What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
350 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -27/+175He was convicted by the same government that would stand to lose billions of dollars by an accurate verdict. Conflict of interest anyone?
- math20, on 10/12/2007, -11/+102@groof, absolutely none of those things are paid for through the federal level income tax and if they were, that would violate the 10th amendment.
- groof, on 10/12/2007, -102/+188Is everybody crazy? Not being American, I don't much care about the outcome of this, but does anyone else realize that income tax is necessary? Yes, we all bitch and moan about it, but... You know that road in front of your house? The pipes bringing water to your house? The guy that picks up your garbage? The policeman who serves you? The teacher teaching your kids? ...umm, you wouldn't get that if no one paid income taxes.
Think. - Zarxrax, on 10/12/2007, -11/+80@groof: You are incorrect. All of the things you mentioned are paid for by the state, city, or county governments, for which there is absolutely no question that they have the authority to tax us. The federal government also clearly has the right to tax the states. From reading this guy's blog, it's pretty clear that his main problem is not that he has to pay taxes, but that he believes that the federal government has no authority to directly tax the income of the citizens.
- scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -38/+94American: From Freedom to Fascism...this documentary talks about the 'income tax' issue
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=freedom+to+fascism
If anyone has a pro-income tax documentary, go ahead and post it below mine - david76, on 10/12/2007, -22/+72Sure... how about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution - Leomarth, on 10/12/2007, -17/+51It was my understanding that Ed Brown had already been convicted of tax evasion and was now holed up in his house. That was the last I had heard.
- manixrock, on 10/12/2007, -8/+35I have viewed Aaron's movie America: Freedom to Fascism, and have informed myself in matters of income tax related information, so you know I speak with some knowledge behind me. Let me try to summarize the movie's message (the connection to this story will become apparent):
People with money and influence decided to make immense sums of money by bribing senators to create a Central Bank in America, but it will be PRIVATELY OWNED by them. You will never hear of this in mainstream media. The bank creates the paper we call money and sells it to the goverment at interest. The second part of this scheme is to create a tax that will pay for this - the income tax. The problem being that the constitution FORBIDS a direct (applied to all citisens) unapportioned (the money doesn't get spent on public facilities, it all goes to the private american central bank) tax on americans. So, in short, the effect is every year about 1-2% of all of american's wealth is robbed by these people. NOW...
It would all be no more that speculation, worthy of no more than a S.F. book, were it not for the rational person's bread and butter - PROOF. It's all in the aformentioned movie. Please watch it with an impartial clean perspective, without dismissing it before-hand. Assuming that this is all untrue is not very different from germans during WW2 thinking jews were not rounded and mass-murdered (the news-papers at the timem like today, never showed the trully important facts).
A few here have said that if we didn't have income tax we wouldn't have the public facilities we enjoy today. This is not true. All the other taxes take care of those. The schools and hospitals are paid for by local taxes. The army is paid for by federal income tax. Many more examples movie.
When someone (in this case the mass-media) sais something bad about someone we should assume he has a reason for saying that. Weather the reason is that it's true, or weather they have some other reasons is easily assertained by one thing - proof. - Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -19/+42@david76: No, no, no... He asked for a *documentary*.None of that reading crap. If it ain't packaged into a video for easy consumption, it ain't' true!
- ngt13, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30this man is brave, everyone else is just following the rules of the government, but he has to balls to stand up to them
- Murphys, on 10/12/2007, -13/+35Well put. I'm not trying to be a shill, but I have recently joined Fairtax.org to try to get the country to reach the same conclusion as you have. Don't tax it when I make it, let me decide when I spend it or not.
- strabes, on 10/12/2007, -10/+32The question isn't whether or not we currently are required to pay income taxes. It's whether it is just to force people to pay income taxes. Many groups and organizations (the CATO institute, for example - www.cato.org) favor eliminating the federal income tax and instead creating a flat consumption tax on non-necessity goods. It would create more incetive to work and get education, etc. Most of the revenue recieved through the federal income tax is spent on bureaucracy instead of things that actually benefit the people of the United States.
- SweetMercury, on 10/12/2007, -13/+34@S1ngular1ty1
"You are all crazy and or stupid. Of course the government has the right to tax the income of its citizens. And yes, that tax is used to pay for things like roads, education, defense, the space program, medicare, and other essential resources."
So no one would want to build roads, educate the youth, defend the country, provide medicine, or even explore space without the government wrenching money from its citizens?
The government has no right to levy taxes on its citizens, because governments do not have rights. Governments have responsibilities and duties, and are granted permissions and privileges to carry them out. The Constitution puts limits on those privileges and permissions because the rights of the citizenry are paramount.
"Society would break down if there was no federal tax. If you don't like it move to a different 3rd world country without a federal tax. Oh, wait most of them have a higher federal tax than the US"
So, you're touting the glories of a federal income tax, and then pointing out a correlation between 3rd world countries and high federal income tax. Good job. - rholloway, on 10/12/2007, -14/+35yeah, and based on some precedents I've since read on Wiki, he's going to jail.
- coviecarbine, on 10/12/2007, -19/+40Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. Personally though I think income taxes are *****, leave my paycheck out of it, I'll pay when I buy something or for my property.
- BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -10/+31Agreed.
Taxes aren't bad, they pay for roads & defense & schools... Most of the time the "buh...i don't have to pay taxes!" crowd are just self-serving and greedy, and don't recognize that the only reason they have the money they have is because of the social structure that their paying taxes supports.
anyways, I don't mind taxes, so long as their managed well... the real problem isn't high taxes, it's morons in office spending them on stupid crap - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+33don't complain untill you've paid canadian income tax
- HappyPig, on 10/12/2007, -28/+48Two things:
One: Ed is a nutball:
"This situation is exploding so fast in this nation and internationally that the Illuminati around the world are becoming very aware," Brown told the Concord Monitor, referring to a secret society Brown believes has infiltrated the world's governments.
(www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2007/01/22/militia_man_prepares_for_standoff_that_so_far_isnt_coming/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+New+Hampshire+news)
Two: This has been a teensy-weensy bit covered on Digg before.
http://digg.com/politics/Show_Me_The_Law_I_ll_Pay_The_Tax_Campaign_S01
http://digg.com/politics/Armed_Man_Guilty_of_Tax_Evasion_Barricades_Himself_in_New_Hampshire_Home
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Man_stands_up_to_IRS_and_loses_case_continues_to_make_a_stand_in_his_home
http://digg.com/politics/Holed_Up_Tax_Protester_Wife_Convicted
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Tax_Fugitive_Barricaded_in_House_Show_Us_the_Law_and_We_ll_Pay
http://digg.com/world_news/Armed_tax_evader_prepared_to_defend_himself_against_capture_by_Feds
http://digg.com/politics/Patriot_and_Liberty_Activist_Ed_Brown_Refuses_His_Tax_Evasion_Conviction
http://digg.com/world_news/We_may_be_about_to_see_another_Waco_assault
http://digg.com/politics/Stand_off_like_the_one_at_Waco_TX_developing_beginning_in_New_Hampshire
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Hey_Uncle_Sam_tax_this
http://digg.com/politics/NH_Couple_Preparing_for_Final_Stand_aginst_IRS
http://digg.com/politics/Brown_Standoff_aginst_the_IRS_Gaining_Momentum
http://digg.com/politics/Tax_Protesters_Preparing_for_Waco_Style_Attack_After_Judge_Denys_Fair_Trial
http://digg.com/politics/Man_holed_up_in_home_after_tax_evasion_verdict
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Tax_Fugitive_Barricaded_in_House_Show_Us_the_Law_and_We_ll_Pay
http://digg.com/politics/Ed_Brown_s_Revolution
http://digg.com/world_news/Tax_Evader_Barricades_Himself_In_N_H_Home
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Standoff_in_New_Hampshire
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Who_says_you_have_to_pay_taxes_Ed_Brown_will_die_to_prove_you_don_t
http://digg.com/politics/Call_to_Pitchforks_Wow_All_over_legality_of_Income_Tax_THIS_IS_TODAY
http://digg.com/world_news/Feds_VS_American_Patriots
http://digg.com/world_news/Is_Ed_Brown_wrong_after_all
http://digg.com/politics/Tax_Fugitive_Barricaded_in_House_Show_Us_the_Law_and_We_ll_Pay_2
http://digg.com/world_news/Home_of_the_brave_land_of_the_free_government_of_scofflaws
http://digg.com/politics/American_Hero_Ed_Brown_Unfairly_represented_by_Fox_News
http://digg.com/politics/This_man_is_a_better_man_than_you
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Tax_Resister_Ed_Brown_In_His_Own_Words
http://digg.com/politics/Tax_Protester_Exposes_Federal_Government_Fraud
http://digg.com/politics/A_True_American_Patriot
http://digg.com/politics/Ed_Brown_on_Alex_Jones_Show_01_24_07
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Preview_The_assassination_of_Ed_Brown
http://digg.com/world_news/New_Hampshire_Man_Will_Shoot_Tax_Collectors_Calls_Come_For_Supporters
http://digg.com/world_news/Media_Wants_Waco_Style_Massacre
http://digg.com/world_news/Educating_juries_for_income_tax_trials - donjaime, on 10/12/2007, -8/+28The Income tax collected just goes into paying off the federal reseve.... which oddly enough is a PRIVATE (read not part of the government) consortium which lend money to the government. It's all a big scam to take large swaths of peoples' money
All services like roads, schools, etc.. are payed for by fuel tax, property tax, state taxes and so forth. Income tax does absolutely nothing but hold back growth. - NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25" Of course the government has the right to tax the income of its citizens"
No. Governments do not have rights at all. Governments have *powers*, which are either delegated to them by their citizens, or claimed by brute force.
-jcr - themonkman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23@groof
The fact that your not American may contribute to your lack of knowledge of which taxes fund what services. Roads outside are funded by the Gas tax (.42/gal), schools are funded by property taxes (which is why rich neighborhoods have really nice schools), and public utilities and related taxes paid on that along with state income taxes pay for infrastructure such as sewer and water. Corporate income tax funds the Defense Department. The Federal Income tax pays for one thing and one thing only: the interest on the debt that we owe to the Federal Reserve Bank, which is not a bank owned by the Federal government, yet by a conglomerate of private banks such as JP Morgan, Chase, etc. The Federal Reserve Act was brought into power and signed into law by Woodrow Wilson in 1913. After signing the authorization for the creation of the Federal Reserve, which would lead to the entire reason of having income taxes, Woodrow said the following:
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by it's system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
Even Woodrow Wilson knew the big mistake he made. We continue to live this grave mistake and allow by compliance the American People to be illegally defrauded out of billions of dollars. If you want to claim that it's not fraud because of the 16th Amendment, let me give you one more quote, and a couple of case rulings:
"If you examined The 16th Amendment carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment." - US District Court Judge, James C. Fox 2003.
Lets not also forget Peck vs. Lowe - "The 16th Amendment did not extend congresses taxing power to any new or accepted subjects." Basically, this means if you weren't liable to pay income taxes prior to the 16th Amendment, your not required to pay them after it. Besides, the 16th was never properly ratified, and shouldn't even be coupled in paper next to our constitution. - argoff, on 10/12/2007, -13/+30The GiveMeLiberty foundation is trash. The fact that they always try to secure their liberties thru technical legal loopholes instead of thru real methods only goes to show how far they have their head up their ass. They do not want liberty, what they want is to monetize your desire for liberty by shuffling you into an endless array of conferences and prodding you to purchase an endless stream of books and stuff - that will prod you to pay for even more stuff. If they spent 1/100th the effort to secure an offshore financial network, and set up employee pay anonymous from the government as they spent on prodding people - we would already have economic freedom beyond anything the government can do about.
- KyferEz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20@Cl1mh4224rd
The HUGH taxes you pay on GAS should be used for the roads, NOT income tax! Lots of people work and walk, especially in bigger cities. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15This doesn't scare the IRS one bit.
- krunk4ever, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22RE: groof
I'm not here to say if income tax is neccessary or not if it's legal or not, but if I recall this correctly, not 1 penny of all the income taxes goes into any government service. All the income tax today is used to pay interest (not even the principal) of the loans we have. A quite informative video to watch is:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198 - qbyte, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22This is stupid. If you succeed in doing away with income taxes, they will just be replaced with much higher and brand new taxes on other services and items.
On the flip side, if I'm wrong and you manage to eliminate the income tax without any new taxes, how are you going to get things like free healthcare and all of the other things that you want the government to do for you? I know! Let's just make the fed print more funny money and we'll all be rich!
You have to pay taxes if you want free stuff from Uncle Sam. - LegalSatire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16@Rasputin2:
"That is all they have tried to do so far is get answers to some questions they have, and thus far the governement has refused to respond to their Petition for redress of Grievances..."
This is a common misconception, the first amendment allows for the petition of redress of grievances, but in no place does it say (nor is it expected) that there would be a RESPONSE. The government doesn't have to fix your problems, just hear them - something they based off the fact that the crown would not even listen to their plea in Great Britian.
-Law Student - scoot87, on 10/12/2007, -11/+24OK...
1.those are all posted stories on him, not stories that made the front page.
2.If you want to see a story covered a bit by Digg just type in 'Anna Nicole Smith'.
3.You don't think this topic is of importance to our American Society?
4. Labeling people as 'nutballs' really doesn't strengthen your argument
5. Your basis of arguement is by pointing out a belief he has and labeling him a wacko when you don't look and argue against the bigger message, which is his fight against the income tax law. - clubmasta2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19When the supreme court overturns their rulling from previous cases that say (in almost plain english) you have to pay taxes I'll stop. But ever since 1992 when this loophole was closed by the supreme court, and I don't know why people don't realize this. The IRS has 0 legal backing, they were created by the government to manage the funding comming in, if they found you have violated their rules they will report you to the courts where they have the legal backing to fine you and put you in jail. Via supreme court ruling which go above anything the law says...basicly your day in court will be fighting a supreme court ruling, good luck.
The gamble comes from hoping the government won't find you or they won't have time too. I know you guys really want to support the rich people and stop paying for an illegal war but you need to find another way. Stop making people believe lies and give them the real truth, your only real defence is that not all the states agreed to some ammendment over a hundrad years ago. Fight the good fight, but wake up when you hit the part about how the supreme court says it's the law. - kavaliro, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16@groof:
Not being American, you wouldn't know that NONE of those things are even remotely supported by income tax. Those things are supported by sales taxes(not income tax) and property taxes(also not income tax.) - sandbird, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"Disclaimer: IANAL"
And it shows. - jwcooper, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17I hope people realize that if he were to ever prove that we didn't have to pay income taxes, there would be an emergency congressional session to modify the law to require taxes. It's pretty simple.
Not to mention, if the US lost the tax dollars from income taxes it would collapse under its own weight. There is no way the US could survive without these taxes with the current spending (it can't even continue with the current spending *with* income taxes...). - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"Our money would hyper inflate because it would not be backed by anything, it would basically be worthless"
Just what do you think it's "backed by" now? - NYG1988, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Except for that pesky amendment to the constitution.
- Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14"I don't pretend to be an expert on whether or not there is a law that says we have to pay taxes on our wages,"
There isnt, you have to pay taxes on income, which has been interperted as any "accession to wealth" (Gleenclose Glass v. Commissoner) . The law is Title 26 of the United States Code.
"but I am not stupid"
that we shall find out
"I know that a tax on wages would be considered by any honest court to be a form of involuntary servitude."
You assert that every single court in the history of US is dishonest? According to Thomas Jefferson, your only logical course of action is revolt, happy rioting.
"If one owes taxes on his wages, then he has worked however many hours it takes to earn the amount owed, in a state of involuntary servitude. Period."
The amount owed is a ratio of the amount earned, and whether or not wages are income is a completely different debate. One does not work to earn what is owed when one does not owe until after he has worked. You are free to never work, (or to just "work the land") as long as you dont seek income you pay no taxes. The reason you are taxed is the theory that any assession to wealth that you receive is only possible thanks to the system constructed and maintained by the government. They just want their cut of the profits as your buisness partner."
"Involuntary servitude has been prohibited by the 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution since 1865."
True.
"If the federal (or any government) wished to tax the wages of the citizens of the several states, they would have to repeal the 13th amendment, something that would make a large group of people extremely uncomfortable."
No they wouldn't they could pass another amendment, say the 16th, that says they can tax income from whatever source derived. That way they could tax income from whatever source derived and it would be in directly constitutional and only someone stupid could think otherwise.
"Not being a lawyer or a person who is well versed in the IRS Code,"
There is no IRS Code, there are Treasury Regulations and the United States Code Title 26 which is known as "the Tax Code" but the IRS is merely an administrative agency and has no authority to issue any code. In fact, if you ever find any ,write your congress person, its HIGHLY illegal. Admin Agencies can write rules and regulations but the creation of code is solely in the power of Congress.
I am in law school bytheway, studying income tax this semester as a matter of fact.
"I do have to rely on the opinions of those who know more than me when interpreting the code. However, it is because the code is complicated enough to confuse me, and a lot of other people,"
Its confusing, but its surprisingly readible. You must understand ALOT of the code applies to situations that you would never deal with (like say if you gave your dying grandmother your primary residence which had apperciated in value after your investment and remodeling which included you inadverently having up a piece of artwork that was found to be a long lost Van Gogh, that would problem not happen to you, but the tax consequences are many AND the code, sadly, has it covered.)
"I have to suspect that the truth would be that there is no law imposing a tax on our wages"
Your 100% correct, there is no such federal law. INCOME is tax, not wages, it is possible to have wages but no income (their are examples inside the Treasury Regulations that explain this)
"and that the code is merely a clever con perpetrated against the citizens of the several states."
Its clever, but its no con,you can read it anytime you want. Infact, it has hundreds of deductions you may not know about, give it a reading.
"The only way any government in this country could "tax" our wages lawfully is if we voluntarily submit to the taxation."
Assuming those wages are income, they could legally tax them under that 16th Amendment I was telling you about.
"If we knew plain as day that the paying of taxes on our wages was voluntary, how many people would actually pay it? No many"
Althought it
Therefore a fraud has to be devised and the IRS code may be that fraud.
Another thing to note is that most states that impose taxes on income, do so by stipulating in their laws that if you are required to pay federal income taxes, you are required to pay the state's income tax. Why don't those states simply say that we have to pay a tax? That is the state's way of participating in the fraud, I think. - JavertHolmes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/appendix.html
That's a list of federal tax budgets by agency.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/spec.pdf
Is a 410 page analysis. Happy reading. - Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Before you guys go calling things unconstitutional, how bout you take a min to actually READ the document and the volumes and volumes of case law that interpret it. Or do you think your memory of 10th grade Civics class gives you insight?
- clubmasta2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Give me a site that's not spam, links from propaganda sites are always skewed
And that was a lower court, who if reviewed or the judgment appealed the court case will at some point side with the supreme court and it never made it that far. That was also a number of years ago, and for whatever reason the judge was too lazy to give the jury what they needed, and all they needed were those supreme court cases. - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -29/+39There's an amendment that says the government can use an income tax. IOW, it's part of the constitution.
Amendment XVI - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913.
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.
So, it looks like the little whore Ed Brown won't accomplish anything except lose other people's money. - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16"He was convicted by the same government that would stand to lose billions of dollars by an accurate verdict. Conflict of interest anyone?"
It's not the government that will be losing that money. It's the private bankers who operate the privately owned and privately operated federal reserve who will lose out. - tehgooch, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20It doesn't matter if the income tax is "lawful", provides services you may or may not use, or even if it makes you feel good paying it. [Income] tax is wrong. It is forcefully taken from you with the threat of stealing from you, being thrown in a rape room or being killed. If it is so good, why do they have to threaten you with that?
- kavaliro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@fatdog789
"The taxes earned through the income tax are used to BUILD new interstate roads."
No, no they aren't. You are in error. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@raisputin2:
Do you not know the meaning of the word "liable"? The section I referenced *is* the law that makes you "liable" for paying taxes, when it uses the words "there is hereby imposed on the taxable income [etc.]". If you're looking for the authority to impose income taxes, it's in the United States Constitution, specifically the Sixteenth Amendment.
Law is not magic. It's not mystical, or even mysterious. The Constitution says the Congress can levy income taxes, and the Internal Revenue Code defines those taxes and who has to pay which ones. That's it, that's all there is to it, right there in black and white for anyone who can read to do so. Nothing you have in a box somewhere can really provide basis for disputing something so simple and straightforward. - fuzzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15I think you'd have a hard time convincing a court that you are enslaved by the US government because you have to pay income taxes. You can argue the income tax is unjust, but the government is not forcing you to work.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10No ***** you're not a lawyer.
You COULDN'T FIND the first section of the first part of the first subchapter of the first chapter of the first subtitle of Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code? Unless your "copy" of the Internal Revenue Code is something you made up and scrawled in backwards crayon letters on construction paper, and I'm not saying it isn't, you should find what you're looking for on PAGE ONE.
Here's a slightly dated version of what the rest of us are using:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html - Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"My main issue with taxes is that I'm being forced to pay against my will. I would happily donate money to the government or private entities for research, charity, etc., as would a lot of the left. I'm sure most conservatives would happily donate to support the military. The key issue here is force."
True, you are being forced, but everyday of your life you make use of things which are tax paid and I don't see you giving a tip. - Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17Also, this might interest some people:
"The New York Times article of July 31, 2006 states that when Mr. Russo asked IRS spokesman Anthony Burke (who according to the article was credited by Russo in the film) for the law requiring payment of income taxes on wages and was provided a link to various documents including title 26 of the United States Code (the Internal Revenue Code), filmmaker Russo denied that title 26 was the law, contending that it consisted only of IRS "regulations" and had not been enacted by Congress. The article reports that in an interview in late July 2006, Russo claimed he was confident on this point. In the United States "statutes" are enacted by Congress, and "regulations" are promulgated by the executive branch of government to implement the statutes. The statutes are found in the United States Code; and the regulations are found in the Code of Federal Regulations. The Treasury regulations to which Mr. Russo may have been referring are found at title 26 ("Internal Revenue") of the Code of Federal Regulations, not title 26 of the United States Code."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_fascism#The_filmmaker.27s_personal_views_on_taxes
So, apparently Russo is a bit confused in his film. - Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@Reponere: As Javert shows, just because they don't send you a letter or email announcing the release of their annual budget report, doesn't mean they don't do it.
If you want the information, stop being a lazy ***** and go get it. This isn't even that hard to find. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -24/+31A great site regarding the TAX issue as well as other issues facing United States Citizens today is http://www.givemeliberty.org
I can tell you, that in regards to the tax question, I have my own copy of the IRS code and I have went through it repeatedly and I cannot find a single line in it that makes me liable for any taxes. I called the IRS before the whole tax thing became a thing that sometimes gets reported on nationally and asked them about certain sections. I got transferred to one of their attorneys and talked to him and even he was unable to point me to a proper section that made me liable for any taxes.
Disclaimer: IANAL - thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Care to cite case law? Or are you just espousing what you've been told by "they"?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 350 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is