Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
$1,000,000 if you can show Ed Brown the law
showedthelaw.com — Ed Brown is offering a $1,000,000 compensation (commercial property) to the first person to show him the law requiring him to pay federal income tax
lolipopfailure- 2021 diggs
- digg it
- adpopulum, on 10/12/2007, -47/+164Thank god for free thinking individuals. If you haven't seen a convincing argument on this issue go to:
http://tree3.com/861/- NICU, on 10/12/2007, -6/+396If you win this contest will you have to pay taxes on the prize?
- klaymen, on 10/12/2007, -43/+21if anyone was digging down the first post as spam, you may want to actually check the link before you decide to do so.
- 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.
- satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -58/+64Having a convincing argument doesn't mean that something is true. I am sure that many religious people have convincing arguments, and Richard Dawkins has a convincing argument that there isn't a god. Neither one can be proven.
Alas, there is the 16th amendment. Further, last time I checked, there is no law stating that abortion is legal. It is a ruling by the US Supreme Court on other laws.
I really wish people would stop digging these crappy political articles that prove nothing. - 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.) - EmperorAwesome, on 10/12/2007, -12/+27Did anyone else click on this thinking it was a bounty offer?
- babakshirazi, on 10/12/2007, -21/+23
These tax protesters are wasting their time and will end up in jail.
If you don't want to pay taxes, set yourself up properly and work 1099 only in the US. Write off as much ***** as possible reducing
your tax liabilities to zero if possible. Through write offs, IRA's, and other clever techniques. you can earn a lot of money and pay very
little taxes along the way. - 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.
- axiomflash, on 10/12/2007, -45/+9***** LAME. bury this *****.
- 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. - JRLeDoux, on 10/12/2007, -27/+33TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 61 > Subchapter A > PART II > Subpart A > § 6011
This is the law that actually requires you to file a return.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1
Is the actual tax law
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B
Explains what income is and isn't taxable
So... can I have my million dollars? - Memitim, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6I still want to know if the million dollars has to be taxed.
- 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?
- Humptydank, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10
The irony is that if they were to give away that $1 million property to a charitable institution instead of as part of a stupid publicity stunt, it would make one hell of a deduction...
- fourletters, on 10/12/2007, -22/+24I'm in my 2nd year of law school, and I can tell you that crazy john birch right wing libertarian types might believe this type of an assertion, but Americans do, in fact have to pay income taxes. The first income tax came around during the civil war with the 16th amendment. The congress has power to tax.
There is also statutory law (laws enacted by the US congress, remember, the constitution says that they can write laws) stating that we have to pay taxes on all income from all sources.
If you want to read about how miserably people fail when they try to go up against these laws, wikipedia has a great article on all the "i don't have to pay taxes because there is no law" arguements here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_statutory_arguments
there is a reason for the statement that there are only two inescapable things in life: death and taxes. - Ishtar, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Another thought I just had. Regardless of whether 861 actually exempts us from paying income tax on "regular american's income" or not - I wonder if it isn't best that we do anyway. I'm not a fan of taxes, but I'm a bigger fan of paying taxes than of a country where we don't. Think of all the stuff that would have to be dropped if we ended up not paying our current income tax....i mean, we're already trillions in debt.
- 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. - MindStalker, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3
**comment removed** - 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/+5The name "United States Code" refers the collection of statutes that were passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.
The Internal Revenue Code is a statute that *was* passed by both houses of Congress and then signed by the President. It specifically implemented the power of taxation.
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://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#law - scosol, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Bottom line?
Yeah- the FED income tax is a fraud- not just because of this, but because it was intended as a temporary wartime measure- then extended once people got used to it.
But yanno what?
The SCOTUS has already ruled.
If you're going to use this argument, go ahead- but you better have an army behind you. - rac3r5, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5
- broomett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3dooley...it WAS ratified by the requirenumber of states. You and your ilk saying it wasn't will not tchange the FACTS on it.
- NearlyHeadless, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Just to clarify, the United States Code IS THE LAW! Congress passes laws which specifically specify new, deleted, or changed sections of the law.
See http://uscode.house.gov/classification/tables.shtml
for a list of recent revisions to the code sorted in order by either Public Law or U.S. Code
The result of all the additions and revisions over the last 230 years can be found at
http://uscode.house.gov/lawrevisioncounsel.shtml
or
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
Perhaps the source of confusion is the Code of Federal Regulations.
These come from agencies, not directly from Congress
Compare:
Here is the United States Code about income tax
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26_10_A.html
Here is the Code of Federal Regulations about the income tax
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/26cfr1a_06.html
Two separate things! They are both called Title 26 on purpose, because the CFR is the agencies' explanation of how they are implementing the law, plus rules that Congress authorized them to make. - JusticeRebel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0I doubt Ed Brown even has $1,000,000....therefore he can't pay the winner, and has no credibility.
- rader5, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Let's assume there is absolutely no evidence for the right of the government to tax income, that there is not answer to this question. Someone would just appeal to a legal tradition (dare we say precedent) that that was never codified as law. If I'm wrong, then a congressman introduces a bill and it very easily becomes law? If I'm wrong, then it's voted on by the people and it becomes law (I bet most would vote that the government has the right to tax its citizens). If I'm wrong, then the government falls apart. Government revenue is suppored by income tax by up to 15% which would almost entirely eliminate defense or social security or medicaid or all science in America--no labor market flexibilty, no inflation regulation, no redistribution from those that chose circumstances (parents, where to be born, whether or not to live in the ghetto) well to those that chose poorly, despite what liberitarians might tell you.
- dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -48/+97This guy's money is safe. There is no law.
- 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? - Ifishbein, on 10/12/2007, -16/+67Maybe there is no specific law, but try and stop the IRS from taking your money.
- klaymen, on 10/12/2007, -32/+18@david76
i think he is trying to get rid of a ***** system that needlessly takes money from our income.
the federal income tax is *****. it is technically constitutional according to the 16th amendment (which was very shadily passed). but it is *****. if you disagree with me, please tell me where the federal income tax goes.
what exactly does it do. and please post a source. - appetite, on 10/12/2007, -36/+10Not paying income tax is unpatriotic. In the US, we have taxation WITH representation.
- dmjarrington, on 10/12/2007, -25/+23@david76
Everyone brings that out at first, but you're simply uninformed... That ammendment was never properly ratified. A few congressmen were bribed during Christmas break when Congress was in recess. The Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that the 16th ammendment gives the government no new powers of taxation. Look it up and you will see this to be the case.
ggkthxbye - 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. - ezweave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@klaymen
They were slow to get it approved this year, weren't they?
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7731&sequence=0 - 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. - 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 - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10 @appetite
"Not paying income tax is unpatriotic. In the US, we have taxation WITH representation."
Wow. So are you also one of those who would hate it when some people call dissenters against a war unpatriotic? - appetite, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5no, i've just noticed that people who take up paying taxes as their biggest world cause tend to be wealthy, selfish *****.
- fourletters, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7I'm in my 2nd year of law school, and I can tell you that crazy john birch right wing libertarian types might believe this type of an assertion, but Americans do, in fact have to pay income taxes. The first income tax came around during the civil war with the 16th amendment. The congress has power to tax.
There is also statutory law (laws enacted by the US congress, remember, the constitution says that they can write laws) stating that we have to pay taxes on all income from all sources.
If you want to read about how miserably people fail when they try to go up against these laws, wikipedia has a great article on all the "i don't have to pay taxes because there is no law" arguements here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_statutory_arguments
there is a reason for the statement that there are only two inescapable things in life: death and taxes. - JDenigma, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7"no, i've just noticed that people who take up paying taxes as their biggest world cause tend to be wealthy, selfish *****."
I see. It's now the old class warfare card we're bringing out. God this gets old. Excuse me, rich people aren't the only ones who would benefit from not paying taxes. That should be plainly obvious. Who cares whether they pay taxes or not. How does it affect you? By the way, selfishness is a good thing and is what makes the world go round ;-) That's your claim that it's the same old wealthy people who don't want to pay blah blah blah...so you claim. I get tired of that stereotype. I sense jealousy as well. I guess people who get caught up in this class warfare are losers who are jealous at those who are making more money. Oh and it should be one of the biggest causes to fight for, not the only one of course mind you, but certainly important. Without that taxation the government wouldn't have the power over us to fund these wars. - 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. - jgzman, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3@ David76
US Code cannot possibly be law. Congress has the power to make laws. The IRS does not. Nor the FDA. Nor any of the other hundreds of little departments. Only Congress. - david76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@jgzman
It would seem the Supreme Court disagrees.
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" - cbergeron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1There doesn't need to be a law. It's written in our Constitution.
- 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. - vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power..."
And what happened five months and 18 days days later?
The first rule of the Fed club is... You DON'T talk about the Fed club. - jacobsor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sorry, wrong link for my last quote. Should be:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#law - rhawk301, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@fourletters in the research I have done, Congress can tax us on income derived from any source. However, income is defined as gains and profits ONLY. http://www.taxhistory.com/1909.html
Ed is right, there is no law. I am glad someone with balls of steel, and the money to back it is coming forward.
"Article XVI. 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."
This is the Sixteenth Amendment; but notice that it makes no provision for the repeal of the clauses requiring apportionment. Why? Because it was not the "intent" of Congress to levy a direct tax (or a "capitation" tax for that matter), the "intent" was to clarify that a tax laid upon the "income", derived from real and personal property, was in its nature an excise tax. In other words, Congress specifically intended that the "gains and profits" derived from the "income" of real and personal property be treated in the same manner as the "gains and profits" derived from business and professional pursuits. In other words, the Sixteenth Amendment is a "net-income" tax, not a gross income tax. - jacobsor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Income is defined as gains and profits ONLY."
Nope. Every court to consider the issue has concluded that wages are taxable income, and that such taxes are constitutional. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, "the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital ... are commonly dealt with as income in legislation." Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913).
Every lower court agrees:
"Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income." United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-944 (3rd Cir. 1990).
"In our view, petitioner's wages are taxable as gross income..." Beard v. Commissioner, 793 F.2d 139, 140 (6th Cir. 1986).
"Wages are taxable income." Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 746 F. 2d 1187, 1188 (6th Cir. 1984).
"Wages are income, and the tax on wages is constitutional." Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986).
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#wagesincome - goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Section 8. Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
This is the clause in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to tax. Courts have affirmed again and again that the federal power to tax is extremely broad (essentially without limit) and covers virtually any method or purpose of taxation that the federal government sees fit. And, according to the same Constitution, the opinion of the courts is also "law". I'll say that one more time: in the USA, the opinion of a court IS LAW.
You can scream about that all you like, but that's a fact about our legal system. It's a common law system and court decisions are law. The tax code and the federal reserve were long ago accepted as constitutional under the federal governments taxation power. As a legal question, this conclusion is beyond dispute. Every court in the US will tell you that the tax code is proper law. Again, by the Constitution, if the courts all agree that it is law, then guess what, it is most certainly law.
So if you fed.reserve conspiracy people really want to change the federal reserve and taxation system, you should stop wasting your time with completely fallacious legal arguments and you should set about to change the system politically. It's your only chance. The legal arguments don't stand a hope in hell of succeeding. They are nonsense. Any tax court judge or tax lawyer will tell you so. - felderado, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4To all people disputing:
Watch Freedom to Fascism (available for free viewing on google video)
-There is no law. There are titles. They arent laws.
-The IRS doesnt have the power to make laws
-The 16th Amendment doesnt allow new tax types. Only direct and Indirect. Current Income Tax rules dont fall under either.
-Income taxes are refered to as 'voluntary' in a couple places
-Income is defined in the legislation as "gains" in a way that specifically refers to businesses. This does NOT cover wages.
-Wages is a private contract between you and the employer. You dont have to report this to the government.
There's much more. Watch the video.
Next year I'm not filing. - ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@chijim70
"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."
Then explain how states are always getting millions of dollars in federal funding for major construction projects? The Big Dig alone has received BILLIONS in federal funding. - elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Alright, Klaymen, federal taxes go towards...
States and towns that don't get enough money from themselves.
Social security.
The armed forces.
Defense systems.
Scientific research. - appetite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"How does it affect you? By the way, selfishness is a good thing and is what makes the world go round ;-)"
Wow, that's not even remotely true. You're so brainwashed by the capitalist agenda it's sad. People are not naturally selfish, and it does not make everything work better. That's a fallacy of neoclassical economics. Turns out, economists are the most likely to succumb to this unfortunate way of thinking:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/economics_frank/frank.html
Really, people who protest their obligation to pay taxes tend to be selfish capitalist douche-bags. If you want to protest how they are spent (military instead of education), then I'm with you. But don't be fooled. These guys just want to keep more for themselves. - jgzman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ jacobsor
If that's the correct defenition of "code" here, than I am mistaken. - theodorecarras, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@david: He's trying to show that his money is worthy of better things than funding schools and healthcare. Ah, the evils of big government.
- raisputin2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The problem with Title 26 isn't the tax imposed, it never has been. What is the definition of "income" as it pertains to Title 26?
- rhawk301, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Top link in this article is http://tree3.com/861/ please watch it all the way through. Order the DVD/cd's and pass them around. This study course goes in depth on "sources" and "derived income" the law, title 26, and regulations thereof. Once you watch this presentation, you will all understand.
- saltydog689, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If you actually dig into the constitution you will know that amendment 16 was never ratified by the required states in 1913 or any other time therefore it's a non-law and anything built on at as a basis is invalid also.
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -40/+59Yeah, no laws, just the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.
- FarcicalFart, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"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."
- vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"How much are the taxes left to pay?"
About $1,000,001.00... plus penalties. - rhawk301, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@loon47 +digg awesome comment, tax jokes...killing me.
- vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"How much are the taxes left to pay?"
- Nis81, on 10/12/2007, -23/+36Alright.
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?- anastrophe, on 10/12/2007, -19/+9man, looking at the code, all i gotta say is - the government sure is sticking it to us, the taxpayers. those rates are absurd for a country that is ostensibly not socialist in structure.
- 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...
- 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) - dsignr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2You guys just lost your chance at a taxable million bucks.
- 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. - 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"
- picto, on 10/12/2007, -12/+8Ugh...looking at that law reminds me how much I hate tax brackets. Which is why everyone needs to support the FairTax. Now that's what I call equality.
- 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. - 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. - pwill, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@Nis81
No, you don't. Congress only has the right to tax international income, not state income.
See http://tree3.com/861/ - 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.
- ArthurB, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10@picto
There is no such thing as a "fair" tax. Every tax is unfair. - stmiller, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5No. RTFA:
"The first person to show Ed the law that makes him liable to pay an income tax on "his labor and compensation" will receive one-million in commercial property as a reward!"
Further quotes mine, for emphasis. - 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. - talledega500, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19IRS code is absolutely in no way federal law
- JRLeDoux, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3@dbstovall
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 61 > Subchapter A > PART II > Subpart A > § 6011
Requires you to file a return. - jacobsor, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5"IRS code is absolutely in no way federal law"
Huh? The Internal Revenue Code is federal legislation that was passed by both houses of Congress and then signed into law by the president. It is enacted in Title 26 of the United States Code. That is, by definition, federal law.
"I'm just a bill.
Yes, I'm only a bill.
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ - Sovereigndk, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5# by Ahnteis
Yes. But the question as far as I can tell is WHAT you are required to pay taxes ON.
Bravo!!!! But not many will get it.
US Code TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61. Gross income defined:
The KEY word is INCOME, and who has IT.
A worker for a private Co. does not have INCOME from working. The worker receives Property in exchange.
The Supreme Court has defined INCOME. It is not Defined in Title #26. The Supreme Court also ruled that what we get in exchange for our work is not taxable.
Mr. Brown won't be coughing up $1,000,000 anytime soon.
OH, here's a little Frosting on the Cake...( a lot of Frosting really)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=118&invol=356
U.S. Supreme Court case of: “YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
When we consider the nature and the theory of our
institutions of government, the principles upon which they are
supposed [118 U.S. 370] to rest, and review the history of their
development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not
mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and
arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to
law, for it is the author and source of law; but, in our system,
while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of
government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom
and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the
definition and limitation of power. - chijim70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Nis81
We are talking constituional LAW allowing the IRC concerning income tax to even be valid. Tax protestors (including myself) argue that this code is not legal nor law if not backed by the constitution. It's like me writing a law book for my neighborhood and expecting that the local police will enforce it. If thier law doesn't stipulate I can do this then my law is invalid. - Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Follow the bouncing ball, folks...
"The Internal Revenue Code (or IRC) (more formally, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended) is the main body of domestic statutory tax law of the United States organized topically, including laws covering the income tax (see Income tax in the United States), payroll taxes, gift taxes, estate taxes and statutory excise taxes. ***The Internal Revenue Code is published as title 26 of the United States Code (USC)***, and is also known as the internal revenue title."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code
"The United States Code (U.S.C.) is a compilation and codification of the ***general and permanent federal law of the United States.***"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code - jacobsor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Sovereigndk
According to Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (a statute passed by Congress and signed into law by the President), "gross income" specifically includes "Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000061----000-.html
I.e., wages are compensation for services. They are taxable income.
Every court has agreed. "Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income." United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-44 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1029 (1990).
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#wagesincome - Sovereigndk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@jacobsor 1
According to Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (a statute passed by Congress and signed into law by the President), "gross income" specifically includes "Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000061----000-.html
I.e., wages are compensation for services. They are taxable income.
Every court has agreed. "Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income." United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-44 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1029 (1990).
......................
True, Wages are taxable. But who earns a Wage? >>>> Not ME
CHAPTER 24--COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE ON WAGES
Sec. 3401. Definitions
(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term ``wages'' means all
remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services
performed by an employee for his employer…
(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term ``employee'' includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ``employee'' also includes an officer of a corporation.
(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term ``employer'' means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person, except that--
(1) if the person for whom the individual performs or performed
the services does not have control of the payment of the wages for
such services, the term ``employer'' (except for purposes of
subsection (a)) means the person having control of the payment of
such wages, and
(2) in the case of a person paying wages on behalf of a
nonresident alien individual, foreign partnership, or foreign
corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the United
States, the term ``employer'' (except for purposes of subsection
(a)) means such person.
You see, I am not an Employee, I do not work for an Employer, and I do NOT earn wages, because I do Not and Will Not work for the FED's. I do not have Income either, which is a Gain.
Read and understand the LAW. The only way the IRS wins is by Lying, and Fed Judges that allow it. - Nis81, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"For purposes of this chapter, the term ``employee'' includes an officer, employee"
Isn't this a little circular? An employee is defined as an employee? Good truism but totally irrelevant. What I want to know is where the definitions are coming from.
- lolipopfailure, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5might want to check with the constitution first.
- Nis81, 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.
- Herkimer56, 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? - 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). - CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -10/+13Amendments to the Constitution are guidelines, not laws themselves.
How else could the second amendment, for instance, say "shall not be infringed" and yet still have any gun control regulations what so ever?
What the 16th Amendment lacks is what is called "enabling legislation".
It's easy enough to find where federal employees are liable, where those who earn money through the three "taxable revenue activities" are liable, but not wage earners.
That is what people want to see: The law that makes me, and you, liable. - DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2damnit wrong reply, digg down
- lolipopfailure, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11check out the video adpopulum posted http://tree3.com/861/
- jron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8great video!
- analyze, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2I don't believe there is a law. This guy is going to jail.
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Too bad you got dug down for that, because it's very likely true. Having a VISIBLE and widely recognized case actually win would put egg on the face of the IRS.
I honestly believe Mr. Brown would be assassinated before they would let that happen.
What surprises me is that Aaron Russo is still alive. - spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1maybe they came to learn that killing these people would only help their cause.
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Too bad you got dug down for that, because it's very likely true. Having a VISIBLE and widely recognized case actually win would put egg on the face of the IRS.
- rehkcts, on 10/12/2007, -14/+60I guess the judge who finds him guilty of tax evasion will win the $1,000,000
- nossr50, on 10/12/2007, -19/+14A man was found innocent of tax evasion when they couldn't find the law, even after bringing in an IRS agent they still couldn't get the law.
- CopperFalcon, 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. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1dig down
- Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The individual income taxes (100%) that we pay go directly to the Federal Reserve,"
Like i said, didnt think so (and dont care if you hate that, why would i care if you hate that)
that is a pretty large statement without any backing based on evidence. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@tweekster - I posted in the wrong place and you replied before I corrected it, sorry. Anyways, I know what you're questioning now. Will look for the evidence and get back to you in the (reed311) section below.
- suprememilo, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5If he doesn't want to pay taxes like the rest of us (not me cause I don't make enough money yet, being 18) then he can move his old ass to another country and deal with their problems/higher tax rates.
- HUKI365, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8Ever heard of the massive crime waves in the various tax havens? No...? that's because there aren't any.
- reed311, on 10/12/2007, -35/+9Yeah, lets repeal the income tax so that we have no money to fund education, the military, police, highways, etc.
- nossr50, on 10/12/2007, -9/+33Those are paid for by local taxes
- 4degrees, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9umm, there already isn't enough money (if any at all) to fund all those things(education and roads anyway)... so yea, to hell with income tax. I can use that money i save to educate myself, and get a car such that i don't need "roads". And we can let the rich pay for the wars they wage.
- 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.
- zldomi, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9Federal income tax money does to go toward supporting our country's infrastructure, military, health care, and all kinds of programs that make our collective lives better. Without the tax, we wouldn't have our government, which whether you agree with their agenda or not, provides us the opportunity to live our lives in a safe and protected environment instead of organizing ourselves into tribes and being forced to defend ourselves from invading forces like other cultures we consider "primitive".
- LucidMovement, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Actually the national debt sucks up all the income tax money received. It's been a long time since any of the income tax went to anything we expect to get for it. Just fyi. Furthermore, if you read the Supreme Court's ruling on this it is pretty clear that they disagree with the IRS on this one. See http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter1.htm for more information on this.
- macweirdo42, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@4degrees
You're buying a Delorean? - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8The individual income taxes (100%) that we pay go directly to the Federal Reserve, a corporation owned by private shareholders. All the services that we receive from the government that you mentioned are paid by us through all of the other taxes that we must pay - gasoline, property, capital gains, etc.
- Lounger540, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Federal Taxes don't go directly towards those things, but the Federal Gov't often helps state gov'ts with funds that come from federal income taxes. This is how the gov't bribes states to enact certain state laws. For instance, they may say, if you don't make stricter laws about car pollution we won't give you tax money for better roads. So, indirectly you would lose state funded programs.
- Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3d00ley
Do you have ANY evidence (real fact based proveable verifiable evidence) to back up your accusation....
didnt think so. but keep up with accusations as if they were facts it really works (just look at hte 9/11 conspiracy idiots) - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@tweekster -- First I hate it when people ask a question and answer "Didn't think so" in the same post. What are you? Five?
Anyways, state specifically what you you needed cited. I'm not sure whether which portion you're referring to.
If you are referring to my statement that the Fed is privately owned, this is basic knowledge and is not really in dispute. Some of the biggest shareholders are the families of J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn, Loeb, & Co., who are the ones who designed and design the law originally. In the wikipedia quote below, note number (4).
From Wikipedia: "The Federal Reserve System is a quasi-governmental banking system composed of (1) a presidentially-appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market Committee; (3) 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation; and (4) numerous private member banks, which own varying amounts of stock in the regional Federal Reserve Banks."
Again, specifically let me know what you want cited. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Again from Wikipedia: "The Federal Reserve Banks are nominally "owned" by private "member banks" (in that each member bank owns nonnegotiable shares of stock in its regional Federal Reserve Bank; see below). In Lewis v. United States,[5], the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated that "the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA [the Federal Tort Claims Act], but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.""
Again, tweekster, I'm not sure if the question of whether the Fed was privately owned or not was what you were needing evidence for, so let me know if you need evidence for something else. - Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1i am not even gonna question that the fed reserve is private. i know it is.
you made the statement that all income tax goes directly to the fed reserve. i want you to back that statement up. - spartansblade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How do you think we came up with funding before that? By taxing businesses. Now think about this, If you didnt have to pay income tax you wold be able to retire earlier reducing our need for the government to step in and help with social security. If you didn't have to pay income tax you would have a lot more money to spend and then the businesses would get taxed on the profits you gave them. With that increase of funds businesses would be able to more easily survive and government would still be getting their cash. Lets not forget that there are still direct tax's we would get hit with.
The method for our government to function was in place and working just fine for over a hundred years. There was no inflation either and the money had actual value and could be exchanged. - basicspecifics, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1for tweekster;
proof that all the money goes to the federal reserve interest payments as proved by the grace commission in 1982
http://www.truthintaxation.us/?tax_inform=whereTaxesGo
- YeahOK, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2This would be like trying to prove the truth to a Truffer.
- spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1opposing people who seek the truth says what about what you value?
making lame insults without any substance to back it up says what about your intelligence?
- spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1opposing people who seek the truth says what about what you value?
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Federal income tax didn't start until the 20th century. I would be surprised if it just appeared without an act of Congress.
- nossr50, on 10/12/2007, -12/+13Exactly, people who think we need income tax to pay for things need to realize we were just fine in the 1800's-1900's before it ever existed
- screensnot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Just because we didn't pay it before, does not mean that we could get by without it right now.
We could get rid of it one day, but we would have to make a bunch of preparations/changes first. - Lounger540, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Federal Income Taxes were started to fund World War II as a program from Roosevelt. If I remember from high school correctly, they weren't originally planned to be permanent. From wikipedia
"Federal tax policy was highly contentious during the war, with a liberal Roosevelt battling a conservative Congress. Everyone agreed on the need for high taxes to pay for the war. Roosevelt tried to impose a 100% tax on incomes over $25,000 (which failed to pass), while Congress enlarged the base downward. By 1944 nearly every employed person was paying federal income taxes (compared to 10% in 1940)." - fasda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yes the country did run before the income tax but then again the government was using very high tariffs to keep away all foreign competition
- nossr50, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Everyone 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 - diggirl, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3@nossr50
Link please?- diggirl, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Sorry - I was asking for a link to the story of the man found innocent of tax evasion. These comments move way too fast!
- ArchieAndrews, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Just a hint, use the Reply link at the bottom right of the message thread you want to reply to then the conversation doesn't get misinterpreted.
- diggirl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Thanks - I'm new to posting here and wasn't sure how it worked. I'm such a noob. =(
- Rikushix, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5So wait, he's paying people money if they prove that he has to has to pay more money to more people anyway?
- rehkcts, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13No, 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.
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8He has mechanism in place to ensure that whoever can point out the law will receive the commercial property worth $1 million. His main point is is that with a $1 million reward, if there existed a law someone would find it pretty damn quickly. Many of the main people now fighting the legality of the income tax were former IRS agents who thought they would make a quick buck when similar rewards were offered for a law requiring us to pay a tax on our income, specifically labor. Those IRS agents expecting to find the law quickly and collect their reward, they found that there was, in fact no law requiring us to pay.
- Sovereigndk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4IRS Agent Joe Banister couldn't find a law either, and he use to work for the lying scum bag IRS. Now he helps us....
Oh yes, they(IRS) are LIARS, I have proof. They also commit Fraud, Mail Fraud, and lots more.
Oh, ask whoever you work for why they send FALSE information about you to the IRS. That FALSE information is found on a W2. - CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Mr. Banister is also someone I would call a "Nice Guy". He's quiet and friendly, I'm glad to have met him.
He was an IRS investigator, with a good career. Following what you or I would call good procedural steps, he was dotting his "i"s and crossing his "t"s by fact-checking the claims of the people he was investigating.
He tried to "show them the law", so he looked for it. He couldn't find it.
He sent requests to his superiors and other staff, saying, "I'm sorry, but I cannot find the law. Can you tell me where to look?"
His superiors told him to do without it, and to shut up. He realized he could not enforce a law that he couldn't find, so they forced him to quit.
At any time, all they have to say is, "chapter x verse y".
Why don't they?
- inurb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I just hope that they are gentle with Ed and his Wife when the IRS eventually raids his house in the middle of the night.
- prisoner24601, on 10/12/2007, -19/+19Any argument that "I only have to comply with LAWS" but " I am free to disregard IRS established Tax Code Regulations" is absurd, irresponsible, childish sophistry.
The state of Maine never bought an aircraft carrier (for all the right-winger here) or built the National Public Radio network (for all the left-wingers here) either. Grow up. Pay your taxes. If you hate them then vote for the "I'll lower your taxes guy" in the next election.
This guy is NO martyr and deserves NO applause here.- holzp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Woah, leave us out of this. He is one of those nutty "Live free or die" neighbors of ours in New Hampshire.
- Mannon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8But he has the right for an clear answer, right?
- Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3well he can ask the public all he wants.
if he fails to pay taxes, the IRS will have an answer for him. he will go to prison for tax evasion, the courts will uphold that conviction. - synarchy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ah, a happy resident of Maine weighs in on the issue.
Of course, the people of Maine have perhaps the most inept government in the nation, suffering the highest individual tax burden, and also offering one of the absolute worst places in the nation to run a small business. Maine's vast electoral majority of nanny state socialists are selling state assets (state liquor franchise) to fund a bloated budget, and have taxed just about everything in sight to fund a government that is little more than a mill to transfer money from small business people into the hands of so-called non-profits, a failed socialist state health care plan, and a Medicaid program riddled with fraud, which owes tens of millions of dollars to hospitals and doctors. The state's young people are leaving in droves, giving the state one of the most rapidly aging populations in the country. And if you think Maine is interested in providing a "progressive" environment for its people, consider that Maine imposes its highest tax bracket of 8.5 percent on those making as little as $17,500 a year. Nice place, Maine. For a visit. (Hold on to your wallet.)
No, it's not surprising to see hostility to any effort to question the tax "laws" coming from Maine... - spartansblade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@holzp
"Woah, leave us out of this. He is one of those nutty "Live free or die" neighbors of ours in New Hampshire."
Isn't that a sign of the times. It amazes me that any rational US citizen would EVER make this statement. Its people like you will welcome slavery and willingly give up your freedom for security. Well frankly sir/ma'am, you deserve neither. This country paid thru blood to give you the freedom to voice your opinion and is sickens me to see a person mock someone standing up and demanding answers.
- Jesse, on 10/12/2007, -16/+9Challenge accept, Ed.
First, don't pay your taxes. Then, whatever the authorities arrest you for is my answer.
I accept PayPal.- pcx99, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Actually I saw a vid on this once. A jury actually threw out the case because the prosecutors (including the IRS) couldn't provide the law. Apparently there was a supreme court ruling on the 16th amendment also which stated that it gave the federal government NO NEW POWERS to tax individuals, so the 16th amendment apparently doesn't let the federal government tax us, this ruling has never been reversed, an IRS official dismissed this as an "ancient ruling that doesn't apply today", good thing he's not in charge of civil rights and such.
I think it would be pretty silly to throw out the IRS, taxes have a purpose after all (politicians have to have SOMETHING to waste my money on after all) but I think it is pretty funny that the tax system in the US might actually be a modern version of the Emporer's New Clothing. - satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10@ pcx99
Ahh, the "I saw a video once" argument. Sorry, it doesn't hold water. Try again. - screensnot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5@ pcx99
So, you believed this video, forgot all of the pertinent details about it, and are still paying taxes yourself (out of the goodness of your heart).
I can only come to one conclusion about that. Either;
1. You're a moron.
Or 2. You are a great patriot for handing over money to our nation that you could keeping for yourself.
Guess which one am am leaning towards. - pingviini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13its called America: Freedom to Fascism
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=freedom+to+fascism - pcx99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yea that's the one (nice catch, and thanks pingviini). I don't buy into it all but it brought up a few interesting things. It's like any conspiracy theory video, 99% tin-foil but there are a few points that stuck with me the biggest point is that we're guaranteed the right not to incriminate ourselves but we're required to file sworn tax returns which may incriminate us. Funny eh? Anyway. This video was a front-page digg a few weeks ago. I'm still gonna pay my taxes though, as I said I'm more interested in the Emperor's new clothes effect than taking a political stand.
- jesuschrysler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2But aren't you only incriminating yourself if you file a fraudulent or falsified tax return? I don't really see the validity in that point, but correct me if I'm confused.
- pcx99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If your income is illegal... Say, growing medical marijuana which is legal in California but still a felony... You can either lie and break the law, or you can state the truth and incriminate yourself.
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"or you can state the truth and incriminate yourself."
One of the reasons that the 1040 form violates the 5th Amendment. You cannot be COMPELLED to testify against yourself.
Convicted felons get out of firearms non-registration charges that way, because in order to register a gun legally they would have to admit they were felons. Ooops, that's testifying against themselves, and unconstitutional.
If the Bill of Rights were actually enforced, much of the mischief government does inside this country would become impossible.
- pcx99, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Actually I saw a vid on this once. A jury actually threw out the case because the prosecutors (including the IRS) couldn't provide the law. Apparently there was a supreme court ruling on the 16th amendment also which stated that it gave the federal government NO NEW POWERS to tax individuals, so the 16th amendment apparently doesn't let the federal government tax us, this ruling has never been reversed, an IRS official dismissed this as an "ancient ruling that doesn't apply today", good thing he's not in charge of civil rights and such.
- jeanette3654, on 10/12/2007, -16/+10david76, the 16th ammendment was NOT ratified by the required number of states, therefore it is NOT valid. There is NO law requiring us to pay income tax, UNLESS you are a federal employee.But think about that guys, that means that federal emplyees are paying their own salaries. The whole thing is so nuts!!!
- satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13*****.
- prisoner24601, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10It 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!
- DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9I watched some of the 861 video and found it to be very confusing and unclear (I'll watch it again and pay more attention) -- but I really didn't see their point at all.
Regardless, even if someone could get a politician to care enough to actually take up this argument, a law or amendment would nearly instantly be passed to get past whatever arguments people have. Why? Because the government has to be able to get money, and taxing income is an easy way to do this. No $ = no government = anarchy. I highly doubt a sales tax would be sufficient to replace the income tax (but I'm no economist).
You're an asshat if you have something against the income tax and any argument you could come up with to justify not paying it is moot. I'd agree that the details of the system need work, but the income tax itself is essential to a functioning government.- nossr50, on 10/12/2007, -16/+4It's unconstitutional, so tell me why I'm an ass for not agreeing with something illegal and unconstitutional?
- satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@ nossr50
You are not an ass for having your opinion. But, how can something IN THE CONSTITUTION be unconstitutional? It can't. Therefore, you are just stupid, but not an ass. I hope it makes you feel better.
I would rather be an ass. Wait. I probably am. :) - nossr50, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Oh it's in the constitutio---- Oh wait no it isn't
- uttles, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3"you're an asshat if you disagree with the federal government robbing you at gunpoint any time you earn some money"
Really? - DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@uttles: Nice attempt at twisting words. If your twistings were at all true I might applaud you. I'd like you to an envision a United States without a good source of federal income, such as the federal income tax. Now envision that same America, with awful or non-infrastructure, very poor education (which state-controlled but funded by the federal government to a large extent through grants), a meager military/defense force... do I have to go on? The people who complain about having to pay taxes are the people who must want to live in anarchy.
- Disastermaster1, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7Ignorant jurors are the reason why people in our country are convicted of the crime of breaking a law that isn't. As a member of a jury you have more power than the Supreme Court, the Congress or the President. One member of a jury is all that it takes to stand up and say, " I not only say this person is innocent, but I say the law that you are trying him under is UNCONSTITUTIONAL ! Learn factual information about jury service at www.fija.org. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT '08 !!!
- sikosmurf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9OK. 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.
- uttles, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I agree, Ron Paul is the man.
- Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ignorant jurors? well i guess their must be a LOT of ignorant people all operating under the same concept that the law does exist for this..including judges, prosecutors, jailers, appeals courts etc etc etc
- cldershem, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1i believe this contest has occurred before....at least that's what i remember from aaron russo's freedom to fascism doc that is probably still available on google video. kind of really boring and full of a bunch of bs but it addresses the issue for most of the doc until it becomes retarded...haha. i may only think this because i am a bit biased against Russo ....since i recently got fired from the bar he founded in the late 60s...but oh well.
- mcfriendly, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1So he doesn't want to recognize the laws requiring him to pay taxes? Does he recognize any other laws? I say we just kick his ass out of this country.If you don't like it here - LEAVE!
- bcbounders, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Why is it that anytime someone expresses an unfavorable thought/opinion, the first response from some "patriotic" moron's mouth is "Well... if you don't like it here, then MOVE!"?!?!
Isn't the POINT of this country the fact that (1) you can have your own opinion and (2) you are legally allowed to express it? And isn't the point of democracy (which is what this country is SUPPOSED to be, contrary to the current belief that we should be a Christian theocracy) that it is the thoughts/opinions of the people that matter the most and should be used as the basis for determining law, etc?
While I agree that it is pretty pointless to try and prove that there is no law making the collection of income taxes legal (since Congress would just immediately pass one... it is OUR income tax that pays their salaries and provides their magnificent healthcare and retirement plans!), everyone has the right to express their desire NOT to pay. - iloveliberals, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Alec Baldwin promised he'd leave....bastard.
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Alec Baldwin promised he'd leave....bastard."
And then when things didn't go his way, he _STAYED_! Hypocrite bastard.
- bcbounders, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Why is it that anytime someone expresses an unfavorable thought/opinion, the first response from some "patriotic" moron's mouth is "Well... if you don't like it here, then MOVE!"?!?!
- screensnot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7So what?
In the event that there really is no law that requires you to pay taxes, what would you accomplished by making it public?
You think any judge would agree that he owes nothing? That would set a precedent that everyone would try to take advantage of.
Then what? The government just shuts down?
Or the government has to quickly add a law, so that people have to start paying again? What about the people that currently owe some taxes? They get the slate wiped clean? Can everyone now sue to get back taxes they've already paid?
All the judge needs to say is that the law is poorly or incorrectly witten, and it's intent was that we all pay taxes. He has the power to interperet the law the way he sees it (even if it's entirely contradictory to the way anyone else reads it). The only recourse for anyone who doesn't agree with this judge, is to take it to a higher court and find another judge to overturn the first decision (and that won't happen).*
*IANAL- nossr50, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I guess the civil war was just a 'so what' issue too
- screensnot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3If a civil war comes out of this, I'll move it from the "So What" category to the "WTF" category.
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"it's[sic] intent was that we all pay taxes."
Was it? After almost 100 years, if the real intent was to make everyone liable, why hasn't there been a correction?
Entire law libraries of new and changed laws have come and gone in that time, yet this has not been "corrected". Why not?
"IANAL"
That's obvious. - screensnot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I am not trying to debate what any law actually says, or even what its original intent was.
I am simply stating that I don't think this country could survive, if we just instantly stopped paying income tax. And I think that any judge who ruled in favor of Ed Brown would set the precedent that income tax is unlawful and does not need to be paid.
If you'd like to get rid of income tax, I would like to support you. But first, I'd need to know that there is a plan to make that work.
- mrhaines, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6The cost of the war in Iraq has to be clsoe to the amount you guys pay in income tax. Stop the war, cancel income tax. Make love not income tax!
- nossr50, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I bet Al Capone is rolling in his grave
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Capone filed _false_ income tax statements, reporting less than he actually made.
Remember, filing a 1040 is _voluntary_. If you volunteer, you then have to abide those rules.
What Ed Brown is asking for is the law that makes filing compulsory.
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Capone filed _false_ income tax statements, reporting less than he actually made.
- YeahOK, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4WTF do you left-wingers want? C'mon make up your f'n mind. Higher Taxes -or- No Taxes? You guys have so many vacillating causes I can't figure out what you really stand for.
- SelfAbortion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Who the hell are you talking to??
- YeahOK, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2 left-wingers?
- imnotjason, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Cecil Adams, 10 years ago:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_127.html - interiot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12As 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.
- butch3r, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Freedom To Fascism is a movie based on this. you can watch it at PeekVid.com
- Laz0r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You can also watch Freedom to Fascism here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198 - Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1or I could go watch some other propaganda lie filled movie..
it would all be the same - synarchy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@tweekster
Like Al Gore's movie? The one nominated for an academy award?
- Laz0r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You can also watch Freedom to Fascism here:
- cubey, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12If you don't want to pay taxes, relinquish your citizenship and move out of the country. It seems as simple as that. Otherwise, whether you like it or not, you are getting value from the government in the form of direct services, or if not, then at least from the option of receiving those services (remember, options have value too). And those services and their funding are both inevitable artifacts of the system of government that we, the people, elect. We can't have our cake and eat it too.
- appetite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6yea but he now has enough money to sustain himself and doesn't want to put any of his money back into the system that enabled him to attain that wealth. what's wrong with that? is it, like, selfish or something?
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3If you don't like slavery, then you should move.
If you don't like racial segregation, then you should move.
If you don't like the 55mph speed limit, then you should move.
If you don't like the War on some Drugs, then you should move.
Let's just say, this is an old argument. Unlike wine, it has not improved with time.
- mcow, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6so if someone finds the law for mr. brown do you think he'll pay up? maybe he'll evade that too...
- mumbler, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6You think invading Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly Iran next is $free? Who's going to pay Haliburton?
- mastersquirrel3, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2***** that not paying your tax is no way to stop Haliburton it just stops the government. If you want to stop Haliburton then sue them or do something else but ***** pay your tax
- appetite, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8wah. i don't want to pay taxes. wah. i want more mink coats but less infrastructure. wah.
- mookiemookie, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12A quick Google search brings up: "Over the past ten years more than 2,000 tax protestors have been convicted of criminal tax charges, with over 60% receiving jail sentences."
Go ahead and buy into all these wingnut theories on why income tax is illegal and go ahead and not pay. Oh, and be sure to tell us how the food is in prison. - mastersquirrel3, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9pay the ***** tax you *****
- Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0you live in an organized govt, therefore the consent exists.
so no it is not theft.
it might not be the best, it might be overtaxed, but you chose to live under the government, therefore you agree to pay the taxes of the reps that chose to pass the taxes
- Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0you live in an organized govt, therefore the consent exists.
- ArthurB, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4It does not matter what the US law says. Taxation is theft, no matter how you try to spin it, no matter what the lawmakers or even the majority think.
- Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2it must be nice to live in fantasyland
- ArthurB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@tweekster
Nothing to do with "fantasyland" it's just the definition of theft: non-consensual transfer of property. This is exactly was taxation is.
- superrcat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Even if you could find the law, you would be stupid to accept the prize.
1. Income tax on the property...Since this is property, you would have to pay a hell of a lot of tax on an income of more than 1 million dollars in a single year.
2. Yeah, so you found the law, now you have a income tax on this property and you will have to go to court to assert your stance. Good luck.
3. Now you have property tax as well annually.
4. By time the entire process is over, you probably spent 1 million dollars try to get this prize. - david76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@klaymen
I think the better question is, where do _you_ think your income tax goes? - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Might makes right. Law, like citizenship, democracy or liberty, is just a fiction to keep people pacified so they can be exploited in an orderly fashion. The fact is that if you don't cooperate with the government shakedown they will send armed thugs to correct your attitude.
- appetite, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5you don't have to live here and feed off the system that the rest of us pay taxes for.
- DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Well that's all honky dory, urusai, but the facts are that we cannot live peacefully within our own nation without government. Government means order, safety and security. There are always exceptions, but for the vast majority of cases we would be helpless without laws and government. Remove your head from your anus, please.
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"we cannot live peacefully within our own nation without government."
At least you're honest in your paranoia. The problem is that governments _create_ chaos.
What is perfectly legal today might be illegal tomorrow, and might be perfectly legal again the day after that. And there is no way to know. That is chaos.
Agents of the government are immune from prosecution for what their actions if they are following orders or policies of that same government. For instance, the Rodney King 5 were found "not guilty" because the L.A. Sheriff's department manual said, in fact, "hit him until he stays down."
Private individuals have no such immunity. Each person is always responsible for their own actions. If told to kill, and I do, I am guilty of murder. Yet Lon Horiuchi is still not in prison for doing exactly the same thing, the only difference is who told him to kill. That is chaos.
The Federal Reserve prints money at will. There is no way to know one day to the next what money is worth, and that is chaos.
Government prohibitions have created an environment where the most violent and ruthless thugs can reap astounding profits by dealing in black market commodities. The profits are used to bribe and corrupt the officials of government, creating an environment where some people are prosecuted and others left alone with no regard to the actual laws involved. That is chaos.
Private individuals working together is the antithesis of chaos, because people desire order. If you want peace and safety, abolish government. - DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@CurtHowland: Hmm.. you seem to live in a fantasy land. If there was no government there would be no conception of property. Why? Because the government has given us the protection of law enforcement which enables us to claim stuff as our property. If there were no government, there would be no law enforcement, and without law enforcement we would live in anarchy. Anything would go.
There HAS to be a government if people are to live in peace because without government there is nothing to stop armed thugs from robbing and hurting or killing people. A world without government and laws is one without consequences, and that can never work. Mankind has proven itself over and over again to be incapable of living in peace even WITH government, so what would happen if there were no government at all? It would be a free-for-all *****-show and that can't be a good thing, no matter what your little conspiracy theories tell you. What you're saying is exactly the opposite of what is true.
"What is perfectly legal today might be illegal tomorrow, and might be perfectly legal again the day after that. And there is no way to know. That is chaos." Except that this isn't true -- we do, after all, live in a representative democracy, and though it's true we don't have complete control over our laws, we have some. All the examples you put forth are good and worthy examples, and our government is certainly not perfect, but the fact remains that we HAVE to have SOMETHING and saying otherwise is just insane. - CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@ DyDx
"you seem to live in a fantasy land."
One where individuals are responsible for their own actions? Yes, it's a happy fantasy. Unfortunately, a large majority of the people around me see nothing wrong with using force to make me do what they want me to do, so I'm stuck. Some "reality", it sucks.
"If there was no government there would be no conception of property."
That is false. Even a baby knows when something is "MINE!".
Property pre-existed government. Maybe you weren't listening when this passage was read: "...among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed."
"Because the government has given us the protection of law enforcement..."
What a public-school crock of *****. "Law Enforcement" has nothing what so ever with keeping the peace. "Law Enforcement" is breaking down peoples doors because they might be having sex in a non-state-sanctioned fashion. Killing grandmothers because they smoke pot. Having a larger percentage of our population in prison than any other country on the planet.
_That_ is "Law Enforcement".
There was a time when Americans had what they called "Peace Officers". These were people who would intercede when there was a crime, when someone harmed or threatened another, when someone "broke the peace". Go watch an "Andy Griffith Show" re-run if you want to see the difference between "Law Enforcement" and "Keeping the Peace."
"If there were no government, there would be no law enforcement, and without law enforcement we would live in anarchy.
By Cromm, YES! What a wonderful idea! An-archy, "rules without rulers". I suggest you do a little study on the subject before you try to equate peaceful cooperation without coercion, with what you really fear: Chaos.
But, Wouldn't The Warlords Take Over?
http://www.mises.org/story/1855
"There HAS to be a government if people are to live in peace because without government there is nothing to stop armed thugs from robbing and hurting or killing people."
False. Government has nothing to do with it. If the only thing preventing you from killing and eating your neighbors is fear of getting caught, then it is YOU who are sick. Not me.
Why, in every state and locality that makes it even slightly less difficult for an individual to protect themselves, do crime rates go DOWN? Not more cops, not more government. In fact, slightly LESS government, in that the restrictions on peoples actions have been reduced?
Can you explain that? I can. Self defense is more efficient than waiting for the police to bother to show up after the fact and clean up the mess. I would much rather see a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist, than a woman strangled with her own pantyhose and a rapist free to do so again, because it took 20 minutes for the police to show up.
You call that anarchy. I call that one less criminal.
"A world without government and laws is one without consequences..."
You didn't read what I wrote. Government agents already live in a world without consequences, able to harass, kill, do whatever they want while you, and I, get arrested and imprisoned without ever endangering or harming another human being.
"and that can never work."
Do, please, read something on the subject before you post again.
Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment: 1681-1690, By Murray N. Rothbard
http://www.mises.org/story/1865
"Mankind has proven itself over and over again to be incapable of living in peace even WITH government..."
Which astounds me. You just said that government is a requirement for peace, now you say that with government there is no peace.
So which is it? And since you declare that the experiment with the agent with the legal monopoly on coercion (government) has not brought about the peace you crave, why are you so loath to investigate alternatives?
"so what would happen if there were no government at all?
Let's see. Right now, one agent, "government", has a monopoly on the legitimate initiation of force. Coercion. The ability to change a contract and enforce those changes as if other parties had already agreed to it.
Without government, there would be one less agent so endowed with that power. 1 minus 1 equals zero.
With no one posessing the legitimate power to initiate force, that means that anyone who does initiate force can be defended against. Remember above where I said crime rates go DOWN when the restrictions on self defense are loosened even slightly?
Therefore, crime rates would drop. No more police breaking down doors to haul people away for victimless crimes.
Would "murder" be just fine, as you assert? No, because murder is the initiation of force. Just because it's wrong for me to do it doesn't mean it's right for you to do it. Such an environment only exists with government.
Here are a few more links for you, if you care to learn more about "Rules without Rulers":
What Are You Calling 'Anarchy'?, Robert Murphy
http://www.mises.org/story/1778
The Obviousness of Anarchy, John Hasnas (associate professor, Georgetown University)
http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/hasnas.pdf
I wrote: "What is perfectly legal today might be illegal tomorrow, and might be perfectly legal again the day after that. And there is no way to know. That is chaos."
You reply: "Except that this isn't true -- we do, after all, live in a representative democracy, and though it's true we don't have complete control over our laws, we have some."
Utterly false. Regardless of my protestations to the contrary, prohibitions and coercive requirements plague me constantly. You are in the same situation. The amount of control we have over our system comes out to nothing, unless by some luck we gain reins of power through political or economic control.
This government is exactly like every other government that has ever existed. The few live off the many like vampires.
Since anarchy means not having the vampires, I'm all for it. Why do you want to be a victim so badly that you will condemn others to the same fate?
"All the examples you put forth are good and worthy examples, and our government is certainly not perfect, but the fact remains that we HAVE to have SOMETHING and saying otherwise is just insane."
Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate that you do see the evil going on, that is a great deal better than some.
However, to do the same thing and expect different results, is what is insane. Saying we HAVE to have SOMETHING, when that SOMETHING has proven always to be the greatest bane, is insane.
Take a look at anarchy. Look around you, as Prof. Hasnas suggests, and notice that where there is anarchy in your life is also where there is the greatest peace, the greatest accomplishment, the greatest personal success.
- VeganG, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7Nobody likes taxes, but they pay for your social services and keep the country running. Someone who wants services but doesn't want to pay for them is a deadbeat.
I guess if you're against taxes, you have no problem with all the illegal immigrants who are mooching off the country. Hell, they're just like you!- ArthurB, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7What if you don't want to get the services? Oh, right, YOU ARE FORCED AT GUNPOINT to accept the services and pay for them anyway.
And the illegal immigrants are a good thing. - DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@ArthurB: What kind of world do you live in? Some fantasy world where only you matter and everyone else be damned? ***** yourself.
- ArthurB, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@DyDx
It's not a fantasy world at all.. Ultimately collecting taxes rely on the coercive power of the state. It's just a fact.
Now what can of fantasy world do YOU leave in when every man is a slave? My freedom is worth more than your conscience "ease". What kind of fantasy world do YOU leave in to ignore that the root cause of misery and poverty is and has always been coercive breaches to freedom and property.
Looting is dispisable, justifying it with "good-intention" is even worth. - broomett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Wow...you just went on the record as saying that illegal immigrants are a good thing, and you think you are going to retain ANY credibility EVEr again?
For the rest of your life, people will just have to bring that up and everyone will ignore you. I mean, ever more than they already do and have your whole life.
Immigration = Good. ILLEGAL immigration is bad. It is not that hard to do it legally.
If you don't want to be "forced" to accept the services and pay for them then it is simple. GET...THE...*****...OUT....OF...THE...COUNTRY. - ArthurB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@broomett
I have no qualm repeating that illegal immigration is a good thing. People are free to go where they want as long as they don't trespass on private property (without the owner's consent), thus there is in fact no such thing as "illegal" immigration, the only "illegal" thing is the US governement occupying by force the border and arresting people without a visa. Same thing with smuggling.
Now why should I move outside of the country? I'm not the one taking violent action here, why should I be the one moving out? If someone were mugged in the street, would you tell him to "get the ***** out of the street"? Sure he might want to stay off dangerous streets, but this certainly does not legitimate the mugging. - DyDx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ArthurB: What you say is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't ring true. You seem to forget that the basis of our government (any non-totalitarian government) is an unspoken pact between citizens and those we assign to run it. If you don't like the way our government works then yes, you should move out of the country. It's quite simple, and your analogy about the mugging in the streets is not a good one. You are SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE to pay taxes because that is how our system works -- if you are not willing to own up to your social responsibilities out of some ridiculous belief that the government is holding a gun to your head and therefore it's wrong to have to pay taxes, get the hell out. Seriously.. leave. If you don't like that your taxes go towards social programs you don't want or need, vote for small-government Republicans... If you don't want our border to be militarized and protected (because you apparently aren't aware of the concept of sovereignty), vote for political candidates who will open up the borders.. because that's how our system works. If you don't like something you do your best to vote in the people who will fight for what you DO want. But while you're at it, don't forget that taxes go towards paying these politicians who will fight for what you want, they go towards paying for elections that get them in power!
To sum it up: If you really believe that federal income taxes are a coercive move on the part of the government to squeeze money out of you wrongfully, then you have a problem with our system as a whole and need to leave. - spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@broomett
that is why this is a republic, you have a voice to change what you don't like. NOW SHUT UP WITH THE 'IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT MOVE' *****
did our founding fathers move out of the colonies.... NO, NOW ***** YOU.
- ArthurB, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7What if you don't want to get the services? Oh, right, YOU ARE FORCED AT GUNPOINT to accept the services and pay for them anyway.
- uttles, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2I love how silly liberals are. It really just makes me laugh every time I see something like this. Of course we all know the underlying cause of this sentiment is th