I haven't taken the time to view the whole videos (yet), but I'd be willing to bet that if they say "No", ... they are out to lunch.
This issue has been brought up time and again, and _still_ the ones who say that the Income Tax is illegal fail to make their case. Also, why is it that they haven't successfully challenged the whole concept all the way to the Supreme Court? (<--- note the emphasis on that word successfully. Which means that they would have _won_ their challenge)
I notice that I always get an eerie silence or a lot of shuck-and-jive when I present that question.
I think this topic comes up this time of year, every year. Here's the thing Bow, no matter how logically someone can present the argument that income tax is illegal - odds are real good that person isn't going to pay for YOUR attorney to keep YOU out of prison for tax evasion, nor are they going to pay for YOUR attorney to fight penalties and interest for failing to pay or failing to file.
Now, when someone is willing to put their money where their mouth is and put down about $30,000 in a retainer to pay my legal fees, then I MIGHT consider taking put the issue - - then again, probably not.
u know how easy it is to lie on your taxes??? the gov. is losing so much money its ridiculous.
im kinda leary of a paying a ton of tax to a gov. that spends time debating if they should put a warning label on a red bull, or if they should punish a baseball player for trying to be a become a better baseball player...
just my opinions... i know that its not only a possibility that im wrong, its a guarantee...
I haven't looked at the various links in this thread, but here's the text of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution:
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.
Congress is also given the power to impose taxes in Article I of the Constitution. The 16th Amendment specifically mentions income taxes and removes the requirement for apportionment among the states.
I write like I'm an extremist. But I'm not really. I just wish I were.
I have followed with a keen interest this topic for many years. I read Non Dare Call it Conspiracy when I was 20 years old and in the Army. Until that reading, I was happy to be in the Army. After the reading, I was no longer interested in making the Army my career.
Throughout the years, I have thought that if it weren't for the ministry and my family, I would never file taxes again. Well, at my age, with the conditions met, I have to side with Abigail and would much more prefer to have $30,000.00 stashed away for attourney fees before I embark on such an adventure.
There was a foundation founded by Irwin Schiff years ago called Save a Patriot. I followed their newsletters for a few years and then gave it up because I new the fight was a fight to the death and it would cost everything. My family, my home, my freedom and perhaps my very life. And I'm chicken.
I"ve been audited twice. Both times they got me for about $400.00 in unpaid taxes. With interest and penalties, the bill came to just over $600.00. The IRS doesn't like me much any more. I don't have any money for them. So, they pretty much leave me alone.
Hxll, I don't know what to do about all of this stuff. I just know something needs to happen. Maybe it already has. Perhaps we lost our country back in the '70's when Carter was in. I would love to be as pasionate about this as am about thd Bibld.. But it would be tough.
I haven't taken the time to view the whole videos (yet), but I'd be willing to bet that if they say "No", ... they are out to lunch.
This issue has been brought up time and again, and _still_ the ones who say that the Income Tax is illegal fail to make their case. Also, why is it that they haven't successfully challenged the whole concept all the way to the Supreme Court? (<--- note the emphasis on that word successfully. Which means that they would have _won_ their challenge)
I notice that I always get an eerie silence or a lot of shuck-and-jive when I present that question.
<_<
Yawnnnnnnnnn! Successfully eh???
Methinks you just joined ranks with Oldies, and others.
If TWI wasn't SUCCESSFULLY sued, it just didn't count --- >>> right?
The whole system is corrupt and if not illegal, then most certainly unethical and immoral.
I'm not going to go into the legality of it, as I think I understand it, because I've done so before.
There are some good reasons it won't change, legal or illegal. Like Abi, YID and others have said, it would require resources that 99% of the people wouldn't be able to muster. Those who WOULD have the resources, won't because they're the ones who benefit the most from it.
This, along with the abject ignorance of many who just accept things as they are without question (wanting to overturn an immoral system is "shuck and jive"??) and the ones who seem to think it's their patriotic or civic duty to write that check...and there's even a few deluded liberals who think it a priviledge to pay and it's good for society, all make it obvious nothing's going to change in that regard.
The whole system is corrupt and if not illegal, then most certainly unethical and immoral.
I'm not going to go into the legality of it, as I think I understand it, because I've done so before.
There are some good reasons it won't change, legal or illegal. Like Abi, YID and others have said, it would require resources that 99% of the people wouldn't be able to muster. Those who WOULD have the resources, won't because they're the ones who benefit the most from it.
This, along with the abject ignorance of many who just accept things as they are without question (wanting to overturn an immoral system is "shuck and jive"??) and the ones who seem to think it's their patriotic or civic duty to write that check...and there's even a few deluded liberals who think it a priviledge to pay and it's good for society, all make it obvious nothing's going to change in that regard.
Yeah, well, the mafia isn't legal or moral either. But ya know, if it was pay for their protection or get my brains blown out all over my desk - I think I'd probably pay up. It's only money afterall. Easy come and even easier go.
I cannot think of any governmental agency that is scarier than the IRS.
There is no governmental agency that is scarier than the IRS.
What gave the agency it's reputation was Al Capone. Al Capone was so evasive, the G-Men, T-men couldn't convict him of a parking ticket. His downfall was in an IRS audit. The IRS found or made up enough accusations that put him away for a very long time.
You have to wonder what it would be worth it to fight them. I've known people who didn't file for years and worked on a cash basis system only. According to the video, that won't work much longer. I've been audited twice and in both cases I had more receipts than I reported. By accepting less of a so called refund, the IRS was not able to burn me for a lot of money. In fact, had they allowed all the deductions I actually took, and discovered the other receipts, they would have owed me money. That's a great position to be in.
Years ago, I ran into a group who called attention to the soverinty of the individual. As a sovereign individual, we are only servants to whom we allow authority over us. In other words, these people claimed it was possible to deny the dominion of the IRS over a soveriegn person. Trouble with the program they spoke of is it required a lifetime of memorizing the constitution and title 26.
Speaking of title 26. There was a clause Irwin Schriff found in it which stated (and this is paraphrased from my lack of memory)
"For purposes of definition the term United States shall be limited to the residents of Guam, Virgin Islands, Phillipines and the American Samolia."
In a court case, Gould vs Gould, the judge ruled that the definition is limited by the context of which it was written. Meaning. the United States, by this definition, could only be limited to the 4 territories and not to the residents of the 50 states (paraphrased).
I will look through my files to find the citation verbatim. But it was shattering to the IRS. In their own code, which none of the agents are well read, there was a clause exempting every American from filing. Not just from paying.
Oh! The power of rightly-dividing Chapter 26. If you are going to take them on, you'd better read it.
I didn't believe the clause existed. Until one day, I went to a central library in the city I live in and looked it up. It was there as plain as day.
I would suggest if you are going to fight the IRS, you'd better know title 26 as well as you know the Bible.
In the video, I was mused by the frustration on the agent's face when confronted with showing his badge. He didn't have one! ! !
Their power is totally assumed. It is granted by the person they interview or audit. Listen to the interview again and watch his face. It's like confronting a Southern Baptist with Acts 1:5. They never answer the question. They go on the attack with a new question assuming you are responsible to answer and you are found guilty and assumed guilty until proven innocent, which they would nor could ever allow.
There is no governmental agency that is scarier than the IRS.
What gave the agency it's reputation was Al Capone. Al Capone was so evasive, the G-Men, T-men couldn't convict him of a parking ticket. His downfall was in an IRS audit. The IRS found or made up enough accusations that put him away for a very long time.
You have to wonder what it would be worth it to fight them. I've known people who didn't file for years and worked on a cash basis system only. According to the video, that won't work much longer. I've been audited twice and in both cases I had more receipts than I reported. By accepting less of a so called refund, the IRS was not able to burn me for a lot of money. In fact, had they allowed all the deductions I actually took, and discovered the other receipts, they would have owed me money. That's a great position to be in.
Years ago, I ran into a group who called attention to the soverinty of the individual. As a sovereign individual, we are only servants to whom we allow authority over us. In other words, these people claimed it was possible to deny the dominion of the IRS over a soveriegn person. Trouble with the program they spoke of is it required a lifetime of memorizing the constitution and title 26.
Speaking of title 26. There was a clause Irwin Schriff found in it which stated (and this is paraphrased from my lack of memory)
"For purposes of definition the term United States shall be limited to the residents of Guam, Virgin Islands, Phillipines and the American Samolia."
In a court case, Gould vs Gould, the judge ruled that the definition is limited by the context of which it was written. Meaning. the United States, by this definition, could only be limited to the 4 territories and not to the residents of the 50 states (paraphrased).
I will look through my files to find the citation verbatim. But it was shattering to the IRS. In their own code, which none of the agents are well read, there was a clause exempting every American from filing. Not just from paying.
Oh! The power of rightly-dividing Chapter 26. If you are going to take them on, you'd better read it.
I didn't believe the clause existed. Until one day, I went to a central library in the city I live in and looked it up. It was there as plain as day.
I would suggest if you are going to fight the IRS, you'd better know title 26 as well as you know the Bible.
In the video, I was mused by the frustration on the agent's face when confronted with showing his badge. He didn't have one! ! !
Their power is totally assumed. It is granted by the person they interview or audit. Listen to the interview again and watch his face. It's like confronting a Southern Baptist with Acts 1:5. They never answer the question. They go on the attack with a new question assuming you are responsible to answer and you are found guilty and assumed guilty until proven innocent, which they would nor could ever allow.
Ok, I just searched Title 26 and didn't find the clause saying "For purposes of definition, the term United States shall include Puerto Rico, Philippines, Guam, and the American Samoa". I'm sure I saw it there before. However there are occurances where the title defines applications for the states and District of Columbia.
So, it's a poor argument. No wonder it wasn't mentioned in the video. Who wrote that stuff? Some one was on some serious prescriptions because the title is very contraditory and confusing. I understand it was written that way so no one would attempt to read it. Smart move.
Ok, I just searched Title 26 and didn't find the clause saying "For purposes of definition, the term United States shall include Puerto Rico, Philippines, Guam, and the American Samoa". I'm sure I saw it there before. However there are occurances where the title defines applications for the states and District of Columbia.
So, it's a poor argument. No wonder it wasn't mentioned in the video. Who wrote that stuff? Some one was on some serious prescriptions because the title is very contraditory and confusing. I understand it was written that way so no one would attempt to read it. Smart move.
Classic example of the "Big Ooops!" And some lines that I would be willing to bet was spoken by the defendent after his case was *bitchslapped*, and the court is ready to render sentencing. "Ooopsie! Yer honor. Apparently I was misinformed. **Please** be gentle with me!"
Dmiller,
Yawnnnnnnnnn! Successfully eh???
Methinks you just joined ranks with Oldies, and others.
If TWI wasn't SUCCESSFULLY sued, it just didn't count --- >>> right?
Same difference. Shuck and jive indeed.
(My imo)
Your comparison is flawed. What I was referring to was the legality of the income tax and it being taken to the Supreme Court as a test/challenge of its Constitutionality. In order to successfully challenge the Constitutionality of _any_ law, one must go through the process of appealing said law, and all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. ... Period. ... Its a process that won't be changed. ..... Sorry.
Your example of successfully suing TWI is not anywhere near to being similar to my point.
that phrase appears in the Social Security Act (section 210). It may also appear in Title 26 for all I know. HOWEVER it appears thusly:
State
(h) The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
It would be a stretch to argue that the term "State" does not ALSO include the 50 states of the United States, especially since the NEXT line says:
United States
(i) The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense means the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
In other words, when the tax code says "States" it means the 50 states AND those other places, not just the other places. By the way, there are very large penalties if the IRS determines that you have participated in any of the various scams that are offered each year of places to hide your money that make it tax free.
Hey, I am all in favor of learning all you can to LEGALLY take advantage of all the deductions you can qualify for, but it is just plain insane to argue against the legality of the income tax. You ain't gonna win. I can think of at least one poster here who has been the victim of such ill-advised schemes, once promoted by various leadership in TWI
It's near impossible to do anything today and not have some kind of surcharge attached to it. If it costs money or there's an exchange of money, or if I take my money out of my pocket to look at it to see if it's still there - it'll get taxed.
As a member in good standing of the "middle class" I'm getting screwed. No kiss, no hug, just screwed.
All I know to do is vote regularly and as intelligently as I can. As I understand it federal taxes are legal, and the one that are voted in to practice are too. So I just try to support activities that will reduce taxes and promote good use of what's already going in.
Recommended Posts
oldiesman
This was previously covered in a GS thread here:
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=375330
There's a lot more information on that video than just the income tax. I think it's worth viewing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I haven't taken the time to view the whole videos (yet), but I'd be willing to bet that if they say "No", ... they are out to lunch.
This issue has been brought up time and again, and _still_ the ones who say that the Income Tax is illegal fail to make their case. Also, why is it that they haven't successfully challenged the whole concept all the way to the Supreme Court? (<--- note the emphasis on that word successfully. Which means that they would have _won_ their challenge)
I notice that I always get an eerie silence or a lot of shuck-and-jive when I present that question.
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I think this topic comes up this time of year, every year. Here's the thing Bow, no matter how logically someone can present the argument that income tax is illegal - odds are real good that person isn't going to pay for YOUR attorney to keep YOU out of prison for tax evasion, nor are they going to pay for YOUR attorney to fight penalties and interest for failing to pay or failing to file.
Now, when someone is willing to put their money where their mouth is and put down about $30,000 in a retainer to pay my legal fees, then I MIGHT consider taking put the issue - - then again, probably not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Two words.
Irwin Schiff.
Edited by SushiLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Two words - Wesley Snipes
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
three words- they're pluckin nuts
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bowtwi
Three words - YOWZA! Thanks y'all! :blink:
:unsure: 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
don't know if its illegal...
but its stupid, im sure there is a better way...
u know how easy it is to lie on your taxes??? the gov. is losing so much money its ridiculous.
im kinda leary of a paying a ton of tax to a gov. that spends time debating if they should put a warning label on a red bull, or if they should punish a baseball player for trying to be a become a better baseball player...
just my opinions... i know that its not only a possibility that im wrong, its a guarantee...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckeer
"A better way?"
Two Words Fair Tax
For what it is worth republican candidate Mike Huckabee supports the fair tax
Two books about the fair tax-
The Fair-Tax-Book-Saying-Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS
The FairTax-Answering the-Critics
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex70sHouston
My experience of arguing with the IRS is $50,000 in penalty and interest. It doesnt mater if you are right or wrong. Its what their computer says.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Wow. Sorry to hear that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
I haven't looked at the various links in this thread, but here's the text of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution:
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.
Congress is also given the power to impose taxes in Article I of the Constitution. The 16th Amendment specifically mentions income taxes and removes the requirement for apportionment among the states.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YID
I write like I'm an extremist. But I'm not really. I just wish I were.
I have followed with a keen interest this topic for many years. I read Non Dare Call it Conspiracy when I was 20 years old and in the Army. Until that reading, I was happy to be in the Army. After the reading, I was no longer interested in making the Army my career.
Throughout the years, I have thought that if it weren't for the ministry and my family, I would never file taxes again. Well, at my age, with the conditions met, I have to side with Abigail and would much more prefer to have $30,000.00 stashed away for attourney fees before I embark on such an adventure.
There was a foundation founded by Irwin Schiff years ago called Save a Patriot. I followed their newsletters for a few years and then gave it up because I new the fight was a fight to the death and it would cost everything. My family, my home, my freedom and perhaps my very life. And I'm chicken.
I"ve been audited twice. Both times they got me for about $400.00 in unpaid taxes. With interest and penalties, the bill came to just over $600.00. The IRS doesn't like me much any more. I don't have any money for them. So, they pretty much leave me alone.
Hxll, I don't know what to do about all of this stuff. I just know something needs to happen. Maybe it already has. Perhaps we lost our country back in the '70's when Carter was in. I would love to be as pasionate about this as am about thd Bibld.. But it would be tough.
I loved the video.
Thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YID
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfz2XDXaeqc
That's all I have to say about that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Yawnnnnnnnnn! Successfully eh???
Methinks you just joined ranks with Oldies, and others.
If TWI wasn't SUCCESSFULLY sued, it just didn't count --- >>> right?
Same difference. Shuck and jive indeed. <_<
(My imo)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
The whole system is corrupt and if not illegal, then most certainly unethical and immoral.
I'm not going to go into the legality of it, as I think I understand it, because I've done so before.
There are some good reasons it won't change, legal or illegal. Like Abi, YID and others have said, it would require resources that 99% of the people wouldn't be able to muster. Those who WOULD have the resources, won't because they're the ones who benefit the most from it.
This, along with the abject ignorance of many who just accept things as they are without question (wanting to overturn an immoral system is "shuck and jive"??) and the ones who seem to think it's their patriotic or civic duty to write that check...and there's even a few deluded liberals who think it a priviledge to pay and it's good for society, all make it obvious nothing's going to change in that regard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Yeah, well, the mafia isn't legal or moral either. But ya know, if it was pay for their protection or get my brains blown out all over my desk - I think I'd probably pay up. It's only money afterall. Easy come and even easier go.
I cannot think of any governmental agency that is scarier than the IRS.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YID
Abigail,
There is no governmental agency that is scarier than the IRS.
What gave the agency it's reputation was Al Capone. Al Capone was so evasive, the G-Men, T-men couldn't convict him of a parking ticket. His downfall was in an IRS audit. The IRS found or made up enough accusations that put him away for a very long time.
You have to wonder what it would be worth it to fight them. I've known people who didn't file for years and worked on a cash basis system only. According to the video, that won't work much longer. I've been audited twice and in both cases I had more receipts than I reported. By accepting less of a so called refund, the IRS was not able to burn me for a lot of money. In fact, had they allowed all the deductions I actually took, and discovered the other receipts, they would have owed me money. That's a great position to be in.
Years ago, I ran into a group who called attention to the soverinty of the individual. As a sovereign individual, we are only servants to whom we allow authority over us. In other words, these people claimed it was possible to deny the dominion of the IRS over a soveriegn person. Trouble with the program they spoke of is it required a lifetime of memorizing the constitution and title 26.
Speaking of title 26. There was a clause Irwin Schriff found in it which stated (and this is paraphrased from my lack of memory)
"For purposes of definition the term United States shall be limited to the residents of Guam, Virgin Islands, Phillipines and the American Samolia."
In a court case, Gould vs Gould, the judge ruled that the definition is limited by the context of which it was written. Meaning. the United States, by this definition, could only be limited to the 4 territories and not to the residents of the 50 states (paraphrased).
I will look through my files to find the citation verbatim. But it was shattering to the IRS. In their own code, which none of the agents are well read, there was a clause exempting every American from filing. Not just from paying.
Oh! The power of rightly-dividing Chapter 26. If you are going to take them on, you'd better read it.
I didn't believe the clause existed. Until one day, I went to a central library in the city I live in and looked it up. It was there as plain as day.
I would suggest if you are going to fight the IRS, you'd better know title 26 as well as you know the Bible.
In the video, I was mused by the frustration on the agent's face when confronted with showing his badge. He didn't have one! ! !
Their power is totally assumed. It is granted by the person they interview or audit. Listen to the interview again and watch his face. It's like confronting a Southern Baptist with Acts 1:5. They never answer the question. They go on the attack with a new question assuming you are responsible to answer and you are found guilty and assumed guilty until proven innocent, which they would nor could ever allow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YID
Ok, I just searched Title 26 and didn't find the clause saying "For purposes of definition, the term United States shall include Puerto Rico, Philippines, Guam, and the American Samoa". I'm sure I saw it there before. However there are occurances where the title defines applications for the states and District of Columbia.
So, it's a poor argument. No wonder it wasn't mentioned in the video. Who wrote that stuff? Some one was on some serious prescriptions because the title is very contraditory and confusing. I understand it was written that way so no one would attempt to read it. Smart move.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Dmiller,
Your comparison is flawed. What I was referring to was the legality of the income tax and it being taken to the Supreme Court as a test/challenge of its Constitutionality. In order to successfully challenge the Constitutionality of _any_ law, one must go through the process of appealing said law, and all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. ... Period. ... Its a process that won't be changed. ..... Sorry.
Your example of successfully suing TWI is not anywhere near to being similar to my point.
... That wasn't even a 'nice try', guy. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
that phrase appears in the Social Security Act (section 210). It may also appear in Title 26 for all I know. HOWEVER it appears thusly:
State
(h) The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
It would be a stretch to argue that the term "State" does not ALSO include the 50 states of the United States, especially since the NEXT line says:
United States
(i) The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense means the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
In other words, when the tax code says "States" it means the 50 states AND those other places, not just the other places. By the way, there are very large penalties if the IRS determines that you have participated in any of the various scams that are offered each year of places to hide your money that make it tax free.
Hey, I am all in favor of learning all you can to LEGALLY take advantage of all the deductions you can qualify for, but it is just plain insane to argue against the legality of the income tax. You ain't gonna win. I can think of at least one poster here who has been the victim of such ill-advised schemes, once promoted by various leadership in TWI
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
The U.S. Treasury list of some of the taxes we pay.
It's near impossible to do anything today and not have some kind of surcharge attached to it. If it costs money or there's an exchange of money, or if I take my money out of my pocket to look at it to see if it's still there - it'll get taxed.
As a member in good standing of the "middle class" I'm getting screwed. No kiss, no hug, just screwed.
All I know to do is vote regularly and as intelligently as I can. As I understand it federal taxes are legal, and the one that are voted in to practice are too. So I just try to support activities that will reduce taxes and promote good use of what's already going in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Taxman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
The IRS Theme Song:
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.