STOP PAYING YOUR INCOME TAX!!

[DiggityBiggity]

First of all... everyone should and does pay taxes... it is specifically the income tax that is illegal

Secondly, that is because our labor is NOT defined as income... watch the video

[The Dark Side of Will]

Be sure to understand that it is the people who are making the argument that define it that way. We don't have enough evidence to say whether or not it can be commonly defined that way.

[DiggityBiggity]

Be sure to understand that it is the people who are making the argument that define it that way. We don't have enough evidence to say whether or not it can be commonly defined that way.

It's the supreme court who has defined it that way

[The Dark Side of Will]

It is ONE case among MANY that in which the supreme court has defined it that way. There may potentially be contradictions elsewhere in the body of case law.

[The Dark Side of Will]

http://www.originalintent.org/

Here's some MUCH more level-headed information about the tax legality issue.

He posits that the code, as written, is legal, but that slipping outside the system and becoming a non-taxpayer is both possible and legal.

Yes, he sells legal advice on how to do this. This is why his info is probably more trustworthy than that in the video that started this thread.

[The Dark Side of Will]

No further interest? I'm pretty interested in how to keep 30% more money in my pocket.

The basic idea he puts forward is that, unresolved issues of constitutionality aside, the tax code applies income tax only to Federal employees and interactions with the Federal goverment. By signing a taxpayer identifier number to any document related to taxation (like a W-2), you are certifying to the government that the proceeds from this labor are subject to income tax, whether they otherwise would be or not. Once you do this, it's perfectly legal for the IRS to take their cut and prosecute you if you don't give it.

However, since you as a private citizen working for a private sector firm are NOT a Federal employee and are NOT doing business directly with the government, your income is not subject to taxation... Except when you make it so by signing a tax document with a taxpayer identifier number and thereby identifying yourself to the IRS as a taxpayer and opening yourself up to all the vaguaries and abuses of the tax code.

[crzyone]

No further interest?

If I was American I'd be all over this.

[Series8217]

No further interest?

If I was American I'd be all over this.

Put you're not. PWNT! "OH SHIT A CANADIAN"


:la:

You're reaaalllyyy scraping the barrel with your postwhoring now, aren't you? :scratch:

[CincinnatiFiero]

Yeah it was 2am and bad, sorry.

[allWorkNoPlay]

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/

Read up. Have fun.

[The Dark Side of Will]

It's only 7000 pages. I'll have it done by Thursday.

[The Dark Side of Will]

I'll read that if you'll read this:

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/consttax.php

( It's a lot easier than the tax code :thumbleft: )

[The Dark Side of Will]

From: http://www.originalintent.org/edu/federalreg.php

Although today most Americans prefer to let the government "tell them" what is right or wrong, the US Supreme Court has held that it is the duty of each Citizen to determine for himself if the government actually has the authority it claims in any given situation. This dovetails perfectly with one of the founding principles of our form of government, which is that all government power is derived from the consent of the governed [that's you]. Since the government's authority to act is derived from the Citizens, there is no better person to determine the truth about the government's authority than you!

He also relates this story:

It should be kept in mind that the government routinely attempts to use a regulation for matters concerning which a regulation has no applicability.

Our editor was once called by friends who own a tanning salon. Not long after they opened, an FDA official visited their business and demanded to inspect the tanning beds. The owners (a husband and wife who are not Patriots) were taken aback and refused to allow the inspection. The official left saying that he would return at a later date. Our editor researched the FDA regulations for the owners and found that the only regulations promulgated on the subject of "tanning devices" dealt with tanning devices used for medical purposes. In other words, tanning devices used by a doctor's prescription, or administered directly by the doctor's staff. Obviously there was no regulatory authority for the FDA to inspect "recreational" tanning beds. The owners wrote a succinct letter to the FDA official informing him of his complete lack of jurisdiction to inspect the beds in their business. Two weeks later the official returned to their business and stated that if they did not allow the inspection right then, he would return later in the day with a team of armed US marshals and close their business down and take their 12 month-old infant (who was present at the business with them) into "protective custody". While the owners capitulated and allowed their beds to be inspected, the FDA official never presented any evidence of FDA jurisdiction. He simply used crude threats of violence to create fear and gain compliance.

Of course the underlying reality is that the FDA official was initially relying on the "medical" regulations until the owners called him to accountability on the issue. Once the official's misrepresentation was exposed, he chose the path so common to petty tyrants - he chose to toss the law out the window and use threats and coercion to accomplish what the law would not support.

The regulations can be a powerful tool, but one must recognize that courage is an essential element when facing a dishonest government.

Makes my blood boil.
Maybe I should have participated in this: http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDAT ... -11-18.htm

[darkhorizon]

Watch the video. The argument put forth is that "income" has been defined by a supreme court case to mean profit from corporate activity, NOT personal labor. A sub argument is that the tax code characterizes compliance as mandatory.

As I said above, they're probably seizing on the tiny portion of case law that supports their claim and ignoring the majority that does not, but that's the way such things are done.

Similar to my internet reputation, all it takes is one picture that someone can find something funny with, and I am instantly a target.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Well, the tax argument presented in the video that started this thread is poorly articulated at best, but essentially correct.

A point in the interpretation of the 16th ammendment is the definition of "income". This is far too flexible a term for use in a Constitution, which must retain a consistent unchanging meaning for all time. Therefore, when the question was raised, the Supreme Court declared that "income" as used in the 16th ammendment had the same meaning as "income" in a recent tax act, which dealt with corporate taxation.

Also, an aspect of applicability of tax legislation is that it only applies to tax payers (confirmed by Supreme Court decision cited at www.originalintent.org). Thus, when it says "all persons", the meaning is really "all taxpaying persons".

The third subterfuge of the tax code is that the definitions of employer, employee, wages, etc are NOT the dictionary definitions. However, the definitions are buried in places in the code far removed from where they are invoked, making the connection difficult to elucidate.

The upshot is that the tax code only commands compliance from those taking payments directly from the Federal government. All other compliance is voluntary. However, once you execute a W4, you certify that your pay IS taxable and make yourself liable to pay it and liable for prosecution for non-payment.

[DiggityBiggity]

Well, the tax argument presented in the video that started this thread is poorly articulated at best

Got two hours? This video is articulate

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8446177859

Got another two hours?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... rets&hl=en

There is part two...

[The Dark Side of Will]

Do you ever read? :thumbleft:

[DiggityBiggity]

Do you ever read? :thumbleft:

I do, why do you ask?

[crzyone]

Got two hours? This video is articulate

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8446177859

Wow, that is a great video. With guys like that pointing out all the flaws in the income tax system I'm surprised more people don't refuse to pay. All the research is already done and outlined.

I would still arm yourself and try to fully understand what he is saying. Sounds like the IRS is pretty ruthless.

Ron Paul 2012

[Unsafe At Any Speed]

Okay, if everyone stops paying income tax, won't they just raise other taxes to make up for it making everything more expensive for everybody regardless of income? I don't think that would turn out well.

Plus taxes are good because without them I wouldn't get paid. :thumbleft: