Happy Tax Day!

[slang]

Originally posted by Cam
they pay to the government go toward things such as roads, law enforcement, and education.

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.

[Undertoad]

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.

[slang]

Originally posted by Undertoad
but until you get a court to agree

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

[Radar]

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.

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.

[Elspode]

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?

[wolf]

Originally posted by Radar
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.

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.

[juju]

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.

[Whit]

     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.
     So, if all that is true then Radar's pretty safe. It's just not worth their time to actually fight it.

[slang]

Originally posted by juju
Maybe I'd have to be a lawyer to really "get" 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.

[Whit]

     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.

[Radar]

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.

[smoothmoniker]

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

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

-sm

[juju]

Originally posted by Radar
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).

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. :)

[Undertoad]

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.

[Whit]

     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...