Happy Tax Day!
 

Tax Day greetings from Murray Rothbard.

"forms of that one weapon, that one act of the public which our rulers fear the most: tax rebellion, the cutting off the funds by which the host public is sapped to maintain the parasitic ruling classes."


We are in complete agreement on the taxation issue.

The thing I would like to see is the system simplifed so as to expose to every schmuck in the country exactly how much the income tax system is taking away from your lifestyle and personal wealth.

Lets discontinue withholding for 2 years. The masses would be amazed. The gov't would be fearful.

It has long been my personal belief that the current system is purposely designed to confuse the average American. If the tax rate is truly fair, lets not hide it under scads of BS.

Oddly enough, the *paying* of the tax is not nearly as irritating as the forms that you have to sign under threat of death or worse if you happen to screw up. Thats un American and we should change it.

I agree--I don't mind paying my fair share for government services. [Let's save the argument about what my fair share is for another time.] But it's beyond me how anybody could defend the tax code as it's currently structured.

Oh, wait it's not beyond me. The bureaucracy perpetuates itself. If all the complications disappeared, so would tons of IRS employees, not to mention the work that would be lot by accountants, publishers of tax books & software, etc. etc. etc.

By the way, I note that the President and Mrs. Bush had taxable income of $771,940 for 2002, and paid $268,719 in federal income taxes, a whopping 34.8% rate. What I wonder is: 1) how much NONTAXABLE income did they have? and 2) Did they tell their accountant to avoid saving a bunch of money for the sake of appearances?

only one complaint about my taxes
 

they send me a form saying how i can do my taxes on the phone if im eligible, but then the phone tells me that im not eligible to do it on the phone and heres another number i can call to get the forms that i need mailed to me in a week or 2.

for crying out loud, why cant they just send me the paper forms anyway!!!!?

okay thats off my chest

What boggles my mind are people that want a flat tax. Many people get back a shitload anyway -- or avoid paying because they can squirt the puppies out. Flat means a perecntage disappears, no ifs, ands or buts. Bush and people in the 34% tax bracket would pay less. If we're talking about graduations in the "flat" tax, we're back where we started.

The problem is that our econonomy is a continuously running entitiy, non-stop, 24 hours a day. You wouldn't make major changes to a server while it was running would you? Tax reform would take planning and phasing that would span at least a decade, but that crosses presidential elections. What Gore would have in mind is not what Bush would have in mind, and definitely not what Nader would have in mind.

Can you print out the forms online??

<a href="http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/">Yeah.</a>

(They probably even have a nicer inteface than a directory listing. I just don't care to find it.)

yep but i didnt have access at the time so i had them mail the forms to me.

It was just annoying because they sent me the instruction book that the 1040 forms are usually included in.

Funny...Slang and I had this discussion the other night...Slang for it, me against it. Of course, we all know I'm right on that one by default, since slang is a no good hillbilly. :)

That is very easily confused by the current system. I can calculate beam strength and deflection, shear strength of most industrial metals and deformation of a wide variety of plastics. Accounting is perplexing for some strange reason (as well as the proper use of the English language).


I can handle the flate tax though.

The instructions for the short form - 1040A - are now longer than they were seven years ago for the long form - 1040. Cute ideas such as George Jr's tax rebates and tax cuts are designed so that they increase tax law complexity. So those who created the problem - Congress and president - blame the IRS.

Even that 34% tax on the rich is nonsense. As the Economist once demonstrated, even the rich only pay typically 20 some % taxes on their income. Tax loopholes are widespread, intentionally well hidden, and encouraged by an industry that can afford to legally bribe politicians for 'tax reform'.

In the year of tax simplification, I files a new record - 13 Federal forms. That same year, and for years afterwards, both Carnical Cruise and a TX baseball team paid no taxes either by outright tax exemption written tino the law OR by loopholes.

Congress don't even file their own taxes. Expensive tax lawyers are paid by government to file Congressman and White House taxes. Just another advantge when one lives in the ethersphere. They don't have a clue about the tax laws that they reform to make the economy productive.

Productive? Today, most people now hire tax accountants to file because laws are so complex. This increases GNP and reduces unemployment. Classic government solution. Train people in a complex game which means they cost more. Make it necessary for all citizens to have to hire these more expensive people. Therefore GNP increases and unemplyment goes down. Forget that this only makes America less productive. But Congress does not care. Those numbers make Congress look better AND affords many new fields to demand legalized bribery.

Tax lawyers and acountant and even all that tax software are really just more new taxes. Two years ago, Kiplinger Tax Cut took 6 months to finally refund my rebate check. Last year they billed me four times for the State Tax software - defective FTP software - AND then never did honor all the rebates I was do. Rebate programs have a percentage of 'not honored' application they must meet, know that many of those rebates will never be received, AND play money games (float) with all that money. Just another tax on a public. No wonder those tax preparation software companies don't complain about tax laws.

Maybe if we required Congress to file their own taxes, then they would be interested in learning what the word reform really means. But that too is an idea that lives in the ethersphere.

Something new in tax filing. Download each form from both State and Federal government with macros, so that information is typed in and stored directly on that form. Simply print (rather than hand write) that form. But again, another secret tax. If using free Adobe, then you cannot save the entries - only print them. Purchase the full Adobe 5.0 Reader to save your form - so that modifications can be reprinted.

Unfortunately, these Adobe forms still don't automatically add all columns (numbers). But a printed form that can be modified and reprinted is still better than a painful handwritten form.

These forms could be submitted FTP to the government. But tax preparation software companies will fight this. They want your tax costs to increase - for increased profits. Heaven forbid if the government would make tax submissions easier without them gettting a piece of the action. So and again, Congress has just another good reason to encourage legalized bribery - this time from tax preparation software industry.

Income taxation is indeed robbery. But many people don't know that the constitutional parts of government can be paid with the tariffs and excise taxes already collected and that income based taxes are unconstitutional and therefore voluntary.

The income tax is unconstitutional for several reasons. Probably the most important is that the 16th amendment was never ratified by the required number of states. Several courts have said that it is, but thier decisions violate the constitution and perpetuate a judicial conspiracy to continue the fraud of taxes.

Joe Bannister is a former gun-carrying IRS special agent who worked happily busted people for the iRS. He did this for years and became one of their top agents before he heard that income taxes were voluntary. Then he researched it and the more he searched the more he realized that there is no law in America that compels us to pay income taxes. He wrote up a 90 page report with his findings and gave it to his supervisors and told them that he swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States and requested them to please show him the law that compels people to pay income taxes so he could uphold that oath. After several years working for them as one of their top agents, did they show him the law? Of course not. They said they wouldn't give him any information and they'd accept his resignation. Joe and other IRS agents like John Turner have left when they realized the truth.

If you want more information check out some of these sites:

http://www.freedomabovefortune.com

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com

http://www.givemeliberty.org

http://www.livefreenow.org

http://www.freeenterprisesociety.com

http://www.patriotnetwork.info

The income tax is like paying for magazine subscriptions.

No matter how much you send in, in doesn't REALLY pay for anything. Magazines are not supported by the subscription revenues ... in fact, all magazines and newspapers could be given away free with no perceptible change in the level of profit (which is generated through advertising).

Same goes for the running of the gov't. Taxes don't pay for the govt. The fear of what might happen for not paying taxes keep the people under control. The money the gov't really runs on is created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve.

That being said ... did mine. Way earlier than usual (I phoned in the state and federal last thursday, mailed the locals yesterday.)

So, radar, are you going to take a stand for the little guy, join the tax freedom movement, and refuse to file from now on? Let us know how it works out for you.

Slang is a perfectly good hillbilly, and don't you forget it.

I happen to be one of the flat tax peoples as well. I think that there should be no wiggle room on it. No deductions for this, that, other, business expense, or higher numbers of progeny.

Make a bunch of money, send 15%.

Actually, I already am involved in the movement. I'm working at one of the places I listed. :)

That's not what she was asking.

Which would be resolved nicely if they created an Excel 97 form. It could be read and saved by just about anyone.

Note: Download Open Office if you need a free, 95% MS Office compatible office suite. I've been able to open most Word and Excel XP docs I come across as well. Comes in *Nix, Win32, and OSX flavors.

I had open office on Red Hat linux, then I switched to Slackware which doens't come with it. But I can't donwload it from the site on antying but a FTP connection. And for some god awful reason the uni decided to cut our FTP bandwith to nothing, I'm lucky to get 1kb a second out of it.

Cam, I think this would do it for you very nicely. $4.67 for source and binaries for just about any system you can think of. And friends off campus w/CD burners. Spread the love!

added:
Or this link: http://freewarecds.com/gnuwin.htm. $4.95

Forget about the flat tax. I was for it when I was a renter, but now that I own my own home _I WANT MY DEDUCTION_. I suffered through years of supporting the mortgage-interest deduction of those wealthier than I, and now I demand my right to screw those poorer in return.

&lt;cloak mode=Republicans>
There, that ought to get me an invite to the Republican party events, then I can cause some real trouble.
&lt;/cloak>

A flat tax would just cause the government to instantly lose gobs of money. Then, in order to make up for the loss, they'd jack it up to 50% for everyone! Screw that!

Besides, how are we supposed to conquer all the Middle Eastern countries with no defense budget?

Bonds backed by future oil revenues. Bwahahahaha.

I thought it was rather clear. But just to make it abundantly clear, I'll state the obvious.

There is no law in the United States that makes income taxes mandatory. In fact income taxes are unconstitutional and according to USSC decision Marbury vs. Madison any laws that are unconstitutional are null and void.

Being a patriotic American who knows the law and his rights, I won't be filing any income tax returns ever again and I'm not paying income taxes either. I'm working for an employer that doesn't withhold any taxes and pays me in cash.

I won't go to jail and I won't pay any money. In fact I have absolutely nothing to fear from the government in this matter since I have the law on my side and they have the burden of proof on thiers.

We can visit you in the penitentiary if you like. When you get prosecuted let us know which one you're going to and where it is, and we'll try to dispatch the nearest Cellarite to visit you every so often. It's the least we can do for a fellow poster.

Thanks Uryoces, I'll be sending off for that early this summer when I get my first paycheck, slowly weening myself from all dependence on windows, tackling printing, and figuring out how to use my modem is first priority after finals week. :)

Let's see.. you're in Los Angeles. Does anybody here live near there?

I'll make the trek if no one does, next winter I need some excuse to get away from the cold.

While I agree totally with your position, I am fearful that the gov't will arrest people and confiscate property on a *non-law*. The non-law is enforced only through the acceptance of the "volunteering" majority.

I had the opportunity to talk with some low level organizers of the tax rebellion of the late 70's in Mi.. Some did jail time. Most were just forced through the threat of finiancial ruin to repay the back taxes, legal or not.

The object nowdays for this type of protest is to shed light on the system and to show the fallacy of it. Tens of millions of people are feeling like Thomas Anderson regarding the system. They know something is wrong but they are too busy watching TV to search for the truth. It is likely that more people will take the red pill in the future as the tax code, and the agenda of the gov't, gets more confusing.

I think most of the citizenship of the US hate paying taxes, and most feel at least once a year the desire to just say screw the government. But then they come to the realization that those dollars they pay to the government go toward things such as roads, law enforcement, and education.

I agree the system is bloated though, I think everyone should get a letter in the mail in January stated the amount they owe, you should have all year to pay that amount, in increments of your choice if necessary, and if you disagree with the amount your given the government must provide you with whatever calculations they did to come up with the amount for you to look over and dispute if you feel necessary.
Obviously there are tremendous problems with this idea, I'd share the rest of my ideas on taxes with you but I'm still working them out. Maybe someday I'll throw them out to be torn apart .

I think a major problem now is the fact that the intended tax no longer goes directly for the gov't service. They all go into the "general fund". That way no one is really sure what the hell which is paying for what.

The gas tax was originally intended to pay the repair and upkeep of roads. What does it pay for now? It goes into the general fund. We need a total overhaul of all tax accounting, which is very unlikely to happen.

A dude I am familiar with in the movement just got his house raided. He was one of the guys who made sure his ps and qs were all in order, too.

What the question really boils down to is: whose interpretation of the law is the one that counts: yours, or a federal judge's?

What does the Constitution say on THAT matter?

You can claim you say what the law is and what it isn't, and quote passages all day long, but until you get a court to agree, it doesn't matter at all.

Or maybe 50 million people not "volunteering". There is safety in numbers, but the chances of that kind of unity are slim.

On that you're correct. There are many ways to win other than arguing about the law. You can move the burden of proof to them instead of yourself, keep their evidence out (for instance if they use copies of W2's they're inadmissable because copies can be tampered with. If your employer tells them how much you made it's heresay and can be kept out)

I feel badly for your friend. Unfortunately there is a lot of mininformation in the tax freedom movement. Unlike the other groups who claim they're a sovereign state citizen, or not a tax payer, who use all caps in their names, etc. I use actual law. The group that I'm a part of has a team of lawyers and represents people all the way to the supreme court. Not one of the people in this group has ever gone to jail, or even lost money. Some have won money. One of them won over a quarter million dollars. We've got people who are doctors, lawyers, policemen, former IRS agents, mechanics, truck drivers, and people from every walk of life and none of them has lost. Some people like Irwin Schiff, and others give poor advice to their people and they are harmed because of this information. Our group doesn't TELL anyone what to do. We teach the law, how to use the law, courtroom procedures, paperwork, etc. and always tell people not to take our word for it, but to verify it for themselves.

I have no fear what-so-ever because the burden of proof is on the government and they must prove that there is a law that requires people to pay income taxes. They can't do this because there is no such law.

I got in on this late, and my comments are probably waayyy behind the conversation curve here, but...

I've used TurboTax for the past five years now, and have done pretty damn well so far. It reduces my need to think substantially, and I haven't been audited yet. I spend about $60.00 or so for the main program and two states after rebates, and it takes me about three hours to do everything from first sit-down with the receipts to licking the envelope closed or clicking the 'E-File" button.

Am I paying too much tax? Not really, but I have a mortgage and three kids to deduct, plus I over-withhold (having had some tax due issues that would scare the pants off of an IRS agent in the past).

All things being equal, I'm not nearly as unhappy about my income tax rates as I am about the fact that every damn dime you make is taxed about forty-seven different times. Jeez, they even make you declare tax refunds as income. What the hell is that about? Wasn't it taxed the first goddamn time?

Well, before you find yourself collapsing under the burden of their proof, make sure you post here, so that we can come and watch the fun. I'll bring the popcorn.

Here's the argument for the 16th amendment not being properly ratified, and here's Congresses' refutation of said argument (scroll to part 4).

It's interesting stuff. I must admit I find Congresses response a bit confusing. Maybe I'd have to be a lawyer to really "get" it.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Actually I heard a former IRS guy talking about this a year or two ago on NPR. He said that the enforcement arm of the IRS has become so weak that they don't bother fighting companies with deep pockets. It's not worth the fight. He gave examples of when they had, and won, but it's been far too long for me to remember them. Anyway, according to him the IRS only goes after little guys that work for companies that will turn over any info the IRS wants easily.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So, if all that is true then Radar's pretty safe. It's just not worth their time to actually fight it.

One shouldn't need the mental capacity of Einstein to grasp a concept that is the foundation of the tax system.

Was it ratified? This is a simple answer, yes or no will do. This is another tactic of the gov't, make something simple so fucking complicated that no one really knows for certain. It's bullshit. Whether or not the 16th was ratified or not the system is bullshit due to several conflicts with the BOR.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Radar already said it wasn't. What more do you need? And don't go spouting any nonsense about congress, or the supreme court either.

I'd be more than happy to talk about congress and the supreme court. In fact the first supreme court said that any laws that are contrary to the constitution are null and void (Marbury vs. Madison).

And if you want to talk about congress let's talk about how congress didn't ratify the 16th amendment. There were 48 states in 1913 which means 36 votes were required to pass the 16th amendment. Several states re-wrote the amendment before signing which eliminates thier votes, several voted against it but were counted for it, etc. Philander Knox committed fraud and claimed it had passed when in fact it didn't pass. And nothing that the supreme court says can make less than 36 votes into 36 votes.

The amendment also goes directly against the body of the constitution (it states we all direct taxes must be aproportioned) which makes it null and void. Also there's a little matter of signing a 1040 (tax confession form) goes against the 5th amendment. Having government take your income means you're working as a slave for much of the year which is against the 13th amendment. The IRS grabs your bank records and forces people to report certain transactions which goes against the 4th amendment. And it goes on and on.

The courts work for the government and it's in their interests to rule in favor of the fraud of income taxes.

The simple and undeniable truth is that income taxes are unconstitutional and therefore null and void but the courts conspire with the government to perpetuate this fraud. Also not one person with our organization has ever lost money or gone to jail.

juju showed Bob Schulz's website for the We the People foundation which are a great bunch of people. I'll be seeing Bob on the 26th of this month in Irvine. The original research for the fraud committed by Philander Knox was done by Bill Benson at http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com

Paying income taxes isn't our patriotic duty or even the right thing to do. America was built by freedom loving tax protestors (Boston Tea Party) and those who value liberty are still protesting unjust and unconstitutional taxes. Especially when they're not needed to run a constitutional government like income taxes.

got it. already have one friend in, I'll get the group pass and bring lunch.

-sm

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that only the supreme court would/should be able to "null and void" laws. Otherwise, there would be no law because it would all be open to interpretation. Take the bible, for instance. No one can agree on what that damn book means. Are we to make the U.S. constitution into another bible? Do you see where this line of reasoning takes you? Anarchy!

It's all well and good to try to change the supreme court's mind, but I think there has to be a final arbiter of interpretation. Otherwise, there is no rule of law at all!

As to the other arguments, there has been an impressive amount of research that's gone into that stuff. I'm not even gonna touch it. :)

The simple and undeniable truth is that income taxes are unconstitutional and therefore null and void but the courts conspire with the government to perpetuate this fraud

OK, let's try again...

The Constitution (the one you claim you love so well) granted the judicial branch the job of interpreting the law.

You say they "conspire to perpetuate", but obviously, what you really mean is that the court has repeatedly interpreted that the 16th is the valid law of the land* -- and you disagree.

Now again, if you differ from the courts on what the law means, or whether it is law at all, it is THEIR interpretation of that matter that counts, not yours. Constitution says so! You can jump up and down and scream that the constitutionality of the law is "simple and undeniable", but that is SIMPLY NOT YOUR CALL TO MAKE.

* And it has. You could do the research.

It's not?
 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Are you suggesting that individuals can't interpret the law as they see fit? Not even reinterpret what the Court system has already interpreted? Damn. Well that ruins my plans for the weekend...

No it didn't. Nowhere in the constitution's description of the powers and duties of the judiciary is the word "interpret" mentioned. Why is that? Because that's not their job. The constitution doesn't require interpretation. It's not written in Swahili, it's written in simple English. It means EXACTLY what it says; no more, no less.

The final arbiter is the constitution itself. The supreme court doesn't define it or interpret it. They answer to it just like all other parts of government.

No, what I mean is what I said; just like the constitution. And the constitution also says it takes 3/4 of all states to pass an amendment which didn't happen with the 16th amendment and the supreme court has no authority to ignore that requirement.

No, I'm saying it's not anyone's job to interpret the constitution. It doesn't require interpretation and isn't ambiguous. It's very clear in its meaning and the courts aren't granted the authority or power to do "interpretation" of the constitution.

Question.
 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I was kind of under the impression that amendmants were considered part of the Constitution. Otherwise things like freedom of speech and the right to bear arms aren't in the Constitution. Therefore, doesn't an amedment that adds the right for the Goverment to tax mean that it's in the Constitution now?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I understand that there is some question as to if it was legaly ratified or not, but I'd like to address that as a seperate issue. After all, untill it's proven to be illegitimate it's still in effect. The Marbary vs. Madison case might be an arguement to throw it out, but where has that arguement been made? I mean in a place that means something legaly.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Please keep the issues seperate.

You were under the correct impression, however the 16th amendment was never legally ratified and thus is NOT an amendment to the constitution.

You've got that backwards. It must be proven to be legitimate and that's impossible since the required legitimate 36 votes to pass it were not obtained and nothing the supreme court says can change the number of votes cast or the validity of the votes that were cast improperly.

Collectivists often think that government gives rights to the people and powers to states. The opposite is true. Government derives its power from the governed. A nation is made up of millions of individuals. These individuals grant a limited amount of power to government to take care of things like common defense. Since government gets its powers from individuals, it may not have any powers that individuals themselves don't have. A goup of individuals don't have any more rights or authority than a single individual. So if the government makes a law regarding drugs, suicide, or abortion, they have no such authority because we as individuals have no authority to tell our neighbors they may not smoke. We as individuals DO have the authority and power to stop our neighbors from attacking us, murdering, stealing, etc. As individuals we have the right to defend our rights and our lives from injury but don't have the right to tell others what they must or must not consume or to reach into our neighbors pockets for our own needs.

Income taxation is unconstitution for several reasons and one of those is that the government has no authority to tax income even if the majority of Americans voted for it.

The word "interpretation" is just a way to avoid the longhand of "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and..."

No matter how clear or unclear the wording of the law, someone has to be granted the power of decisions about it, and in the US that power is vested in the courts. In trying Case law part of the decision is whether or not the 16th IS law. The courts have decided that it is, again and again.

Here's a good summary of how the courts have decided on this matter.

Gotta be clear, I personally don't mind you not paying, and I like tax protest. I was kind of hoping that the "Not In Our Name" people would extend their protest to "Not With Our Money" because I think that would make some very interesting statements.

But the only thing keeping you out of jail, really, is the blessed incompetence of the IRS -- not some voodoo misinterpretation of how the law works.

I'd also like to add that the framers of the constitution explain their intentions further in the Fedaralist Papers, excerpted below:
<blockquote><i> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.</i></blockquote>

source

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;According to this: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...nt16/01.html#2 the sixteenth amendment is a recognized part of the Constitution. You say it was never ratified, but it's clearly in effect. Are you saying it's not?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Also, I agree that the government gets its power from the governed. That being said I don't know many people that feel as you do. Most people accept the fact that without taxes the government would collapse and the would no longer be a United States. Do people like taxes? No, absolutely not. Do they prefer it to anarchy? Well, I haven't seen any good polls on this but I believe so. My point is that there has been no great rise against taxation because people understand it's function. So yes, it is the will of the people that there is taxation.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;While were on the subject Radar has said:
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I find this interesting since I thought the bitch was "Taxation without Representation," not just not wanting to pay taxes. So either my books in school were intentionally misleading or you are. Somebody has taken to telling half-truths.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I looked it up on Juju's link and it says Secretary Knox Certified Adoption. You say he perjured himself. Hmm, well guess what? Congress accepted it. I'm sure you can show me where he was charged with perjury though right? No? Then this is your opinion and nothing more.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It wasn't stricken, and now the 16th Amendment is part of the Constitution. I read it. It's in there. You telling me that it's not legit does not remove it. So, you disagree with the government, the civil lawyers and most of the US population. And you state it as a fact. Dude, read the Constitution with the Amendments and it's there. Your repeated claims that it's not legit don't change that. It is recognized law right now. Can you show me otherwise?

They have done so unconstitutionally and without authority to make that decision. The courts don't decide whether an amendment has passed. No court decision can change the number of votes for an amendment or the number required to pass it.

There's no voodoo or misinterpretation. In fact I'm not "interpreting" anything. I am reading the constitution and law as it is written and using the definitions used at the time the laws were written. (see blacks law dictionary)


What's keeping me out of jail is the fact that I know the law, know the limitations on the powers of government, and am educated enough to defend myself well. The IRS doesn't want to go after people who know their rights and who are well-prepared to fight in court. They want to go after easy pickings so they can say they've got more convictions. In short, they know they can't beat me in court because there is no law that makes income taxes mandatory.

I'm saying it was never legally ratified and no court decisions to the contrary matter. And the 16th amendment goes directly against the body of the constitution and is therefore null and void according to the supreme court. So yes, I'm saying it's not in effect and that all attempts to force people to pay income taxes are voluntary.

100% of the constitutional parts of government can be funded by the tariffs and excise taxes already collected. Without income taxes we'd still have roads, we'd still have a military, a judiciary, and America wouldn't collapse. In fact America and our civil liberties would be stronger than ever.


Absolutely false. And if people want to donate their money to government that's up to them but government has no authority to take it from us. And I guarantee you if I took a poll and asked people if they'd like to keep income taxes around or eliminate them the overwhelming majority would choose the latter.

Do you think the will of the people is being adequately represented by our elected officials? Most people don't including myself.

Look to the government and the collectivists providing you with your obviously poor education.

Yes, and he committed outright fraud. He falsified the ratification of an amendment. That's not my opinion, it's a fact. Guess what? Congress didn't accept the 16th amendment. If they had, the required number of votes to pass the amendment wouldn't have been short.

And since when do you have to be charged with a crime to have committed it? If I steal something and wasn't charged with a crime are you saying I didn't steal it?

Sorry if it bothers you, but the 16th amendment IS NOT NOW, NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN PART OF THE CONSTITION! None of your false claims or the opinions of all the people in the united states matter on this subject because as I've proven even if the amendment had been legally ratified, the government has no such authority to create it because it derives its power from the people and the people have no such authority to grant to government.

But hey, think whatever you want. I win either way because you're stupidly allowing the government to rob you (nobody has ever provided a distinction between armed robbery and income taxes) while I am living contently and legally by not allowing the government to push me around or to rob me.

Like I said, IRS incompetence; that leads to the "easy pickins" situation. It's no loophole; it's cat and mouse with bureaucrats, with the hope that your particular case doesn't land on the desk of someone who knows the game.

Off the top of my head, I'd guess that by being a part of a group that's doing this, you are putting yourself into a category of much higher visibility. You make small time money, so they don't care; but what's the collective income, I mean, uh, unconstitutionally taxable amount of money that the IRS would consider income, of the entire group? Together you make a bigger prize with much smaller burden of collection of evidence.

And if you think your copy of Black's with its various definitions of "citizen" and whatnot are the secret code words that get you out of jail free, think again. The law doesn't even pretend at that level of consistency. You'll be flipped by the first Judge you run into. If things like the common law and definitions in Black's got people out of trouble, don't you think the lawyers would know about it? Do you think you and your buddies are the first ones to think of this stuff?

As far as the visibility thing goes, we don't send letters to the IRS identifying ourselves as tax protestors or send other red flags like zero returns. We know the law, the procedures of law, and have a team of attorneys and paralegals in our defense.

And I only mentioned blacks or other old dictionaries as a means of showing what various words and legal terms meant in the days of our founders, not as a way to get out of anything.

We know that there's no "silver bullet" to beat the IRS and each situation requires different methods to win. But we haven't failed yet.

You did not respond to my last post, in which I quoted the original intent of the framers of the constitution. Please do so.

I'm not interested in "intent". The supreme court isn't there to determine "intent". Their constitututional duty is to make sure nobody violates the constitution; Not to interpret the constitution; Not to define the constitution; Not to overrule the constitution; And not to allow blatant violations of the constitution such as the Patriot Act, Income Taxation, and a thousand other things.

The duties and powers of the supreme court and all parts of government is defined and limited by the constitution. They may not do anything that isn't specifically listed.

Well, in that case, you're not only disagreeing with 99.9% of America, including Congress and the Supreme Court, you're also disagreeing with the people who wrote the constitution. I'm sorry, but Alexander Hamilton says you are wrong.

Tell me something: when's the last time you were wrong about something?

Everyone is wrong but you.
 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;According to you every copy of the Constitution we see is wrong. They all have the 16th Amendment in them. The courts are wrong and serve no function. The goverment doesn't have the right to blow it's nose, or anything else.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If you look it up the 16th Amendment is on the books. Leagally ratified or not, it is in effect. You've made it clear that you don't care that what congress, the courts or the people of the US say. So why are you talking to us?

Who's gonna stop 'em? You? Saddam? The French?
Bwahahahahahahaha!

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I think Radar has made it pretty obvious that his opinion is more important than anything else. So he'll just tell you they can't as they do whatever they want.