What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
381 Comments
- NICU, on 10/12/2007, -6/+396If you win this contest will you have to pay taxes on the prize?
- adpopulum, on 10/12/2007, -47/+165Thank god for free thinking individuals. If you haven't seen a convincing argument on this issue go to:
http://tree3.com/861/ - blackolive, on 10/12/2007, -44/+104U.S. 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.
(Herkimer56 posted this bellow, send him one million dollars please.) - Ifishbein, on 10/12/2007, -16/+67Maybe there is no specific law, but try and stop the IRS from taking your money.
- dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -48/+98This guy's money is safe. There is no law.
- jron, on 10/12/2007, -14/+62I just finished watching that video and I must say it was the only clear guide i've ever seen about section 861. Thank you! +1000 diggs.
- rehkcts, on 10/12/2007, -14/+61I guess the judge who finds him guilty of tax evasion will win the $1,000,000
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -16/+54The Supreme Court said the 16th Amendment granted no new powers of taxation, because those powers already existed. Regardless, the Supreme Court has dismissed arguments regarding the validity of the 16th Amendment's ratification.
But in any case...
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1 Tax imposed
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html
Quote from the video: "Everyone keeps bringing up Title 26, which is not a law."
United States v. Zuger, 602 F. Supp. 889, 891-92 (D. Conn. 1984) held that "the failure of Congress to enact a title as such and in such form into positive law . . . in no way impugns the validity, effect, enforceability or constitutionality of the laws as contained and set forth in the title"
US Code is LAW. Ed Brown is an idiot. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -19/+52@Blackolive - Already settled by the Supreme Court (several times), the free exchange of one's labor for money is not considered income. In practice, a person exchanges $10 of labor for $10 of cash, leaving a net income of $0.00. Also, note that that amendment was never ratified by the required number of states. In fact, different versions (wording) of the proposed amendment were sent to different states, which would have nullified ratification even if the required number of states ratified the amendment. You may think people are just making nit-picking arguments, but look up the facts yourself and you will see.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+42It doesn't matter if you think federal income tax is unconstitutional. You're not the Supreme Court which is the sole body given authority by the Constitution to determine constitutionality. The Supreme Court has said federal income tax is fine, therefore it is. You can bitch and moan all you want, but until you get a seat on the SC and convince the other members that federal income tax is unconstitutional you'll have to pay it. You can choose not to, but then the IRS can choose to arrest you for tax evasion.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30@nossr50
"A man", huh? I sure am glad you cited a specific case so we could all evaluate your claims. - nossr50, on 10/12/2007, -9/+33Those are paid for by local taxes
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27Nope. It's recursive, referring to people who are required to file.
This has been covered many times and in many ways: There is no law that states that someone who works for a living, earning a wage, is liable.
*IF* you make your money in the three "Revenue Taxable Activities", that is, trade in alcohol, tobacco or firearms, then the law is not only easy to find it is unambiguous.
*IF* you make money through capital gains, stock sales, interest income, then the law is not only easy to find it is unambiguous. - dbstovall, on 10/12/2007, -9/+30Reading that law literally only tells me what I have to pay, depending on my status, when I file a return. It doesn't say anywhere that I am required to file a return in the first place. It is a bit of a loophole, and quite a stretch to be sure, but still...
- jacobsor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25"The 16th Amendment was never ratified."
Wrong. Every Federal court that has ever considered the issue has concluded that the 16th Amendment *was* properly ratified. "Despite plaintiff's and numerous other tax protesters' conention that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified, courts have long recognized the Sixteenth Amendment's ratification and validity." Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 295 (1998).
"The 16th ammendment gives the government no new powers of taxation."
Wrong. The Supreme Court was saying that Congress *had already had the power* of taxation. The 16th Amendment just further confirmed it.
Details here:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#nonewpower
http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/taxprot2.htm - david76, on 10/12/2007, -40/+59Yeah, no laws, just the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Seriously though, wtf is this guy trying to accomplish? - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21"They're not just going to say "oh, well I guess we have to shut down the federal government due to lack of funding""
I don't think you understand that exactly 0% of our individual income taxes go to fund our government. All of it goes to pay the Federal Reserve. 100% of the corporate income tax revenue goes to the military. Everything else is paid for by additional taxes that we pay. Roads - gasoline tax. Schools - property taxes? Social Security - payroll taxes. etc, etc.
Take a look at the history. The Federal Reserve was created the same year as the 16th amendment was "passed". 100% of the individual income tax revenue goes straight into the Federal Reserve's pockets. One hundred percent. In 1913, we gave the Federal Reserve the power to print money out of thin our, which they in turn charge an interest on that "loan" to our government (us). To pay this interest the government taxes our individual incomes and hands that revenue directly to the Federal Reserve, which is owned by private shareholders.
It is a scam. Pure and simple. So to those that ask, what would we fund the government with if there was no individual income tax? The answer is, that we already fund the government completely with the other taxes we already pay. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -12/+28"The first income tax came around during the civil war with the 16th amendment"
@fourletters -- I'm not sure what you being in your second year of law school has to do with anything. Judging from your quote above, it hasn't helped your intelligence or simple understanding of history. The 16th Amendment was deemed ratified in 1913. The Civil War was 1861-1865. - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -14/+30In law school, you get to learn about the wonderful case where this guy pulled this stunt on some television show (20/20 or the ilk), and then reneged when someone actually did point out the laws requiring Americans to pay taxes.
In short:
Amendment 16 = authority to create and enforce laws
Tax Code = tax procedure and *some* taxes
Session laws (not part of a code) = the laws that actually dictate the taxes. These are usually inane, lengthy documents that generally exist only in the Congressional library and law school libraries.
Edit: Someone was more specific above and provided one of the actual laws. - inurb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21The income taxes you pay to the govt don't go to pay your public roads or police or public schools. Your property tax, school tax and real estate tax pay your local public services. Read up on that one.
- EmperorAwesome, on 10/12/2007, -12/+27Did anyone else click on this thinking it was a bounty offer?
- gjd131, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22The thing is, even if one of these people came up with some loophole where a court said no one had to pay income tax based on the current laws, how long do you think it would take congress to fix it? All of five minutes? They're not just going to say "oh, well I guess we have to shut down the federal government due to lack of funding"
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -23/+37Alright.
US Code: Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 1, § 1
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html
Are you required to pay income tax? If you're married and are filing jointly or separately, or if you're considered the head of household, or if you've got an estate or trust, ...
There you go. You are required to pay federal income tax as per the law linked to above. Do I get my million dollars now? - pingviini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14its called America: Freedom to Fascism
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=freedom+to+fascism - chijim70, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20@hansonc
"@klaymen
you know those roads outside (that's the big room with the one really bright light) that your mom takes to work to pay for your internet access? That's one of many places her taxes go."
Pretty hilarious when people who don't know what they are talking about argue with such self righteousness. Sorry buddy but local state taxes pay for roads, mainly gas and property tax. Income tax pays 1 thing... drum roll... THE NATIONAL DEBT which is inflated by interest charged on the loan and production of money by the federal reserve bank to the US government. The federal reserve is not "federal" it is a privately held set of banks that has basically subverted the constitution by taking money production out of the hands of the congress and into the hands of privately held corporations. Protecting this monopoly is what some would argue is the reason Kennedy was shot. On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve.
The money the government BORROWS from the federal reserve is spent mainly on the military. See this link if you want to see a pie chart. http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
Just to make you feel even more "superior" I'll add this little nugget.
WHAT DO YOU WHO THINK INCOME TAX IS SO CRUCIAL TO RUNNING THIS COUNTRY THINK WE DID BEFORE 1913 WHEN IT DIDN'T EXIST???
Amazing in reading many of these responses how little any of you actually know about what you're talking about. Guess that is the beauty of the internet, you don't have to get publicly humiliated for talking out of your ass. - zlintux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@Nis81
Actually, any court can really determine if a law is unconstitutional. It hits the supreme court when enough appeals are made (and they choose to hear it). - talledega500, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19IRS code is absolutely in no way federal law
- FarcicalFart, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"UPDATE: The property that Ed and Elaine Brown have pledged, is commercial property (an office building) valued at $1,000,000 + Dollars. This will all be put into writing in the near future, stay tuned."
- interiot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_avoidance_and_tax_evasion#Application_to_tax_protestors rightly points out... if Mr. Ed believes he's correct and that existing constitutional amendments / federal law / case law are invalid, then it's his responsibility to present those arguments in a court of law and have a proper hearing, or otherwise pay up. Refusing to pay taxes while addressing disagreements in a rather roundabout way (challenging the general public, rather than specific courts), and simply assuming that a judge will therefore find his arguments convincing after the fact, is just silly.
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -17/+28I don't believe the IRS Tax Code constitutes Federal Law.
I believe what needs to be seen, is a law that gives the IRS the right to collect income taxes on INDIVIDUALS for the federal government. The 16th Amendment certainly doesn't refer to individual citizens. (it typically refers to businesses) - nossr50, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Everyone with a slight bit of interest in this mans story should watch this documentary, you wont regret it
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=america+to+fascism - hansonc, on 10/12/2007, -12/+22@klaymen
you know those roads outside (that's the big room with the one really bright light) that your mom takes to work to pay for your internet access? That's one of many places her taxes go. - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Federal income tax didn't start until the 20th century. I would be surprised if it just appeared without an act of Congress.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -16/+26U.S. 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.
Anything else that we can check for you? - imnotjason, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Cecil Adams, 10 years ago:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_127.html - satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14*****.
- rehkcts, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14No, he's just that confident he doesn't have to pay taxes, and he has no intent on paying anyone no matter what they say, even if it's true.
- satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14"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."
Businesses are not mentioned specifically. Individuals are not mentioned specifically. Income was not defined specifically. The Supreme Court has interpreted it to include businesses and individuals and specific types of income.
I fail to see where anyone could argue this point. The Legislative branch makes the laws, the Executive branch enforces the laws, and the Judicial branch interprets the laws. One may not agree with any branch, but it does not mean that a laws or interpretation is unconstitutional until the Judicial branch (with the Supreme court being the highest court) has interpreted it. If one doesn't like the interpretation, then Congress has the power to change the law to be more specific and override the Executive branch if it is vetoed. - Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Yes. But the question as far as I can tell is WHAT you are required to pay taxes ON.
- prisoner24601, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11It was ratified by 42 states. Quick quiz: What is the required majority of states to ratify a Constitutional Amendment? Hint: Open another browser window and google: "a constitutional amendment requires" to find the secret answer!
- SelfAbortion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Who the hell are you talking to??
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -18/+26@JRLeDoux - Do you really not understand the difference between IRS tax code and a law? Regardless of what you think, the IRS does not have legislature powers by proxy. There needs to be, at the very least, a law (created by Congress) that gives the power to collect personal income taxes from individual citizens to the IRS. Have you found that law yet?
- FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12From: U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of the U.S. Tax System
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
-----------------
For most of our nation's history, individual taxpayers rarely had any significant contact with Federal tax authorities as most of the Federal government's tax revenues were derived from excise taxes, tariffs, and customs duties. Before the Revolutionary War, the colonial government had only a limited need for revenue, while each of the colonies had greater responsibilities and thus greater revenue needs, which they met with different types of taxes. For example, the southern colonies primarily taxed imports and exports, the middle colonies at times imposed a property tax and a "head" or poll tax levied on each adult male, and the New England colonies raised revenue primarily through general real estate taxes, excises taxes, and taxes based on occupation.
England's need for revenues to pay for its wars against France led it to impose a series of taxes on the American colonies. In 1765, the English Parliament passed the Stamp Act, which was the first tax imposed directly on the American colonies, and then Parliament imposed a tax on tea. Even though colonists were forced to pay these taxes, they lacked representation in the English Parliament. This led to the rallying cry of the American Revolution that "taxation without representation is tyranny" and established a persistent wariness regarding taxation as part of the American culture.
---------------
It wasn't until we started having war after war that the Government started decided to steal greater and greater amounts of money from it's citizens. - inurb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I just hope that they are gentle with Ed and his Wife when the IRS eventually raids his house in the middle of the night.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9How the ***** does garbage like this keep making the homepage?
Yes, you DO have to pay income tax. Get the ***** over it, or rot in jail like all the other oh so clever jackasses that tried to fight it and failed. - david76, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@d00ley
Apparently you don't understand that US Code is LAW.
United States v. Zuger, 602 F. Supp. 889, 891-92 (D. Conn. 1984) held that "the failure of Congress to enact a title as such and in such form into positive law . . . in no way impugns the validity, effect, enforceability or constitutionality of the laws as contained and set forth in the title"
Come find me when your understanding of law trumps the Supreme Court. - jacobsor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"US Code cannot possibly be law. Congress has the power to make laws. The IRS does not."
You are confused about the meaning of "United States Code." The United States Code is the name for the collection of federal statutes that have been passed by Congress and signed into law by the president. They are the highest law of the land (except the Constitution).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code
The "Internal Revenue Code" is the section of the United States Code that implements the power of taxation (Title 26). It was passed by Congress and signed into law by the president. The most recent major revision was in 1986, and it was signed into law by Ronald Regan (with amendments every year since then).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_revenue_code
"The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591. The Internal Revenue Code is now known as the 'Internal Revenue Code of 1986' as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514. "
http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/taxprot2.htm
The Internal Revenue Code most assuredly is binding law. - Laz0r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You can also watch Freedom to Fascism here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198 - sikosmurf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10OK. Let's say that there really isn't a law requiring this. Let's say this becomes a national topic and everyone in America stops paying their taxes legally. 5 seconds after that, there will be a law requiring people to pay federal income tax.
- Mannon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9But he has the right for an clear answer, right?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 381 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is