POLL: Income Tax

Would you pay an income tax if there was no law forcing you to?

  • YES

    Votes: 5 14.7%

  • NO

    Votes: 29 85.3%
  • Total voters
    34
Mr Neutron

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
Charlie Ventura said:
OK, now we have to define exactly what a "resident alien" is. Many tax protesters define a resident alien as one who resides in Washington D.C., where the Congress has jurisdiction. What say the rest of you?
Click to expand...
I believe residents of DC are US citizens, not resident aliens.
Also, the statement "income from wages" is misleading. Income from wages means; if I pay my self-employed contractors $8/hr but charge my customer $9/hr, that is $1/hr profit from wages and is subject to income tax. The $8/hr that my contractors earn as wages is only taxable if they are resident aliens.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Here is the thing, if you are a business you get taxed on your PROFITS, not on all the money coming in. In certain lines of work you might have 10 million coming in and 9.8 million going out resulting in a profit of $200k in a year. If Businesses were taxed the same way individuals were (say 30%) then the business would owe $3 million in taxes on that year, in essence going bankrupt the first year with a deficit of $2.8 Million. Why don't I get to deduct all my groceries, all my electrical, all my fuel, the WHOLE house payment not just interest, and then depreciate any of my person due to aging?

I OWN myself, not some IRS Goon who is hell bent on finding ways to make me pay what is rightfully mine, Thieves act no differently.
 
Prefontaine

Prefontaine

Well-Known Member
Mupphet.Man said:
The U.S. Mail Service should be included. (Constitutionally legal) Therefore you also need to account for a way for the service to do its duties, (roads). At one time that was a purely Federal matter, should it be again? If not, how much of the current services provided by the Fed. Gov't would you propose the state gov'ts take over? Then, if it is unlawful to have an income tax (Aaron Russo) - and you weren't paying your Fed, why would you pay your state? Lol - Who the fuck is going to fix the roads, dude? There are other vital services that you take for granted, that would disappear. The problem with neo-conservatism in respect to socio-economics is that neo-conservatives assume there are enough good people out there to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves. The truth is, and if you're a drug user, drug dealer, drug manufactorer, then you know it already, is that people are selfish. So, that leaves: let the weak die and the strong live, ok then, but what about small children, could you be the dude saying that then? Not me... Sorry to get on a tangent here, but I thought why not a little debate.
Click to expand...
WTF? The point of "neo-conservatism" is that we have pletny of money to provide all the services our government needs to provide, the problem is all the wasteful ways in which we spend money,

there is no income tax law,

and there is no law anywhere that allows the regulations of the federal government to trump the laws of a state, in fact nullification is a power all states have that allows them to pass any law that contradicts federal law and automatically trumps the federal law within that state.

the real issue is that nobody believes that they have these rights, none of our representatives namely christina gregoire will stand up and use these rights because they are to eager to move up to the "administration" and get a cozy job in DC which you cant get by standing up for the citizens of your own state.

REVOLUTION NOW!
 
M

maylee

Member
Prefontaine said:
china is still getting that money from all the interest payments from us and the many others they have bailed out
Click to expand...
Who has China bailed out? They are accruing around .25% interest on the US Treasuries they purchased in the last few years. They have not spent any of it as far as I know. They were talking about buying some Greek debt. I don't know if they have actually bought anything from the Greeks.
 
R

redivider

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Here is the thing, if you are a business you get taxed on your PROFITS, not on all the money coming in. In certain lines of work you might have 10 million coming in and 9.8 million going out resulting in a profit of $200k in a year. If Businesses were taxed the same way individuals were (say 30%) then the business would owe $3 million in taxes on that year, in essence going bankrupt the first year with a deficit of $2.8 Million. Why don't I get to deduct all my groceries, all my electrical, all my fuel, the WHOLE house payment not just interest, and then depreciate any of my person due to aging?

I OWN myself, not some IRS Goon who is hell bent on finding ways to make me pay what is rightfully mine, Thieves act no differently.
Click to expand...
here's where you can tell where the educated few are.... a company is not taxed on profits. it is taxed on net income adjusted to a cash basis.

for example, a company reports income when it is earned, not when it is received. i sell something worth 1,000,000 dollars that costs 200,000. i get paid 100,000 dollars now and the rest is to be paid over time. i EARNED 800,000 profit. i don't get taxed for the 800,000, because i haven't received it yet.... you know what... nvmind.... go to college, sit through 4 hours a week of tax courses for 2 years, learn it yourself....

and if you would know anything, companies experiencing LOSSES are not taxed anything. in fact, they enjoy tax benefits to the rate of an equivalent of the rate they would pay.

for example, if i belonged to the tax bracket that paid 20% income last year. and this year i reported a net loss, the government gives me a tax credit of 20%, to reduce my losses by 20%. in the ridiculous and erronous example you used, a company experiencing a loss of 2.8 million dollars would enjoy a tax BENEFIT of 30% of the loss, or they would receive 840,000 from the government. they would not have to pay jack shit....

so basically a company can NEVER blame losses on income taxes. the only companies that pay income taxes are those who experience net INCOMES. companies with NET LOSSES NEVER PAY INCOME TAXES. THEY REPORT TAX BENEFITS WHICH LOWERS THEIR TOTAL LOSS.

any other falsehood you want to spread around???
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
redivider said:
here's where you can tell where the educated few are.... a company is not taxed on profits. it is taxed on net income adjusted to a cash basis.

for example, a company reports income when it is earned, not when it is received. i sell something worth 1,000,000 dollars that costs 200,000. i get paid 100,000 dollars now and the rest is to be paid over time. i EARNED 800,000 profit. i don't get taxed for the 800,000, because i haven't received it yet.... you know what... nvmind.... go to college, sit through 4 hours a week of tax courses for 2 years, learn it yourself....

and if you would know anything, companies experiencing LOSSES are not taxed anything. in fact, they enjoy tax benefits to the rate of an equivalent of the rate they would pay.

for example, if i belonged to the tax bracket that paid 20% income last year. and this year i reported a net loss, the government gives me a tax credit of 20%, to reduce my losses by 20%. in the ridiculous and erronous example you used, a company experiencing a loss of 2.8 million dollars would enjoy a tax BENEFIT of 30% of the loss, or they would receive 840,000 from the government. they would not have to pay jack shit....

so basically a company can NEVER blame losses on income taxes. the only companies that pay income taxes are those who experience net INCOMES. companies with NET LOSSES NEVER PAY INCOME TAXES. THEY REPORT TAX BENEFITS WHICH LOWERS THEIR TOTAL LOSS.

any other falsehood you want to spread around???
Click to expand...
They are called capital gains tax. You both are talking about the same thing. ND is talking about why it's unfair that he can't do the same on his individual taxes.

A capital gains tax (CGT) is a tax charged on capital gains, the profit realized on the sale of a non-inventory asset that was purchased at a lower price. The most common capital gains are realized from the sale of stocks, bonds, precious metals and property. Not all countries implement a capital gains tax and most have different rates of taxation for individuals and corporations.
Click to expand...
NoDrama: You have to remember. The people who own these businesses are actually taxed twice, which makes your argument of how your unfairly treated moot. The people who own the business have to pay capital gains taxes, then they have to take their personal income home and pay their income tax the same way you do. They could just take a company account and skip their personal income, but then they get hit with tax evasion and embezzlement.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
redivider said:
here's where you can tell where the educated few are.... a company is not taxed on profits. it is taxed on net income adjusted to a cash basis.

for example, a company reports income when it is earned, not when it is received. i sell something worth 1,000,000 dollars that costs 200,000. i get paid 100,000 dollars now and the rest is to be paid over time. i EARNED 800,000 profit. i don't get taxed for the 800,000, because i haven't received it yet.... you know what... nvmind.... go to college, sit through 4 hours a week of tax courses for 2 years, learn it yourself....

and if you would know anything, companies experiencing LOSSES are not taxed anything. in fact, they enjoy tax benefits to the rate of an equivalent of the rate they would pay.

for example, if i belonged to the tax bracket that paid 20% income last year. and this year i reported a net loss, the government gives me a tax credit of 20%, to reduce my losses by 20%. in the ridiculous and erronous example you used, a company experiencing a loss of 2.8 million dollars would enjoy a tax BENEFIT of 30% of the loss, or they would receive 840,000 from the government. they would not have to pay jack shit....

so basically a company can NEVER blame losses on income taxes. the only companies that pay income taxes are those who experience net INCOMES. companies with NET LOSSES NEVER PAY INCOME TAXES. THEY REPORT TAX BENEFITS WHICH LOWERS THEIR TOTAL LOSS.

any other falsehood you want to spread around???
Click to expand...
Well its settled then, you are in 100% complete agreement with me when I say that Businesses do not get taxed like individuals then. I always appreciate the help.

Of course you completely missed the entire point didn't you? In fact you tried to turn it into an argument about something else. But well enough that you actually agree with my point (Simplified for those people who didn't spend their formative years stuck in a room with a manual of Tax instruction like yourself) that businesses get treated better than actual citizens when it comes to taxes. Taxation on wages is nothing more than slavery. If I decide to work for things, like food and board, the government cannot tax me, but If I work for the unit of exchange instead, I get taxed.

BTW Companies and Businesses don't really pay a tax anyway, all increases or taxes are ultimately born by the consumer. If taxes go up, prices go up. Ultimately the citizen pays for everything, with wealth transfers from one sector to the next building up before finally emptying into government coffers to be mostly wasted.
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
HighLowGrow said:


There is no such law. Never said there was.

"All wages are included in gross income for purposes of determining federal income tax liability, and are also subject to federal employment taxes."

This ^^ is copy and pasted from the IRS site. Not my words.

I think the whole tax system is bogus. My wife and I are both self employed and we MAKE our taxable income so low we hardly pay anything.

Wages are not profit, they are a direct exchange of labor for money. Think of your labor as a product and all you are doing is bartering your labor for an item of equal value, which in this instance is currency. I OWN my labor.

I agree with you here, but try arguing your OPINION with the IRS. Can you quote anything from the 70k pages of the IRS code saying "wages are not profit, they are a direct exchange of labor for money." >> Therefore not taxable.

I assume your arguing wages are not taxable. Again, ^^ read the second sentence straight off the IRS site.

I'm not disagreeing with you bud. The IRS plays dirty and by their "rules".
Click to expand...
Yes there is.

Title 26-
Sections 1, 61, and 63 impose the tax,
Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and
Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return.

All laid out here:

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm
 
Nice Ol Bud

Nice Ol Bud

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
just send the irs a letter stating you don't have to pay income taxes.

feel free to learn what a "frivolous return" is. expensive lesson to learn.
Click to expand...
Thats why people need to get together and have a revolution.
This shit really needs to stop.
 
Mr Neutron

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
guy incognito said:
Yes there is.

Title 26-
Sections 1, 61, and 63 impose the tax,
Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and
Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return.

All laid out here:

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm
Click to expand...
This was brought up earlier in the thread, perhaps you missed it. Nowhere does it say "wages". "Income" is a profit from a capital investment. "Wages" are in exchange for labor.
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
Mr Neutron said:
This was brought up earlier in the thread, perhaps you missed it. Nowhere does it say "wages". "Income" is a profit from a capital investment. "Wages" are in exchange for labor.
Click to expand...

§ 61. Gross income defined


(a) General definition Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross 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;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
Click to expand...
I don't understand the confusion. Seems pretty clearly to me.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
[SIZE=+1] Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955): [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1] "There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor." [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1] Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930): [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1] "The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support... it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services." [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1] Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969): [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1] "... whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essental feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income ... Congress has taxed income not compensation." [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1] Edwards (vs) Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916): [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1] "The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute." [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1] Lauderdale Cemetary Assoc. v. Mathews, 345 PA 239; 47 A. 2d 277, 280 (1946): [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1] "... reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit." [/SIZE]
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
The tax code doesn't tax profit, it taxes income. I'm not sure what those quotes from cases have to do with anything.

Also you owe taxes on things bartered whether that be wages or tangible goods.
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
Mr Neutron said:
Income is defined as profit.
Click to expand...
Not by the IRS.

§ 61. Gross income defined


(a) General definition Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross 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;
(
Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
Click to expand...


It is extremely clear that compensation for services is counted as income.
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Do you put a value on that wine and beer and food and then go on to pay a tax? Why not?
Click to expand...
Yes, you must claim fair market value.

Bartering is an exchange of property or services. You must include in your income, at the time received, the fair market value of property or services you receive in bartering. If you exchange services with another person and you both have agreed ahead of time on the value of the services, that value will be accepted as fair market value unless the value can be shown to be otherwise.
Click to expand...
And thus you must pay taxes on ANYTHING received in exchange for work.

You can usually not pay taxes because there is no paper trail, but legally you are required to pay tax on that just as you would cash income.
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
And for good measure "taxable income" is defined as:

§ 63. Taxable income defined

(a) In general Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top