ViRedd
New Member
Of course it means something to me, Chuck. That's why I generously donate time and money to charity and to my church.
Vi
Is There A Law To Pay Taxes?
- Thread starter GrowRebel
- Start date
Vi
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
Yeah folks ... but the question still remains ... is there a law ... in the video with Schiff he talks about codes and where with all ... a lot of shit that I can't hang with ... I mean talking numbers is not up my alley ... I fall asleep just a few minutes into the video ... has anyone watched it that can tell if he's talking shit or has hit on to something ... in his trial he was not allowed to submitted evidence that would back his case ... he didn't get a fair trial ... why?
Can't anyone answer the question who believes there is a law?
Can't anyone answer the question who believes there is a law?
ViRedd
New Member
^^^ GR ...
I have a lot of Schiff's books and his audio tapes. He has proved over and over that there is no law that requires the payment of income taxes on a person's labor and that the 16th Amendment was intended to tax corporate profit.
The first time, he was nailed for failure to file. The second time, he was nailed for filing "zero" returns. In other words, he just put zeros in the spaces that "require" transferring the income information from a 1099 or from a W-2.
Bottom line ... Irwin Schiff is in jail for the second time. Both times, he was tried in the federal tax court, in front of federal judges and prosecuted by a federal prosecutor. Schiff's jury listened to the lies of the government and not the logic of Schiff.
As part of his sentence, he was ordered to stop selling his books and tapes.
Think Soviet Union.
Vi
I have a lot of Schiff's books and his audio tapes. He has proved over and over that there is no law that requires the payment of income taxes on a person's labor and that the 16th Amendment was intended to tax corporate profit.
The first time, he was nailed for failure to file. The second time, he was nailed for filing "zero" returns. In other words, he just put zeros in the spaces that "require" transferring the income information from a 1099 or from a W-2.
Bottom line ... Irwin Schiff is in jail for the second time. Both times, he was tried in the federal tax court, in front of federal judges and prosecuted by a federal prosecutor. Schiff's jury listened to the lies of the government and not the logic of Schiff.
As part of his sentence, he was ordered to stop selling his books and tapes.
Think Soviet Union.
Vi
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
Vi ... I understand where you are coming from ... I just would like to hear from someone who thinks Schiff is full of it to come forward and debate the issue where us dummies that don't get it ... can come to a better understanding of what's going on ... the IRS seems to have not been able to prove him wrong ... they simply won't allow him to provide evidence to prove he is right ... but if someone can dispute his points in a way all can understand ... I would like to hear it ... Is there anyone out there that can?
medicineman
New Member
Other than it being illegal which it "isn't", what was the points that needed debating. Yes the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional, but obviously, the government didn't pay much attention to the court, so let's examine this. Say the government says, yes it is illegal and passes a new law. Would they then have to give back all the money they've collected since the courts declared it unconstitutional? Does anyone have any Idea how much that would be? The possibility of the government ever relinquishing it's "right" to collect income taxes are pretty slim-to-none. You people that have to pay income tax need to get over it and pay up,~LOL~. Hear this VI? Pay up suckers. Oh, BTW I need a raise in my SS, would you guys like to volunteer to do away with the cap on SS witholdings,~LOL~.Vi ... I understand where you are coming from ... I just would like to hear from someone who thinks Schiff is full of it to come forward and debate the issue where us dummies that don't get it ... can come to a better understanding of what's going on ... the IRS seems to have not been able to prove him wrong ... they simply won't allow him to provide evidence to prove he is right ... but if someone can dispute his points in a way all can understand ... I would like to hear it ... Is there anyone out there that can?
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
No, because SS like Income Tax should be abolished.
In the Real World, such a scheme would be labeled a Ponzi Scheme, and the executives, and Board thrown in jail for fraud.
Income Tax on the other hand, why should I ever be satisfied to pay it. I'm not a sheep, and I'm not about to dance to the any one's tune, but my own.
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
The main point and argument ... is there a law? ... those court rulings you mention are just another point ... if you don't agree with Schiff ... is there anything in his video that is bullshit that you can point out to those of us that don't get it?
I mean he sights a lot of codes and what not ... and for folks like me it sound like .... blah blah ... blah ... blah, blah, blah ... I'm sure the government would and does go out of it's way to make sure we continue to pay taxes ... I doubt there would be a give back either ...
But knowledge is power ... if more people understood this ... we would be in a much better position ...
medicineman
New Member
But knowledge is power ... if more people understood this ... we would be in a much better position ...
Lights, camera, action!
Lights, camera, action!
Picasso345
Well-Known Member
But there is a law you whack jobs.
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm
And Schiff has actually been convicted three times now: http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv06098.htm
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm
And Schiff has actually been convicted three times now: http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv06098.htm
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
The links you gave doesn't provide any proof that there is a law ... and Schiff went to jail two times ... because he was not allow to present evidence to prove there is no law ... that is the only reason he is in jail ... so your theory doesn't address what Schiff sited in the video ...
... so the only whack job around here is you ...
... so the only whack job around here is you ...
ViRedd
New Member
26 U.S.C. § 61 [G]ross 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;
. . .
My source of income would be derived from investing some of the fruit from my labors, the profit from which, I would owe an "income" tax on. How can I owe an "income" tax on something that has not yet been derived?
Take a look at item #3, for example. If I had a rental property and only broke even at the end of the tax year, the federal government wouldn't charge me an "income" tax on the property itself, right? If I have a profit from the property at the end of the year, then I would certainly owe an "income" tax on that investment because I have "derived" a profit from that investment.
Same thing holds true for wages, fees and commissions charged for services. If some of these funds were invested, and those investments turned a profit, well ... there would be an "income" tax due because there has been an income "derived" from the wages, fees and commissions.
Read the post over again ... it says:
"Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions..."
Compensation for services, including fees, commissions and wages, for example, is the "source" and as long as an income (profit) is not "derived" from that source, there is no tax due.
Of course, trying to explain that to an IRS tax auditor, IRS attorney, or the IRS tax court would be like talking to a cement wall. If they would ever allow that argument to stand, the entire house of cards we call the Central Government and it's welfare state would crumble in a nano-second, along with the power of a lot of self interested people.
Vi
(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;
. . .
My source of income would be derived from investing some of the fruit from my labors, the profit from which, I would owe an "income" tax on. How can I owe an "income" tax on something that has not yet been derived?
Take a look at item #3, for example. If I had a rental property and only broke even at the end of the tax year, the federal government wouldn't charge me an "income" tax on the property itself, right? If I have a profit from the property at the end of the year, then I would certainly owe an "income" tax on that investment because I have "derived" a profit from that investment.
Same thing holds true for wages, fees and commissions charged for services. If some of these funds were invested, and those investments turned a profit, well ... there would be an "income" tax due because there has been an income "derived" from the wages, fees and commissions.
Read the post over again ... it says:
"Gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions..."
Compensation for services, including fees, commissions and wages, for example, is the "source" and as long as an income (profit) is not "derived" from that source, there is no tax due.
Of course, trying to explain that to an IRS tax auditor, IRS attorney, or the IRS tax court would be like talking to a cement wall. If they would ever allow that argument to stand, the entire house of cards we call the Central Government and it's welfare state would crumble in a nano-second, along with the power of a lot of self interested people.
Vi
Picasso345
Well-Known Member
Yikes. You folks are in deep. Good luck with that.
Jointsmith
Well-Known Member
Ha ha, 'Police the World'..... and then you wonder why we all hate your country so much (every one wants you the fuck out of their country dumb ass.....they call that an 'occupation'....like the Nazi's did remember).
I can see why people would take issue paying for illegal wars and banker bail-outs when people are dying because they can afford housing or healthcare.
People in every Society 'should' be paying taxes. Just as every govenment 'should' be looking out for the best interests of all of its citizens.
As long as the Sheeple want to keep their noses clean nothing is going to change.
People need to find some passion.
medicineman
New Member
Ha ha, 'Police the World'..... and then you wonder why we all hate your country so much (every one wants you the fuck out of their country dumb ass.....they call that an 'occupation'....like the Nazi's did remember).
Although this is a little crass, it is the absolute truth. No-one wants our big hand on their government. Profit for all the corporations is what drives this insane foriegn policy. The failure of the American people to see that this is the case is what allows this to continue. It is objective ignorance by the people and subjective activism by our government and the corporations that keeps us indentured to this slave system. I would be more than happy to pay my share of taxes if I had a say in their expenditure, like actually helping the less fortunate, ensuring that no child went to bed without food or adequate shelter, etc.. But this is not the case. The oligarcic plutochracy that is now in charge of our government, uses the money to police foriegn lands and start wars for profit, while securing the natural resources and cheap labor for US corporations. I realize that I keep repeating this over and over on this forum, maybe someone will see the correctness of my observations and next time they vote, keep this premis in mind. I am only one voice in the wilderness.
Although this is a little crass, it is the absolute truth. No-one wants our big hand on their government. Profit for all the corporations is what drives this insane foriegn policy. The failure of the American people to see that this is the case is what allows this to continue. It is objective ignorance by the people and subjective activism by our government and the corporations that keeps us indentured to this slave system. I would be more than happy to pay my share of taxes if I had a say in their expenditure, like actually helping the less fortunate, ensuring that no child went to bed without food or adequate shelter, etc.. But this is not the case. The oligarcic plutochracy that is now in charge of our government, uses the money to police foriegn lands and start wars for profit, while securing the natural resources and cheap labor for US corporations. I realize that I keep repeating this over and over on this forum, maybe someone will see the correctness of my observations and next time they vote, keep this premis in mind. I am only one voice in the wilderness.
Jointsmith
Well-Known Member
Any money which one earns working (less their own expences) is profit......
Time and energy doesn't have a FISCAL value unless..... someone is paying you for it.......in which case this is PROFIT... and therefore an Income (and should be taxed).
I mean I can understand refusing to pay taxes because you don't agree with where the money's going, but I don't really think you can argue that you should be entitled to be part of society, but not have to contribute to it.
I can think of a great way to avoid paying taxes!!!!
DON'T USE MONEY!!!
Grow your own food..... generate your own power..... refine your own fuel (from vegetable oil...it can be done).... dig your own well..... dig your own cespit..... whatever.
I bet it would cost you a lot more in Time and Energy than you're currently paying...... but 40% of $0 is.......$0! no taxes!! Woop! you win.
ViRedd
New Member
When you work for an employer, the employer writes off the cost of your labor against his/her income taxes as a cost of doing business, right? By the same token, a free man should be able to write off the cost of his own labor against his income taxes as well. A profit is not made from personal labor exchanged for commissions, wages or fees charged for that labor ... its an even exchange ... the labor exchanged for the money received.
When government taxes a portion of a citizen's labor, government owns the portion of labor that is taxed. What would you call a system whereby a portion of one's labor is owned by another entity? There is a term for it, you know. The most apt term I can find is "slavery."
The income tax on labor is set at an amount that is just below the revolt level. At what point of this partial slavery would you revolt? 50%? 70%? 90%? There are some of us, patriots really, who have recognized exactly what the tax on our labor really is ... and we find ANY amount to be revolting.
Vi
Picasso345
Well-Known Member
You are wrong in so many ways.
Some protestors claim that requiring people to pay income tax amounts to slavery and is therefore forbidden by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
This argument is absurd. The slavery that was previously practised in the United States, and that is banned by the 13th Amendment, was a far cry from taxation.
Under slavery, the master owned the slave, controlled where the slave lived, and controlled what the slave was required to do -- usually work in the master's home or the master's fields.
Under taxation, people are free to live wherever they want and do whatever kind of work they want. Yes, they have to pay a portion of their income in taxes, but that's quite different from being told where to live and what work to do.
So taxation is very different from slavery.
Some protestors nonetheless argue that taxation is slavery because, in their definition, slavery is any "non-ownership of ones Person and Labor." By this definition, unless you're entitled to keep 100% of the fruits of your labor, you are (at least partially) a slave.
The first thing to notice about this definition is that they made it up. That's not what you will find if you look up "slave" or "slavery" in a dictionary. It's certainly not the definition of the term "slavery" as used in the Constitution's 13th Amendment.
Of course, if you just make up the definition, you can make slavery anything you want. I could say that "slavery" is "any situation in which I'm forced to do something I don't want to do," in which case having to wait at a red light when I want to keep going amounts to "slavery." Obviously, that definition would be ridiculous.
The fundamental problem with these made-up definitions is that they ignore the fact that some restraints on freedom are consistent with, and indeed essential to, the concept of a free society. Because humans live in society, they can never have complete freedom to do absolutely anything they want.
For example, society has to decide collectively whether people will drive on the right side of the road or the left side. Imagine what driving would be like if everyone decided this point individually. In order to be free to drive, we have to give up our freedom to decide which side of the road to drive on.
Similarly, it would be nice if you could just take anything you wanted. But if everyone else could do the same thing, we'd have to spend all our time guarding our property. To be free to enjoy our property, we have to give up our freedom to take the property of others.
So some restraint on freedom is essential to freedom itself. That's why there's a saying that laws are "the wise restraints that make us free."
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.
Of course, many people believe that the government takes too much in taxes and spends the money on foolish things. Doubtless that is at least partly true. But that doesn't transform taxation into slavery.
And again, it has no bearing on the meaning of the term "slavery" in the Constitution.
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/slavery.htm
Some protestors claim that requiring people to pay income tax amounts to slavery and is therefore forbidden by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.
This argument is absurd. The slavery that was previously practised in the United States, and that is banned by the 13th Amendment, was a far cry from taxation.
Under slavery, the master owned the slave, controlled where the slave lived, and controlled what the slave was required to do -- usually work in the master's home or the master's fields.
Under taxation, people are free to live wherever they want and do whatever kind of work they want. Yes, they have to pay a portion of their income in taxes, but that's quite different from being told where to live and what work to do.
So taxation is very different from slavery.
Some protestors nonetheless argue that taxation is slavery because, in their definition, slavery is any "non-ownership of ones Person and Labor." By this definition, unless you're entitled to keep 100% of the fruits of your labor, you are (at least partially) a slave.
The first thing to notice about this definition is that they made it up. That's not what you will find if you look up "slave" or "slavery" in a dictionary. It's certainly not the definition of the term "slavery" as used in the Constitution's 13th Amendment.
Of course, if you just make up the definition, you can make slavery anything you want. I could say that "slavery" is "any situation in which I'm forced to do something I don't want to do," in which case having to wait at a red light when I want to keep going amounts to "slavery." Obviously, that definition would be ridiculous.
The fundamental problem with these made-up definitions is that they ignore the fact that some restraints on freedom are consistent with, and indeed essential to, the concept of a free society. Because humans live in society, they can never have complete freedom to do absolutely anything they want.
For example, society has to decide collectively whether people will drive on the right side of the road or the left side. Imagine what driving would be like if everyone decided this point individually. In order to be free to drive, we have to give up our freedom to decide which side of the road to drive on.
Similarly, it would be nice if you could just take anything you wanted. But if everyone else could do the same thing, we'd have to spend all our time guarding our property. To be free to enjoy our property, we have to give up our freedom to take the property of others.
So some restraint on freedom is essential to freedom itself. That's why there's a saying that laws are "the wise restraints that make us free."
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.
Of course, many people believe that the government takes too much in taxes and spends the money on foolish things. Doubtless that is at least partly true. But that doesn't transform taxation into slavery.
And again, it has no bearing on the meaning of the term "slavery" in the Constitution.
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/slavery.htm
When you work for an employer, the employer writes off the cost of your labor against his/her income taxes as a cost of doing business, right? By the same token, a free man should be able to write off the cost of his own labor against his income taxes as well. A profit is not made from personal labor exchanged for commissions, wages or fees charged for that labor ... its an even exchange ... the labor exchanged for the money received.
When government taxes a portion of a citizen's labor, government owns the portion of labor that is taxed. What would you call a system whereby a portion of one's labor is owned by another entity? There is a term for it, you know. The most apt term I can find is "slavery."
The income tax on labor is set at an amount that is just below the revolt level. At what point of this partial slavery would you revolt? 50%? 70%? 90%? There are some of us, patriots really, who have recognized exactly what the tax on our labor really is ... and we find ANY amount to be revolting.
Vi
medicineman
New Member
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.
What a flawed statement. How could one write off what he recieves as compensation, as expences? A total oxymoron.