Political Theory

Re: 16th amendment

indio007 — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 05:52:42 GMT

Don't want to be liable for income tax? Well don't have income, indorse your bills and make them liabilities.

No one will ever come to redeem them for lawful money.

No one ever does anymore.

Everyone thinks the paper is the money.

Re: 16th amendment

No2statism — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:37:18 GMT

The 16th Amendment, like the U.S. Federal Constitution it's part of, is illegal because it wasn't ratified by all of the Original 13 Colonies.

Re: 16th amendment

Cesare Bonventre — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:17:11 GMT

I am not aware of any business that would hire you "on the books" without first providing your social security number. They will need it to support a deduction against their profits for hiring you. Ever try to get a bank account without a social security number? Ever try to set up business banking without a EIN? The American has only one choice in my estimation - and I took it! I voted with my feet: Obtained a 2nd citizenship! According to the CBO and IMF last year, the current US Federal Debt obligation is at least 204 Trillion (which can never be paid in a zillion billion years). It is only a matter of time before the entire planet dumps the contamination which is the worthless US Federal Reserve Note. When they do, the States too will follow suit by seceding from the Union (as they have the legal authority to do so now that we have things like Indefinite Incarceration for Pre-crime, etc.).

Re: 16th amendment

Caley McKibbin — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:41:49 GMT

scineram:

Most americans are employed by an employer, and therefore an employee, earning wages under Unired States jurisdiction.

Only if they use social security.

Re: 16th amendment

GoldenGoose — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:48:44 GMT

Yes, but they do not have to be - it is not mandatory. When a business or an individual gets a TIN what they are saying is that their status is prospective of being a taxpayer. When the the individual signs those forms (W-4 and W-9) they are saying that they are a taxpayer. They did this voluntarily.

Go read the IRC Particularly Subtitles A, C, and F (Chapter 79 - Definitions). You will see that those terms that I highlighted have restrictive and legal definitions relevant only to the IRC. They do not and can not have the ordinary usage when defined according to Rules of Construction.

“The income tax is based upon voluntary compliance, not constraint.” United States Supreme Court, Flora v. U.S. 362 145.

The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them [nontaxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject of nor the object of the revenue laws" [Emphasis added]. Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F. 2d 585 (1972)

The term taxpayer means any person subject to any internal revenue tax [26 USC Sect. 7701 (a) (14)]

“Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now the situation is different as day and night. Consequently, your same rules will not apply.” Testimony of Dwight E. Avis, Head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, before the House Ways and means Committee on Restructuring the IRS (83^rd Congress, 1953).

Let me ask you who are the nontaxpayers if everyone who is born and/or works in the U.S must pay taxes? And how is it voluntary?

Re: 16th amendment

scineram — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:11:25 GMT

Most americans are employed by an employer, and therefore an employee, earning wages under Unired States jurisdiction.

Re: 16th amendment

Caley McKibbin — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 03:05:59 GMT

Watch this instroduction to your rights. Very long, but worth it. It's Canadian, but it's virtually the same in the U.S. I can't find the U.S version- there is one somewhere.

Re: 16th amendment

Caley McKibbin — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:33:08 GMT

Nm. Don't want to leave clues.

Re: 16th amendment

GoldenGoose — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:53:12 GMT

Through a series of misunderstandings with a tax guy that I used the IRS never got a return from me. Only about 3 years later did I start to hear from them. They have a 'priority' list according to the amount presumably owed. If you presumptively owe for example $1,500 as oppossed to $75,000 the person with the largest amount will be dealt with first. They may send out a letter of notice or something like that at first but as far as seeking to get the payment by actually spending some energy it will usually come later.

Also, it really depends on if the 'employer' sends in an information return (W-2, ect.). If the IRS does not have the info on someones pay they don't bother with you unless your very noticable or involved in suspcious activities. If you signed the W-4 and W-9 you are subjecting yourself (voluntarily) to liability of the tax. You are saying that you are a 'taxpayer' 'employed' by an 'employer' (and therefore an 'employee') earning 'wages' within the juristiction of the 'United States' according to the IRC and are therefor subject to the income tax. Those documents are considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. You are obligated to file a tax return form. I hope your friends did not fill those forms out or that their employer did not send in the info return about their work-pay scenerio.

All the Bold words are legally defined in the IRC. Most Americans do not fall under those definitions.

Re: 16th amendment

Caley McKibbin — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:44:27 GMT

I personally know people who never file and nothing happens to them. The IRS seems to only harass people who become activists. It's the Gestapo by any other name.

Re: 16th amendment

Donald Lingerfelt — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:34:24 GMT

Based on my research, I think it is Constitutional. It didn't change much anyway, only caused enough confusion that most people think it gave the government the right to lay an income tax on anything. Currently there are no rules by which the government taxes us, except the ones that they themselves write. They don't have to have rules any more though if they do not want to. They think we ought to be grateful that they don't take it all.

Re: 16th amendment

scineram — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:21:44 GMT

wilderness:

GoldenGoose:

..confusing me with scineram...

scineram has a way of distorting discussions without providing any pursuit of truth and knowledge out of his/her (scineram's) own dialogical making and effort. it's a trend that i'd overlook so please continue on with this excellent pursuit of clarity.

Maybe you can enlighten me what their point is. That income tax is unconstitutional? Or what?

Re: 16th amendment

GoldenGoose — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:40:35 GMT

Donald Lingerfelt:

I apologise for misunderstanding. I reread your letter after I wrote the answer and realized that I had answered the wrong comment. I'm just rying to be accurate in relating the law as I see it. Many people assume that income from wages isthe same as income.

No problem, I think your right on and much more informative than I am. That issue did confuse me, as I am sure that is the way it is meant to be with some of these regulations. It is amazing how clear they can be when they want to be in other parts of the code.

Re: 16th amendment

Donald Lingerfelt — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:43:06 GMT

I apologise for misunderstanding. I reread your letter after I wrote the answer and realized that I had answered the wrong comment. I'm just rying to be accurate in relating the law as I see it. Many people assume that income from wages isthe same as income.

Re: 16th amendment

wilderness — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:26:15 GMT

GoldenGoose:

..confusing me with scineram...

scineram has a way of distorting discussions without providing any pursuit of truth and knowledge out of his/her (scineram's) own dialogical making and effort. it's a trend that i'd overlook so please continue on with this excellent pursuit of clarity.