There are rumors going round that there is no American law in existence that requires anyone to pay income tax. Remember, that's income tax specifically, not other forms of tax. What say you?

PS. If you're not in the loop, watch America: From Freedom to Fascism.

This is just an urban legend being pushed by anti-income tax radicals.
Look at the 16th amendment:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment16/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester...ional_arguments

If you are not in the loop then you must not believe any of this crap that we are not supposed to pay a direct tax on our own income. Without this we would become no better than an Al Qaeda cell intent on destroying every single 'Freedom Loving American'. If you cannot understand the importance of sending your money, eg. taxation without representation, to our federal government to do with as they see fit, you are definitely out the loop.

Thank the Good Lord, that we have such messianac leaders as we have been blessed with. Without them, you would probably see riots within your own streets. Not your neighbors fighting amongst each other, mind you, but a full-scale mass infiltration by Islamic extremists. The steadfast, vigilant hand of wisdom seems to be more concerned with an Iraqi freedom process. As opposed to an american freedom process.

We borrow money to kill people. We pay income tax to pay interest on the debt we already owe. We are a nation in 'fore'closure. What used to be the world's best manufacturing economy has since turned into a service economy. We have trade deficits. That might matter, save for the fact that we can kill everybody.

Preemptive strikes are illegal, by global law. See Geneva Convention. It doesn't matter, because, we preemptively opted out of that International Treaty. We also opted out of the existing nuclear proliferation treaties.

Why do I say that?, you may ask. The reason is we are becoming a kingdom where the unconnected are effectively serfs. A global socialism is where we are headed. Take for instance, the derision of people who don't maintain a bank account. Take, for example, the fact that cash is not as good as it used to be. Vendors don't question credit. They will question cash though. Direct deposit is encouraged. Direct debit is encouraged. Pay your bills online, they say. Convenience? Or a better way to control and get paid? Take another example... Gas or ethanol. It doesn't matter. As long as they get paid. If you read this, you are not 'they'. They are too busy counting cash, or gold, or platinum, or pallidium, or silver, or depleted uranium.

Anyways, sorry for the rant.

Good link bro.
No civil officer may, without the consent of Congress, accept any emolument, office or title from a foreign ruler or state. However, a U.S. citizen may receive foreign office before or after their period of public service.
Explain the sale of our ports to Dubai.

emolument- gain from position or employment; salaries, fees, etc.

My fault... I should have said-Explain Halliburton or KBR. Sorry.

Great link! It makes my point perfectly:


There is a reason why this thread is in the Conspiracies forum...

They had to change the 16th to get this passed, however, it still didnt receive the amount of votes needed in order to pass, but the President passed it anyways.

Checkout http://fairtax.org for an income tax replacement.

The Fair Tax

It's an honor system. Once called Liberty Tax. World War II changed it, what with its Caucasian spies who were very hard to track. It is, most certainly, a mandate. But, you see, so many resources where required to fight the Axis Powers. It was an absolute necessity that people present and accounted for contribute. And, yes, min. 25% still goes to War Efforts. And, sadly, to re-pay our selves the retributions that so many decided on at the close of the Last Great War. Yes, we foot the bill, to step.

But what should be considered gain, or profit? As of now, they take our money saying our income is 100% profit, as if you didnt exchange a service for it. Clearly that is not the case.

THE POWER TO DESTROY
IRS loses challenge
to prove tax liability
Lawyer is acquitted after arguing
income levy lacks legal foundation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 26, 2007
1:00 am Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com





The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer's challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.

"I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever," lawyer Tom Cryer told WND just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts.

And before you consign him to the legions of "tin foil hat brigades" who argue against paying taxes, and then want payment to explain how to do that, he addresses the issue up front.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

thank you for saving me the time of digging that story up. when i first read this topic, i knew there would be, dyed in the wool so called patriots, who would surely spout off on the issue. thank god some of us understand the right to challenge the issues of state and country. this is what the constitution is suppose to be all about. we should never allow any thing or anyone to impose false standards on us,[we the people], as long as we are still a nation governed by the constitution. no matter how upside down administrations make decree the laws to be enforced. never forget, we are a nation of policies that are forever changing, and always in need of change. this is the difference between the old world, and the yet to come new world. we must always leave options for change, lest we become a nation of stagnant out dated measures of practice. should we lose this sight of the future, then we are surely doomed to repeat the follies of the past fallen nations and countries, we so boldly claim to be our examples of failed governments.

There's that persistent theory some evade taxes. And, they do...Successfully, for a time. Speaking of which, $0.02 is punishable by the mandatory 5 to 10 year stretch.
Federal Prison. Those are separate institutions from the normal penal system. Where, when incarcerated, treatment is harsh. Punishment is often seen, on the History Channel, the Big House. These prisoners, when they get violent, if they choose; are enforced. With those shields, that have attack ability. Through electrical charge, very rough, indeed...

Its no theory.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56855

lol preacher, i dont think they are gonna get it no way no how



but thank you anyway for being on sight and on target

Great point, preach.

For a business, net income is calculated by starting with the company's total revenue. From this, the cost of sales, along with any other expenses that the company incurred during the period, is removed to reach earnings before tax. Tax is deducted from this amount to reach the net income number.

But that isn't how it works with personal income tax. We are taxed after deductions and credits, to determine our net income.

Expenses - such as rent or mortgage - are not factored in our net income, unlike businesses.

its not all that radical to challenge the income tax considering that the 16th amendment also said all taxes must be apportioned and the income tax we pay is not apportioned.

Have you even read the 16th amendment?



Where do you get that it says all taxes must be apportioned when it says the opposite?

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."


I read it. At first glance it seems simple enough. The problem comes when you ask what the definition of "whatever sources derived" means. Which the supreme court has said time and again must be laid out spacificaly. And it is. Its only related to foreign workers, or foreign companies doing bussness with in the United stated, or a American making a profit in a foreign land.

in Canada I heard there is a loophole, where a person can declare himself a "natural person"

I believe it also includes "Americans".

... to say it another way - it’s not a problem; it’s in the source code "title 26" that specifically tells you what "whatever sources derived" means. If the definition did not exist in title 26 then there would seem to be no reason why we should not pay income tax; but the fact is, a definition of "whatever sources derived" is in title 26 and therefore we must use it. Right - or why else is it there?

the 16th amendment was raped a long time ago, changed and changed some more. If you read the first real 16th amendment you can clearly see it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Ame...es_Constitution



Article I, section 2, clause 3 and Article I, section 9, clause 4 of the Constitution state that all direct taxes are required to be apportioned among the states according to population. This essentially means that the dollar amount of direct taxes imposed on the taxpayers in any given state is required to bear a relationship to the total dollar amount of direct taxes imposed in the entire nation that is equal to the ratio of that state's population to the total population of the nation.

That article is NOT part of the amendment. You referred to the amendment saying that "all taxes must be apportioned" and it doesn't. Since its ratification, the sixteenth amendment has NOT been changed. You may want to read your reference again because it doesn't say what you think it says.

Exactly. To think there are people in prison right now over a damn fraud. I wish everyone could just see this for what it is, cause only then could there be anything done about it.

(Article I, section 2, clause 3 and Article I, section 9, clause 4)


that phrase is out of the regulations BASED! of the constitution.

That was NOT in question. That phrase is not however in the amendment as you first stated. What you said about the 16th amendment being changed is also still wrong. It is the constitution that has been changed BY the 16th amendment which is what the purpose of an amendment is.

You first said this

Which I pointed out was wrong because the 16th amendment says this

You then countered with this

of which the first part is wrong as the 16th amendment has not changed since its ratification. You then quoted the constitution itself which was not part of the argument. Amendments change the constitution. In summary, you were still wrong by stating that the 16th amendment said all taxes must be apportioned (it did not, the constitution did but the amendment never has) and then wrong by saying the 16th amendment was changed (it was not, it remains the same as the day it was ratified. The constitution has changed through amendments which is the whole point of an amendment).

do I have to go over what a statute and regulations are? I guess i might since you lost the point trying to make me look wrong.

The constitution and whats on it doesn't give laws to the people its writin to say what Congress can and can make laws about.

So the 16th amendment says: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The Congress job is to make the SPECIFIC law that means what taxes are defined as what the taxes apply to ect..

They are writing down at first as a statute then there are regulations they give in greater detailed what the statutes require of us.

All fed law must go threw that chain from statute to regulation. No regulation can exist with out there being a statute writin be for it.

So the statutes and regulations I quoted is THE LAW. It is based off the 16th AMENDMENT so the quote of the regulation is what officially is the law based off the constitution.

All tho you are right I was wrong by saying that the constitution says that taxes must be apportionment. I was not wrong in the fact that the law we have now says that it MUST be apportioned.

That article was written long before the 16th amendment as it is part of the original constitution so it can NOT therefore be based off the 16th amendment. Do you even understand what an article of the constitution is? It is NOT a regulation written later based off of the constitution, it is a part of the constitution itself and was written at the same time. While there may be other laws stating what should or should not be apportioned, you have yet to actually show them or quote them. Again, what you have shown is part of the constitution itself, written before the sixteenth amendment and superceded later by the sixteenth amendment.
From here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_o...es_Constitution
about Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3 (part of the constitution)


I didn't lose any point. You were still wrong.

First of all, I DO pay my taxes...I smoke, so I pay a tobacco tax(duh)...I drive, so I pay a gas tax(duh)...the INCOME TAX is illegally forced and is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.....this is why IRS CID agents are coming forward and risking everything by telling the TRUTH...the income tax serves no purpose for the American people; it pays the debt to the Federal Reserve(neither Federal or a reserve) for the "money" that the federal government borrows.

Or the fact that the IRS was created after the Great Depression... you can imagine why, or if you cant it was for "economic stability". Oh yes, a corporate entity with no actual ties to government and no LEGAL MEANS to even EXIST much less control the flow of money and collect fraudulent money.

It becomes so obvious they are evil when you look who owns it...

THE ROCKEFELLERS! International banking famalial extraodinaire!!!

From the "father" of the current banking system(I.E. dirty money makers of the worldwide market)

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

page 405 of the paperback edition of his book...

'MEMOIRS', not holding a damn thing back, he's outright laughing at the stupidity of modern culture in not opposing this evil tax-collecting entity...

Read between the lines, when do you hear that on the nightly news?

I'm not American, so I'm too familar with the tax system but I have a question...

If no one pays tax, who is going to pay for: The army, the schools, police, fire servies and all the other things it goes towards?

I don't think this is a discussion about paying taxes, but instead the legality, (or morality I guess), of the income tax. If it was repealed large government spending and service cuts would have to accompany it, which would be fine with me. Or it'd have to be replaced with an alternative, such as a consumption tax, (i.e. "Fair Tax"). But there are plenty of other taxes Americans pay on top of the income tax, (gas tax for one).
The income tax is fully legal, without a doubt, but it does amount to a legal theft by the government of our income. Money is forcefully taken from us to be given to others, (forced charity).

Point being "legal" does not mean "right" or "is in the best interest of the people" infact, it means they are stealing your money, smiling, and laughing at you for not knowing its owned by the Rockefellers(International bankers), who admit outright to committing atrocities(killing thousands of people) and suppressing information from the public.

That's a really excellent question GySi...

First of all, I don't think anyone reasonable is proposing eliminating taxes. It's not going to happen. What's being proposed is reducing taxes, sometimes substantially.

Now one would think that income tax is the government's sole source of revenue. It's not. In fact, it isn't the biggest piece of the governemt revenue pie and excessive taxes actually inhibit the biggest piece of the government revenue pie: Gross Domestic Product.

It's a simple economic law that has been proven every time its been done: reduce taxes = increase government revenues.
It is a proven, no-brainer methodology that resulted in economic booms in the early 1960's , the 1980's, and in the past 6 years...when Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush did just that.

If you cut taxes, GDP increases because people are spending, and businesses are investing. The mechanics involved in this paradigm are somewhat complicated, but the results are absolutely concrete. Cut taxes, and the government gets MORE MONEY, not less...thus, they have more to fund essential programs.

Now, realize that police and fire services are funded by state and local taxes, not federal funds (although I'm sure there are some subsidies in there for certain departments). Decreasing Federal tax will provide more money for the military. As to schools...well, in America, government needs to get out of the business. The largely government-controlled educational system is one of the reasons America has many of the problems it has, and why the standards and quality of education have diminished in the past 4 decades...sometimes at alarming rates...


Allow schools to operate as businesses, and you'll see a hell of a change start pretty quick...but that's another topic for another time!

A thought experiment:

Suppose we cut the Fedearal income tax to a flat or fair level...reducing everyone's tax...including corporate rates(which Reagan did, to incredible benefit during his tenure).

Now, suppose we start drilling for our own oil?

Suppose we build the refineries we've needed for several decades to meet our demands. We create tens of thousands of jobs...we allow companies to invest in methodologies to produce oil and refine it efficiently, and we develop a surplus (which we can and would do). Costs are reduced, demand is met, and what do we do with the excess? We market it. We not only increase the GDP, we increase revenues through EXPORTS to the burgeoning market (China anyone?).

We increase profits, and we use that money to invest, finally, in the research necessary...industry wide (oil companies and auto makers) in alternative sources and technologies for future requirements.

...you see, no serious oil company can do that now...because they don't have the money, and they know where their bread and butter, and the econnomy's is...in oil! Wanna see them do that? Give them their money!

Yet, some morons look at oil companies as evil (?), and certain Presidential candidates want to tax them more! These people, whose economic knowledge approximates that of a gnat, think the oil companies are making excessive profits because they're charging more for gasoline...without understanding that oil companies make less than half of what the Federal Government makes on a gallon of gasoline (~ $0.18/gallon currently, as opposed to the $0.08 on average than an oil company makes(which is nominal at best, profit-margin wise, considering costs)...and the oil companies actually do the work to make the stuff...the government does nothing!). State and local governments make even more on a gallon of gas (You're paying 50 to 65 cents a gallon to people who've done nothing to earn it...!).

They also propose this windfall profits tax (a nonsensical idea in any generation) without realizing that OIL COMPANIES PAY NO TAXES, EVER! The consumer absorbs all taxes levied on oil companies.

Let these folks get into office and you'll see gas prices spike to unheard of levels as soon as they put their proposals for taxes out there. Cut the taxes, and watch the price go down...watch spending go up, watch investment go up, and GDP improve...with a concurrent increase in Federal revenues!

Magic stuff...but thoroughly proven basic economics...

This is a classic example of a piece of common sense layered with scads of lunacy...a trademark of your diatribes...

For instance, "legal", unfortunately, does not necessarily mean "right"...despite the fact that it's supposed to. Anyone ( I should hope) understands that legal means "legal". Further, excessive taxation is indeed a form of stealing one's money...

However...



This is utter nonsense....

Just to clarify this one point, MID...

Individual income taxes and payroll taxes now account for nearly 80 percent of federal revenue and corporate income tax revenue makes up about two-thirds of the rest. Excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties, and miscellaneous receipts bring in just 7 percent of federal revenue.

http://www.urban.org/publications/1001082.html

I think a 80% reduction of goverment is just what this country needs.