Do you owe an income tax?

arbilad · Head Chef

Do you owe an income tax?

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

I predict that the govt will appeal, and eventually the ruling will go against this guy and he'll have to pay his taxes. There is some court precedent that income from wages and salaries is taxable... whether there is a law on the books or not. If this goes all the way to the Supreme Court, there will be a very specific precedent set.

I'd be all for getting rid of taxes on income from labor. But to think that the government will ever let that happen seems far fetched to me.

BTW arbi -- Thank you for making your link open in a new window. I HATE it when bountiful gets overlaid by the link. Is it possible to change the default link setting to open in a new window?

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I watched some online movie about this - can't remember the name of it now, but it had former IRS people, Ron Paul and others talking about the subject. I'll continue to "pay" although in reality, we've gotten everything back since MrCoco and I have been married, so we haven't really "paid" anything... But yeah, I'm for taxing when it comes to consuming but not for earning.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

There was a time in the not too distant past where income taxes weren't permanent in this country. People pay because they fear the IRS. Those guys can make your life a living hell. You are guilty until you can prove you are innocent. They burden of proof is on you to prove they are wrong, not the other way around. They will take everything you own and throw you in jail. I fear them as well as OSHA, the sales tax people, and the EPA. They have quasi judicial and legislative powers and can ruin a person. Unless you have a truck full of money it is difficult to fight them.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

I think the biggest part of the problem stems from the IRS taking their cut before the paycheck ever gets to the recipient. You never miss it that way. However, if everyone had to write out a check every quarter for several thousand dollars, like self-employed folks do, citizens would be screaming for tax reform within three months.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Yep, writing that check every year would cause rioting in the streets.

Dyany · Senior Member

Bok, using Firefox and middle-clicking on a link will always open it in a new tab. Maybe that will help.

Otherwise, staying out of the tax discussion. *runs away*

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

income tax doesn't even affect most people with families and making less than say... 50K... Meanwhile it's hard to have empathy for people that make millions.

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

"Soak the rich" may sound like a good idea until they define your income bracket as rich. For instance, Ray, your income bracket would fall firmly in the "rich" category. Do you feel rich? Besides, why punish people for being successful?
Besides, the rich should only be compelled to pay income taxes if in fact there is a compulsory income tax. It sounds like that ain't the case.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Rich and poor is all relative. I have a sister that always likes to remind me that we are rich, even though she works full-time as a tenured school teacher and her husband works full-time as a doctor. We do not feel rich. We do not enjoy the same lifestyle she and her family do (far from it in most instances). Is rich something just on paper, or is it a more qaulitative thing? In our eyes, she is rich, whereas the reality for us is we may have a nice looking income on paper, but have a hard time paying our bills and essentially live paycheck to paycheck. But, compared to the bulk of the rest of the world, we would be rich if that is the only thing that is considered.

We all pay taxes (or at least should if we are obeying the law of the land... and no, I don't want to get into the "legality" of income tax or the IRS. Congress has the power to levy taxes, and Congress created the IRS to handle the administration side of collecting it.). If we get a refund back when all is said and done, that is just a subsidy from the government to help bolster one's personal economy in my mind. And all but maybe one or two years since we've been married we have gotten both a federal and a state refund.

Poncho29 · Senior Bucketkeeper

I have never had to pay the IRS at the end of tax year, even before we were married.
And, I agree with Cat, rich and poor is all relative. We look like we make lot's of money compared to some folks and it is peanuts compared to others. Every year we look forward to our nice big fat refund. But, the sister that Cat was referring to who between she and her husband make a nice income at the same time always seem to have the IRS after them demanding money.
The more one makes I think the more the IRS scrutinize your tax forms. They even have a tax guy who does it for them.
The IRS seem to assume that if your make alot of money or if you are self-employed you are cheating the government somehow and they will "find" ways to make you pay more.

arbilad · Head Chef

Congress has the power to levy taxesThat's part of the point of the article. The jury decided that there is no evidence that Congress has levied a tax on your paycheck. I do pay taxes, but not because I feel I am legally obligated to, but rather because I am afraid of what the IRS would do if I didn't pay every cent that I owed them.
And as for "rich" being relative, that's entirely my point. When they talk about taxing the rich, they're talking about taxing everyone who isn't poor.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Yeah, I wasn't agreeing with that, either. Glad you knew something about it, arbi.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Having different tax brackets adds insult to injury. If we're going to have income tax, it should at least be a fair tax--everyone pays the same percentage regardless of income.

I think income tax is immoral in the extreme--it amounts to the government forcefully taking the fruit of my labors and redistributing it for expenses and by methods in which I have no direct input.

And yes, because of family size, we have received everything back in all years but two. However, the principle of income taxation is still morally wrong, in addition to the legal challenges. It's also wrong that I have to spend time and money to file taxes in order to get back what amounts to the interest-free loan I give to the gubment each year.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Question to consider folks... if the principle of income tax is immoral, what about tithes and offerings?

Is not income tax a secular imitation of the Lord's economy?

Is not tithes and offerings a law with punishment assigned for failure to obey?

What about the rendering of that which is Ceasar's unto Ceasar?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there is a person in the world in their right mind who gets up in the morning and looks forward to paying a tax of any kind... but come on, to do the stretch that the government is not legally allowed to tax borders on the absurd in my mind.

Like it or not, the Sixteenth Ammendment and court rulings since then have upheld the right of Congress to levy tax on income.

-- Edited by Cat Herder at 10:20, 2007-07-27

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

The big difference, Cat, is that tithing is based on agency whereas taxation is based on forceful coercion.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Yeah, like Satan's plan, dude.

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat Herder wrote:

Question to consider folks... if the principle of income tax is immoral, what about tithes and offerings?

Is not income tax a secular imitation of the Lord's economy?

Is not tithes and offerings a law with punishment assigned for failure to obey?

What about the rendering of that which is Ceasar's unto Ceasar?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think there is a person in the world in their right mind who gets up in the morning and looks forward to paying a tax of any kind... but come on, to do the stretch that the government is not legally allowed to tax borders on the absurd in my mind.

Like it or not, the Sixteenth Ammendment and court rulings since then have upheld the right of Congress to levy tax on income.

-- Edited by Cat Herder at 10:20, 2007-07-27

Actually, there are those who say that the sixteenth amendment was not properly ratified. But even aside from that. If the 16th amendment gives them the power to tax, that is not the same as having created a tax. To create a tax, the Congress needs to pass a law implementing it. The jury in this case (and others, btw) has decided that there is no such law. All the prosecuter had to do was show the law under which this guy was obliged to pay, and he wouldn't have had a case. The prosecutor did not do that.

Without a law obligating you to do something, you are not obligated, by law, to do it. In fact, when it was implemented, it was called a "voluntary" income tax.

So, there is case law showing that there is no legal obligation to pay an income tax (I can think of this case and at least one other case).

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Roper wrote:

The big difference, Cat, is that tithing is based on agency whereas taxation is based on forceful coercion.

Perspective, really.

Is there someone standing next to you with a gun forcing you to pay it, or forcing an employer to withhold the tax?

No.

Are we free to decide not to pay income taxes?

Yes.

The difference is that we see the consequent enforcement of penalty attached to failing to obey the secular tax law quicker than we see it for tithes and offerings.

Therefore, most of us choose to exercise our agency in filing tax returns and paying if we are found to be owing.

Just like most of us choose to pay our tithes. We know that if we do not, we can not hold a temple recommend and we know that we will be answerable to God and we want to make sure our "fire insurance" premium is paid up...

Perspective, not the morality or amorality of one or the other concept.

hiccups · Future Queen in Zion

I think the big difference might be, does the entity asking for the tithe/tax have authority to do so? Which leads back to the beginning of this thread in the case of the government.

-- Edited by hiccups at 10:45, 2007-07-27

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Anyway, I went back and re-read the article. Interesting. I don't agree with it. But interesting.

What it amounts to is a lawyer trumped in wresting (not wrestling) with a bunch of other lawyers... for now.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

hiccups wrote:

I think the big difference might be, does the entity asking for the tithe/tax have authority to do so? Which leads back to the beginning of this thread in the case of the government.

-- Edited by hiccups at 10:45, 2007-07-27

If the entity has the vested power to coin money as a form of legal tender for all goods or services, that same entity most certainly has the power to levy fees on the transmission of that tender. We don't live in a barter system or economy.

Hey, I don't like taxes (income, FICA, sales, etc.) as much as the next guy, but this is the reality we live in. Don't expect to see the repeal of the 16th Ammendment and removal of the vast majority of our tax burden and then enjoy the life and nation we are accustomed to. This is a point of libertarian philosophy that I will never be able to fathom... it is like so self-contradictory to me.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I don't mind taxes, just not income taxes. I think paying for armies, roads, public education for the masses is all in our best interest...

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cat, your perspective sets up a false choice.

- I cannot "choose" to not pay taxes. My employer is required by law to deduct taxes from my paycheck. If I were self-employed, then maybe I would have more of a "choice." But not really, because...

- If I "choose" to not pay taxes, the State will deprive me of my inalienable rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's a false choice. It's like telling a child, "You can eat the rest of your dinner or get a spanking. You choose."

- If I choose to not give an honest tithe, then I cannot expect the blessings that come with it, like temple attendance. The Church isn't going to lock me up if I don't pay.

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat Herder wrote:

Roper wrote:

The big difference, Cat, is that tithing is based on agency whereas taxation is based on forceful coercion.

Perspective, really.

Is there someone standing next to you with a gun forcing you to pay it, or forcing an employer to withhold the tax?

No.

Are we free to decide not to pay income taxes?

Yes.

The difference is that we see the consequent enforcement of penalty attached to failing to obey the secular tax law quicker than we see it for tithes and offerings.

Therefore, most of us choose to exercise our agency in filing tax returns and paying if we are found to be owing.

Just like most of us choose to pay our tithes. We know that if we do not, we can not hold a temple recommend and we know that we will be answerable to God and we want to make sure our "fire insurance" premium is paid up...

Perspective, not the morality or amorality of one or the other concept.

What you call perspective, I call rationalization.
There is a law of tithing. It is clear. We each pay 10% of our increase back to the Lord. There are blessings and consequences attached to that law.
There appears to be no law compelling you to pay a tax. If there was, it would have been simplicity itself for the prosecutor to have shown that. In the absence of such a law, it is immoral to require you, at the point of a gun, to pay. And yes, someone with a gun is literally forcing you to pay. The IRS has armed agents. Their ability, by force, to take everything that you have if you don't pay them money is the only reason many pay. That is immoral.
Without a law obligating you to pay, you are not obligated to pay. So to take your money when you are not obligated to give it to them is immoral. It is theft. But it is a battle that I will not fight because I would lose.
Plus, we owe the Lord tithing because everything that we have comes from him. The same cannot be said of taxes. We do not owe our employment, or our plenty, to the government. The government is a service, not a master. Theoretically, we pay what we want to pay for the services we want. The government has no inherent right to our money. To not fund the government would mean not getting services. Many people think that the government should shrink. For essential services, they can go back to tariffs and apportioned taxes.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cat Herder wrote:
If the entity has the vested power to coin money as a form of legal tender for all goods or services, that same entity most certainly has the power to levy fees on the transmission of that tender.

No, it doesn't. Legal tender has no value in and of itself (besides the miniscule amount of labor and material to produce it) and therefore cannot be taxed. Legal tender is merely the symbolic representation of the fruits of my labor, which the government forcefully takes from me.

Like Coco, I believe we should pay for the services our government renders to us, services that we have agreed are beneficial to the nation as a whole. I just think it's morally wrong to tax income in order to pay for them.

Homestar Runner · Senior Member

Is there someone standing next to you with a gun forcing you to pay it, or forcing an employer to withhold the tax?

No.

Actually, this is not correct. If you do not pay taxes long enough, after the courts have run their course and your assets have been siezed, and notice to vacate has expired, yes indeed, someone armed with a real live gun will show up and take whatever action is necessary to remove your property from you. And that person will have the law on their side.

True, the threat of force is sufficient 99.5% of the time. But there are plenty of stories of force being used.

You will never see tithing-related stories like these:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=785
In Wisconsin, authorities were faced with a couple who refused to leave the house they lost to foreclosure after failing to pay taxes,
...
The authorities made their move in March, when more than 100 federal and local law enforcement officers, backed by a bomb squad, helicopters, ambulances and fire trucks, arrested the Sundsmos

Here's a standoff that is currently ongoing:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070721/REPOSITORY/707210350

The Browns maintain that there is no law requiring anyone pay federal income tax, and they were convicted on charges stemming from the failure to pay taxes on about $1.9 million...If the Browns continue to refuse to pay town taxes, they will add on to about $3 million in fines and back taxes they already owe to the federal government. The town places a lien on a property if taxes are not paid after a year and assesses penalties of up to 18 percent, Halleran said. After three years, the town can take the property.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

So, if the government can tax the real fruits of your labor, roper (I assume there is no disagreement on that, that if you are compensated with a three dozen eggs for a day's labor, then the government can ask you to pay it 1 egg since a transaction occured in which real goods / materials / property was exchagned), how is it that it cannot tax the universally accepted symbolic representation of that when it is exchanged in lieu of a "real" fruit?

Whether y'all like it or not, the State has the right to deny certain liberties and pursuit of happiness as a consequence for failing to obey a law, just as The Lord has the right to deny blessings for failing to obey His commandment, just as a parent has the right to put a child in time out or give a swat on the behind if the child refuses to eat dinner. That is what civilization is folks... it is empowerment of an entity to enforce laws that promote the ability of people to live the gospel... it is not the neo-"Don't Tread On Me" cry of repression because the entity exists. How does paying income tax infringe upon our ability to live the gospel?

Leaving the discussion for sanity's sake. Like I said, this is one area of libertarian philosophy I just can't fathom, and I choose (or is that rationalize?) to withdraw rather than end up creating a consequence where I or others end up virtually bloodying the wall with their forehead...

ETA... the contention the 16th Ammendment not being properly ratified because, amongst the other straining for gnat items such as differences in capitalizations and spellings and punctuation marks used by various states, Ohio not really having been a state until 1953 because Congress didn't pass an official proclamation of Ohio's date of admission to the Union in 1803 until 1953 is plain silly (So, a proclamation is a law, but tax code isn't? Can't have it both ways guys...) and has been repeatedly rejected by the courts.

Also, if your wages are not considered income or increase, why should you then pay tithing on it? If you had not performed the labor for which your wages were paid, would you still have the wealth that you received?

from wikepedia's Tax protester constitutional arguments:

At least two Federal courts have indicated that Congress may constitutionally tax an item as "income," regardless of whether that item is "income" within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment. In Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit stated:

It did not take a constitutional amendment to entitle the United States to impose an income tax. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 158 U. S. 601 (1895), only held that a tax on the income derived from real or personal property was so close to a tax on that property that it could not be imposed without apportionment. The Sixteenth Amendment removed that barrier. Indeed, the requirement for apportionment is pretty strictly limited to taxes on real and personal property and capitation taxes.

It is not necessary to uphold the validity of the tax imposed by the United States that the tax itself bear an accurate label [ . . . ]

It could well be argued that the tax involved here [an income tax] is an "excise tax" based upon the receipt of money by the taxpayer. It certainly is not a tax on property and it certainly is not a capitation tax; therefore, it need not be apportioned. [ . . . ] Congress has the power to impose taxes generally, and if the particular imposition does not run afoul of any constitutional restrictions then the tax is lawful, call it what you will.

In Murphy v. Internal Revenue Serv., the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that a personal injury award received by a taxpayer was "within the reach of the congressional power to tax under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution" -- even if the award was "not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment".

-- Edited by Cat Herder at 12:31, 2007-07-27

arbilad · Head Chef

Whether y'all like it or not, the State has the right to deny certain liberties and pursuit of happiness as a consequence for failing to obey a law,

Cat, you are missing the entire crux of the argument. There is no law requiring you to pay an income tax. It is immoral to enforce a non-existant law. Of course, we are morally bound by our religion to follow such laws as are constitutional and promote the general welfare (there is an excellent section towards the end of the dotrine and covenants about this). If I don't like a law, I will seek to have it changed or repealed. But in this case, they are forcing compliance to a law that does not exist.
If you show me a law passed by Congress requiring people to pay an income tax, then I will shut up. You will have proved me wrong. It should be very simple, shouldn't it? If the law exists, it can be referenced. If it doesn't exist, it is one massive scam.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

In reply to Cat:

So, if the government can tax the real fruits of your labor, roper...how is it that it cannot tax the universally accepted symbolic representation of that when it is exchanged in lieu of a "real" fruit?

I'm not saying the government can't. I'm saying the practice is immoral and the government shouldn't.

Whether y'all like it or not, the State has the right to deny certain liberties and pursuit of happiness as a consequence for failing to obey a law.

And I believe that's perfectly consistent with the proper role of government. But again, I believe income taxation is an immoral practice. The state should not be doing it and certainly should not bring violence to bear against citizens in enforcing the practice.

That is what civilization is folks... it is empowerment of an entity to enforce laws that promote the ability of people to live the gospel...

Hmmm. And all this time I thought the proper role of government was to protect the liberty of citizens so they could exercise their agency--live the Gospel of Jesus Christ if they so choose.

All of your arguments comparing Church and State will be wasted on me. We have strayed so far from the intent of that inspired document we call the Constitution that there remains little similarity between the principles of Lord's Kingdom and our present civil government.

-- Edited by Roper at 13:09, 2007-07-27

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

What is that movie that I was talking about? Has anyone else seen it? It was produced by a man who had done other movies... lemme think...

Found it!! It's called America-Freedom to Fascism, by Aaron Russo. This guy did not start out with the intent to show income tax is not constitutional, but that's what happened. You can see the movie online for free:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

This is a full-length, almost 2 hour movie. I had to pause and watch as I could over the course of a day... But I thought it was very interesting.

-- Edited by Cocobeem at 13:54, 2007-07-27

arbilad · Head Chef

I have it, I mentioned it earlier on Bountiful, but there was no interest in passing around a copy. The guy's a mainstream filmmaker who happened to stumble upon a truth that he really didn't like at first.
There are other examples, like IRS agents who set out to disprove the tax protestor theories and wound up being believers themselves.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

arbilad wrote:

Whether y'all like it or not, the State has the right to deny certain liberties and pursuit of happiness as a consequence for failing to obey a law,

Cat, you are missing the entire crux of the argument. There is no law requiring you to pay an income tax.

No Arbi, I am not missing the entire crux of the contention against paying income tax. Stating that because there is no law that requires an individual pay income tax is pretty much the same thing as stating that there is no law requiring a driver to heed the speed limit. It is also like stating that there is no law that says a citizen shall not give aide and comfort to enemies of the United States.

The speed limit exists. The law does not state that each person shall drive that speed. It simply states operating vehicles over that limit (or in the case of a minimum speed, under) is unlawful. Failure to comply with that law can often lead to Mirkwood or one of our other fine members of law enforcement pulling the operator in non-compliance over for a stern talk and ticket.

An individual can be charged with treason, and even executed if convicted and the level of treason is sufficient, for not only giving aide and comfort to enemies of the United States, but also for making war against the United States... but the Constitution doesn't specifically say to the effect "thou shalt not" do this...

Federal, state, and local income taxes exist and have been put in place legally and lawfully where they exist (though I guess from libertarian viewpoints that legality is up for debate). You do agree that the tax laws exist, don't you?

The point is, where not explicitly spelled out, common sense fills in the implication of the law attached to the penalty or the expectation of compliance attached to a law. Saying "I don't hafta or I don't recognize the legality of it cuz it ain't in stone" is the straining at gnats.

Would the libertarian view really be happy if Congress did pass a little law that explicitly stated "Everyone shall pay income tax. It is required." ? Based on the contentions, that would solve the whole problem, yes? weirdface

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Yes, yes... but...

Can you ever really "own" property? Ultimately your property belongs to you because the country in which you lives complies to a basic set of rules. It costs money to enforce those rules and keep everyone complacently living by those rules. Those monies are therefore raised by taxation. And imo, taxation of the rich has a tendency to make the poor think, "well, okay maybe I won't riot today."

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

rayb wrote:

Yes, yes... but...

Can you ever really "own" property? Ultimately your property belongs to you because the country in which you lives complies to a basic set of rules. It costs money to enforce those rules and keep everyone complacently living by those rules. Those monies are therefore raised by taxation. And imo, taxation of the rich has a tendency to make the poor think, "well, okay maybe I won't riot today."

--Ray

Actually, you can own property. There's some legal rigamarole you can go through to even not pay property taxes (and I'm not talking tax protestor style not pay taxes; I mean the county is not going to come around and ask you for the taxes). It's on my list of things that are neat ideas, but I'll only every get around to if I have copious money and free time.

arbilad · Head Chef

You do agree that the tax laws exist, don't you?
That's the point - at least as far as the Federal income tax is concerned, I don't agree that a law exists creating such a tax. And juries in this and one other case that I can think of off the top of my head don't believe that such a law exists either. That's the point I've been trying to make.
In the cases you mention, speeding and committing treason, there are laws implementing those things. The federal government no longer mandates a 55 mph speed limit, so that's mostly left up to the states. They have written bills, voted on them, the respective governors have signed them into law, and there exists on the law books something to the effect of "No person shall operate a motor vehicle faster than XX mph". In the case of treason, it is written into the constitution that giving aid and comfort to the enemy is a crime.
Where is the law that creates an income tax? The 16th amendment gives Congress the right to create an income tax. But it still requires an act of Congress to do that. Where is the law they passed creating an income tax? Show me that law, and I will be quiet. I'm talking about wanting to see a specific statute number, text of the law in question, and when it was passed.

arbilad · Head Chef

Here is the video that Coco posted the link for. I would appreciate talking about its content, as it makes some pretty serious accusations about the income tax and other things.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Title 26 of the United States Code, known as the Internal Revenue Code.

http://fourmilab.ch/uscode/26usc/

Boy, that was hard.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

.ch is the TLD for Switzerland. Why would a copy of the US tax code be maintained by a Swiss ISP?

Swiss banks...seizing US citizens' property...conspiracy theory beginning to form...

-- Edited by Roper at 22:51, 2007-07-27

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

avoiding paying your taxes is a good way to end up in jail... every decade or so, some nutburger comes up with some reason why you should never pay them... he gathers followers (kinda like Korihor or Nehor) and they all end up in jail. Good luck guys... I look forward to visiting you in the pokey.

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

fear of shiz wrote:

Title 26 of the United States Code, known as the Internal Revenue Code.

http://fourmilab.ch/uscode/26usc/

Boy, that was hard.

Forgive me my laziness, Shiz, but which part of that code is the enabling part? That code is massive. Also, is that US law enacted by an act of Congress, or IRS code enacted by committee?

arbilad · Head Chef

rayb wrote:

avoiding paying your taxes is a good way to end up in jail... every decade or so, some nutburger comes up with some reason why you should never pay them... he gathers followers (kinda like Korihor or Nehor) and they all end up in jail. Good luck guys... I look forward to visiting you in the pokey.

--Ray

I pay precisely because I do not want to end up in jail.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Roper wrote:

.ch is the TLD for Switzerland. Why would a copy of the US tax code be maintained by a Swiss ISP?

Swiss banks...seizing US citizens' property...conspiracy theory beginning to form...

-- Edited by Roper at 22:51, 2007-07-27

Well, it is public domain information, so if someone has the time and desire to create a search engine type database off-shore of the documents, there wouldn't be anything to stop them...

Is this link easier to swallow? http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml

Look for Title 26 USC Sec. 6651, Failure to file tax return or to pay tax.

Read this... http://uscode.house.gov/codification/legislation.shtml
and http://uscode.house.gov/about/info.shtml

Now I'm no lawyer by any means, but it seems that Congress has a little thing going on that will eventually make all titles of the US Code "positive law"...

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

rayb wrote:

(kinda like Korihor or Nehor)

Boy, I miss the good old days when there were regular public tramplings and hangings on trees until the rabble rouser public nuisance was dead...

Organist · Senior Member

I just clicked through a couple pages of the tax code and found the following:

"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income" and then it goes on to describe in excruciating detail upon whom this tax is imposed.

Our incomes would not be possible if we didn't have the economic environment created by the government, thus one can argue that we should pay the government taxes on our income to maintain that stable environment which enables us to gain more income. No one was able to prosper under the Khmer Rouge form of government, and none of us would be able to prosper like we do here, either.

Taxes are imposed by the people (through their elected representatives).

The de facto check and balance on this power is that politicians will try and tax more money from the rich to give to the poor because they need votes, but they will limit the money they tax from the rich, because they need the money of the rich to run their campaign.

arbilad · Head Chef

Our incomes would not be possible if we didn't have the economic environment created by the government,

This is a statement that I take great exception to. The government does not create economic prosperity. The best that the government can do for the economy is to get out it's way. Government regulations hurt the economy at every level. We do not owe economic prosperity to the government. The government is the enemy of economic prosperity. Witness Jason's statements about how much work he has to do, as a small businessman, to comply with government regulations. It's a huge burden.
We depend upon the government to keep us free from foreign invasion, it is true. That is a legitimate purpose of government. But they do not need an income tax to fund that. The income tax goes to entitlement programs of all sorts which we most emphatically do not need.
Besides, the government is not doing it's job of protecting us from foreign invasion because it has gotten so rich and powerful that it has neglected to fulfill one of its legitimate purposes in the interests of gaining more power. Hardly a recommendation to give them more money.

arbilad · Head Chef

Organist wrote:

I just clicked through a couple pages of the tax code and found the following:

"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income" and then it goes on to describe in excruciating detail upon whom this tax is imposed.

Our incomes would not be possible if we didn't have the economic environment created by the government, thus one can argue that we should pay the government taxes on our income to maintain that stable environment which enables us to gain more income. No one was able to prosper under the Khmer Rouge form of government, and none of us would be able to prosper like we do here, either.

Taxes are imposed by the people (through their elected representatives).

The de facto check and balance on this power is that politicians will try and tax more money from the rich to give to the poor because they need votes, but they will limit the money they tax from the rich, because they need the money of the rich to run their campaign.

Ok, fair enough. But I got to thinking, if it's there in black and white, why couldn't the prosecutor in this and other cases simply have shown the jury that law? In the case of this lawyer, 12 jurors voted to acquit him. Either this lawyer is very good and convinced the jurors that black is white and white is black, or there might be something to his argument.

So I went to the tax honesty movement web sites and looked up info on what they say about title 26. They say that it doesn't apply for two reasons. First, "income" as mentioned in the code doesn't refer to any money that may come to a person. In the legal code, evidently, it has a very specific meaning which is not the common meaning. Second, "individual", as referenced there, is specifically defined in the code to mean a non resident foreigner.

It all seems like a stretch to me. But if the IRS really did have such a strong position, you would think that the government would not lose a case on such a weak argument. And another point is, the IRS doesn't charge people under that section of the code when they don't pay their taxes. For instance, in the case of Ed Brown, the government never charged him under that portion of the code that you name.

So, I'm confused, if it's so easy and straightforward, why is the IRS not charging people under that section of the code or even showing it to them when they demand to be shown the law requiring them to pay taxes? What game are they playing at? Is it not in the IRS' best interests to make a strong case for paying your taxes, and to quell any rumor that we are not required to? What then would motivate their silence, if this code creates an income tax?

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I'm with Jason on the amazing prosperity is IN PART due to the civil environment created by government...

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

arbilad wrote:

Either this lawyer is very good and convinced the jurors that black is white and white is black, or there might be something to his argument.
Yeah... some lawyers are really good at twisting things around that way and persuading a jury... it has been known to happen before... OJ Simpson comes to mind immediately. It is called wresting the law.
So, I'm confused,
Well, I won't hold that against ya
if it's so easy and straightforward, why is the IRS not charging people under that section of the code or even showing it to them when they demand to be shown the law requiring them to pay taxes? What game are they playing at? Is it not in the IRS' best interests to make a strong case for paying your taxes, and to quell any rumor that we are not required to? What then would motivate their silence, if this code creates an income tax?
Hey, we're talking government bureacracy and efficiency here in this regards... not law. Existence of a law doesn't equate to the government agency / bureacracy being efficient and having a clue... Those are mutually exclusive things!

My comments in blue...

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

Cat Herder wrote:

rayb wrote:

(kinda like Korihor or Nehor)

Boy, I miss the good old days when there were regular public tramplings and hangings on trees until the rabble rouser public nuisance was dead...

If she weighs as much as a duck then she's a...............

A WITCH BURN HER BURN HER!!!!