, the United States Constitution requires direct taxes to be apportioned. Based on this fact, the United States Supreme Court agreed and held the income tax act was unconstitutional. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. Reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895).

The Sixteenth Amendment reads: “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,”
 

medicineman

New Member
We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc. is a 501(c)( 3) organization, established November 24, 1997. They filed a People’s Petition for Redress claiming that the United States government has violated the U.S. Constitution seven times, as Bob Schulz, founder and chairman of the organization, explained.
“In July 2004, almost 2,000 Americans filed a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. Government seeking to have the federal judiciary declare—for the first time in history—the constitutional meaning of the First Amendment petition clause, including the right of the people to enforce the Right of Petition if Redress is denied,” Schulz explained, as he recited a passage from one of his statements published on his company’s website. “We the people believe the Right to Petition is, in fact, the capstone right of the Bill of Rights and that its effect is the direct exercise of popular sovereignty—the first grand right of the Founding documents that declares government is the servant of man.”
Schulz argues, as he has also indicated on his company’s website that “the right to petition is the profound, peaceful and constitutional solution that will save our Republic and restore constitutional order to our nation.” During a recent telephone interview between Schulz and this news correspondent in August, he explained, “the only course of redress we’re seeking is to have our elected representatives answer the questions that we’ve submitted in the Petition to Redress Grievance in June 2008.” “We’ve given the government 40 days to respond to our Redress, but still no response.”


“The constitution declares, that a capitation tax is a direct tax; and both in theory and practice, a tax on land is deemed to be a direct tax... The provision was made in favor of the southern states; they possessed a large number of slaves; they had extensive tracts of territory, thinly settled, and not very productive. A majority of the states had but few slaves, and several of them a limited territory, well settled, and in a high state of cultivation. The southern states, if no provision had been introduced in the constitution, would have been wholly at the mercy of the other states. Congress in such case, might tax slaves, at discretion or arbitrarily, and land in every part of the Union, after the same rate or measure: so much a head, in the first instance, and so much an acre, in the second. To guard them against imposition, in these particulars, was the reason of introducing the clause in the constitution,” according to the Columbia Law Review and written by Supreme Court Justice William Paterson in Hylton v. US (3US 171 1796)

............In 1894 Congress passed an income tax act very similar to very similar to the current income tax law. However that law was challenged on the basis that a tax on income is a direct tax, the United States Constitution requires direct taxes to be apportioned. Based on this fact, the United States Supreme Court agreed and held the income tax act was unconstitutional. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. Reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895).

The Sixteenth Amendment reads: “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,”
Looks like the supreme court couldn't enforce the law. Tasking the U.S. government with lawbreaking when it would cut off its huge revenue flow, seems to be a mighty big task for the justices, they just couldn't "Get-er-done". So accept the tax and get over it, forget about Hamilton, jefferson, Madison etc, they're dead and stinkin. that was then, this is now.
 

Jacksum

New Member
So many people don't pay their taxes, you might as well just take your chances and not pay them. They go after big fish, or use the IRS when they cannot nail you some other way. If DHS KNOWS you're doing something wrong, but cannot seem to nab you for your crime, but notice you're evading taxes etc as well, thats how they will get you.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
GrowRebel, even if there isn't a law, the IRS (which is a Federal Police Agency with a Lot of People that Have Guns) says it is the law, and they can royally fuck up your life by freezing your assets, and garnishing your wages.

Even if they ARE WRONG they can do these things, until you can convince a jury that they are wrong.
 

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
I've already made it clear in my first post that the IRS has the guns ... the question is ... do they have the law?

Here's something else for you to consider ... those of you that like to pull his argument(s) apart ... that understand what he is saying ... :confused:

The Great Income Tax Hoax


 

chuckbane

New Member
economic slavery.
You have used that "term" so much it has lost its value.

Vi, when you die do you believe that all the money you have and all the material items you have are going to make your deathbed easy?

What does it matter on how high you stack?

Doesn't helping others and making the overall quality of life for everyone better mean anything to you?
 

ilkhan

Well-Known Member
Its not about keeping it we leave this world just like we came in, nekkid. But I would like to leave my house or my old car to my kids without them having to sell half the shit off to pay there taxes on it. As far as personal income tax goes its part of the Federal reserve system its what the government put in place to pay back its loans. Stop barrowing money no need for income tax. Anyway If income tax was abolished today it would put us back to about 2001 spending levels I hear.

But MedicinMan is right this is today not back in the day. And as long as we gotta police the world hand money out to all the nations we give money to, and all the big fat government programs that Obama will expand not to mention hundreds of billions in bailouts we will never be able to do away with economic slavery. So do as Medicineman says just forget about the Founding Fathers and what they put there asses on the line for bendover grit your teath and take it, take it, thats right.. you like it.

Helping others Chuck If I wanted to help others I damn sure wouldn't be letting the government do it. And I damn sure don't want to "help" others at gun point. Cause thats what we are really talkin' about here. You don't do your moral obligation the government says you have to, we throw your ass in prison. Thats Charity I can get behind.
 
Top