digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at cnn.com

Wesley Snipes: 3 years in jail for not filing tax return

cnn.com — Actor Wesley Snipes faces up to three years in prison and a fine of $5 million when he is sentenced Thursday on federal tax evasion charges. Federal prosecutors last week urged U.S. District Judge William Hodges in Ocala, Florida, to sentence Snipes to the maximum penalty to scare everyone to pay...because there is NO LAW requiring citizens to file

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • demicritter, on 04/25/2008, -74/+97The IRS uses fear and intimidation to coerce people to pay them for their labor. Sure, there are multiple cases the press cites where people are convicted and referred to as "tax cheats." It's a great way to conscript a stupid citizenry to back their thievery and continue to steal our money and pay it to their partners in crime the Federal Reserve. THERE IS NO LAW THAT REQUIRES THE US CITIZEN TO FILE A TAX RETURN. LOOK IT UP!
    • rpi22, on 04/25/2008, -12/+55Title 26 of the IRS code says, "Any individual that is liable for the income tax must file a return." However, nowhere in the United States Code does it define which individuals are "liable for" paying income tax on regular working wages. If you look through the U.S.C, you will find other taxes where specific groups are made liable. For instance, § 5005. Persons liable for tax: (a) General The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001 (a)(1).
      http://tinyurl.com/yo4wme
      • Dewhead, on 04/25/2008, -3/+9I think that Snipes defense and look what it got him. I think it is complete BS that the government taxes anyone's income but they do.
        • blackolive, on 04/25/2008, -5/+7#1 Here's the law saying you must pay income taxes:
          http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/u ...

          #2 It explains:
          "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code says that 'There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual, or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table.. ..'
          http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#liable
          • rpi22, on 04/25/2008, -7/+8"taxable income" is not working wages. nowhere are working wages defined at "taxable income". Taxable income means capital gains from investment, as determined by the supreme court.
          • mrsteveman1, on 04/25/2008, -2/+8I seem to remember the federal government being restricted to only those powers defined in the constitution. As far as i remember federal income tax wasn't on the list.
          • GrampaMike46, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 2
            § 2. Definitions and special rules
            (e) For definition of taxable income see section 63.

            TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 63
            §63. Taxable income defined
            (a) In general
            Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus ...
            (b) Individuals who do not itemize their deductions
            ... the term “taxable income” means adjusted gross income, minus...

            TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 62
            §62. Adjusted gross income defined
            (a) General rule
            ... the term “adjusted gross income” means, in the case of an individual, gross income minus ...

            TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 64
            §64. Ordinary income defined
            ... the term “ordinary income” includes any gain from the sale or exchange of property ...

            TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61
            §61. Gross income defined
            (a) General definition
            ... gross income means all income from whatever source derived...

            IN REVIEW:
            §63a - “taxable income” means “gross income” minus...
            §62a - “adjusted gross income” means, in the case of an individual, “gross income” minus...
            §64 - “ordinary income” includes any gain ... (watch for the word gain in the following Supreme Court decisions).
            §61a - “gross income” means all “income” from whatever source derived... (Note the Edwards vs. Keith Decision below)

            §??? - “income” means ????? ............... NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE!!!

            These are the only definitions in Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, that include the word “income” yet none of them actually define the word “income”. The definition of the word “income” does not exist in Title 26. How do we really know this? The Supreme Court tells us so:

            U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F2d 400, cert denied, 429 U.S. 918, 50 L.Ed.2d 283, 97 S.Ct. 310 (1976)
            "...the general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code..."

            Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)

            "The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support, either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it... It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services."
            Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)

            "... whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income ... Congress has taxed income not compensation."

            "There is a clear distinction between `profit' and 'wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment- - - a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."
          • TenebrousX, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3@ mrsteveman1 -
            Amendments are part of the Constitution
          • Midtowner, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Words don't have to be defined for statutes to be valid.

            If you don't know what income means, I'm sorry for you. Go check out dictionary.com. I'm sure they can clear it up for you. Income doesn't have to be money, it is anything which confers an economic benefit to the person receiving it.
      • knuckles, on 04/25/2008, -12/+8IRS is *not* the government. It's not even officially *part* of the government. It's a service. So who cars what *rules* they write down? It's not legal unless the government passes it into law.
      • p0tent1al, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1Since when do IRS codes have any legal precedence? People who used to work in the IRS have found out the truth, and a lot of them also refuse to file a return. There IS no law that requires you to file one, you can reference IRS codes all you want, it just shows you really don't get it.
        • Midtowner, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1The IRS Code is Title 26 of the U.S. Code. It says you have to pay taxes. Former IRS agents can be crazy people too.

          There is a vast body of precedent behind the Tax Code. In fact, at the library in my law school, an entire aisle (both sides) is taken up with tax law IRS opinions, tax court rulings, revenue rulings, treatises, etc.
    • Infowarmachine, on 04/25/2008, -31/+14even former tax agents have fought the IRS in court and won, and wont be paying any more taxes on their labor wages
      • WarrenHarding, on 04/25/2008, -9/+23nope, you're wrong
        • 11oops, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3Clearly he's not wrong. Just look at the sources he cited.... errrr wait...... Yup, he's an idiot.
      • Infowarmachine, on 04/30/2008, -0/+12 minutes of searching will find the guy
        im not going to spoon feed you info you spoiled *****
        or watch "america, freedom to facism", im pretty sure hes in the video
    • themanmachine, on 04/25/2008, -18/+36The fact that there is no such law is totally null and irrelevant. The IRS can take away all your worldly possessions and ruin your life. And no one has the balls to stop them. You dare mess with that kind of power?
      • Nitrodist88, on 04/25/2008, -11/+32America's forefathers are rolling in their graves.
        • vuke69, on 04/25/2008, -7/+38Thomas Jefferson alone is probably spinning so fast, if you hooked him up to a generator, it would easily power all of Charlottesville.
        • robschraer, on 04/25/2008, -5/+9good show sir
        • JustinHopewell, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1Funniest thing I've read in a week. :D
      • stix213, on 04/25/2008, -6/+4The fact is there is a law called "the Internal Revenue Code" which was passed by congress that says in fact you do have to pay taxes.
      • elcob32, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3There also happens to be a document called the constitution that states that unapportioned taxes are illegal. The 16th ammendment changes that, but if you look into it, it was not ratified by the required number of states, and as such should not be concidered an ammendment at all.
        • FKnight, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3Amendment 16 was ratified by at least 36 states by February 3, 1913. That's 3/4ths of the states in existence at the time. Two more past the required 36 states ratified that same day.

          You are lying.
        • BlacklabelSAR, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3You left out the part where most of Congress was not present due to the Christmas holiday. And an Ammendment that is prohibited by the Constitution is completely invalid. No Unnapportioned taxes. It's all part of the Federal Reserve Act, which hijacked our government. Look into it.
          • FKnight, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2By definition, no Amendment to the Constitution, once ratified, can be "Unconstitutional."
        • Izult, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1You also left out the part where States violated their own state constitutions when they did the ratification process.
    • quomen, on 04/25/2008, -10/+36Demicritter, since you're so right, why don't you follow suit and never pay your taxes. kthx report back in three years.
    • samby, on 04/25/2008, -14/+54This is a lie.

      See this page: http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/ta ...

      26 U.S.C. § 1
      There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . who is not a married individual a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

      and: (from the website, in case you want to research further)
      Sections 1, 61, and 63 impose the tax,
      Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and
      Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return.

      • r3zonance, on 04/25/2008, -4/+32Stop it with your research and FACTS. This kinds of things will not be tolerated on digg :P
      • positron, on 04/25/2008, -15/+8Define "taxable income".
        • MacEnvy, on 04/25/2008, -4/+12http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/63.html

          26 U.S.C. § 63 "Taxable income defined"

          I swear, you people are unmitigated morons. Income taxes are NOT against the law, they ARE clearly enumerated in USC, and Congress and the President HAVE made them official law of the land. Even if you don't like it, and someone told you otherwise one time.
          • mrsteveman1, on 04/25/2008, -2/+6Passing a law doesn't make that law constitutional. There are very recent cases of laws being passed and immediately being struck down by the courts.

            Of course, they aren't going to let a test case end up threatening the federal tax extortion scheme so it hasn't happened.
          • FKnight, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2@mrsteveman1:
            So, don't pay your taxes. Tell it to the judge. Let us know.
          • Midtowner, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1It's Constitutional. See the 16th Amendment allowing Congress to pass laws taxing income from whatever source derived.
      • ChristPissed, on 04/25/2008, -15/+5I second positron's simple request.
        Define "taxable income". Where is "taxable income" defined?
        • FKnight, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Continuing to ask the question does not negate the fact that it has already been answered.
    • alukima, on 04/25/2008, -24/+52I am not a fan of the way the Government works- but you have spent way too much time in a basement on conspiracy sites.
      Go outside.
      I admit that a lot of tax dollars are wasted but the majority of tax dollars pay for roads, schools. welfare, and blue collar federal employee wages.
      I have to pay taxes. Celebrities shouldn't get out of it. I am quite sure Mr. Snipes has more free time then I do and I managed to file my return.
      • urgeigh, on 04/25/2008, -17/+21Actually, gas taxes pay for roads, schools (in Michigan at least) are funded by the state lottery, and welfare is so screwed up I don't even know where to begin. Your income taxes actually go to pay interest on the money our government borrows (no we don't just print our own money) from the Federal Reserve (that's where our national debt comes from, borrowing). The American People are duped into thinking that we HAVE to pay Income Taxes, but in reality it's only been around since 1913, and previously, every attempt to impose a federal income tax was ruled as unconstitutional. If the Government would print it's own money instead of borrowing it from a private bank (The Federal Reserve is not a Government institution), Income Tax would be irrelevant. And commercial taxes (which are perfectly legal) are more than sufficient for our national defense. The Federal Government was not created to take care of every need of the American people. The Federal Government should primarily provide an Army and sound money. At least they succeeded in the former. Research American history, our fore-fathers would be ashamed of what we've done to this country economically. The only reason people really "HAVE" to pay taxes is to keep their effing freedom, and that pisses me off. Aaron Russo made an excellent documentary called "America: Freedom to Fascism" in which it highlights a REAL case where the Supreme Court ruled that the Government does not have the power to impose an unapportioned tax against the labor of the American people, and that the 16th amendment did not give them that right. Do some research and educate yourself before you start calling out "conspiracies" - because there is no conspiracy, only fact. We're all being ripped off.
        • ParanoydAndroid, on 04/25/2008, -11/+21I shouldn't let myself get dragged into this but:

          1.) The American People are duped into thinking that we HAVE to pay Income Taxes, but in reality it's only been around since 1913, and previously, every attempt to impose a federal income tax was ruled as unconstitutional.

          That would be because it was unconstitutional before 1913, then we got the 16th amendment, which made it constitutional.

          2.) If the Government would print it's own money instead of borrowing it from a private bank (The Federal Reserve is not a Government institution), Income Tax would be irrelevant

          That is the single most painful sentence about economics I have ever read. Ever. The government does print money (or rather, it contracts it out, but that detail is actually unimportant). The Federal Reserve Board (FRB) does not print money, it handles monetary policy. The government can quickly and easily commission the printing of more money. This however increases the amount of money, but not the value of money. That is to say money follows basic supply and demand laws like anything else. If the government printed of 9 trillion more dollars to pay off the debt, the individual value of each dollar would fall (increased supply of dollars, with a steady demand leads to a devalued dollar) and we would actually be worse off than we started, because this phenomenon is known as inflation. I won't get into the pro/cons of the FRB, except to admit that there are bad points to the system; however, the government has the FRB because the gov't uses fiscal policy as an economic control machanism, not monetary policy, which many economists agree shouldn't be in the hands of a government anyway.

          3.) Aaron Russo made an excellent documentary called "America: Freedom to Fascism" in which it highlights a REAL case where the Supreme Court ruled that the Government does not have the power to impose an unapportioned tax against the labor of the American people, and that the 16th amendment did not give them that right.

          “The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.’” Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926).

          “[Becraft’s] position can fairly be reduced to one elemental proposition: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens and thus such citizens are not subject to the federal income tax laws. ... We hardly need comment on the patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition. For over 75 years, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized the Sixteenth Amendment’s authorization of a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens residing in the United States and thus the validity of the federal income tax laws as applied to such citizens.”
          In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir., 1989).

          4.) Do some research and educate yourself

          Oops, fell on your sword there didn't you?



      • calicheese23, on 04/25/2008, -5/+8You know the income tax hasn't been around forever right?
    • chambana, on 04/25/2008, -11/+3yea, well the 16th ammendment only implies that Congress has the right to make the law you so passionately declare doesn't exist. I'm not gonna evaluate your claim, only to say the norm has developed, it is backed up by the 16th amendment and complaining about it only serves to make some bored ***** like me answer you
    • CthulhuDawn, on 04/25/2008, -21/+10Paultards will never leave my Digg alone!
    • CamperBob, on 04/25/2008, -18/+17How does it feel to be that seriously mentally ill? I mean, what keeps you from waking up one morning, looking in the mirror, and thinking, "Wow, I'm in real trouble. I'm pretty much ***** nuts. I need to get help *now*, before I lose the rest of my grip on reality. Where'd I put that phone book?"

      Is it a sudden thing, coming on too fast to give your right mind a fighting chance? Or is it gradual enough that you don't recognize the boundary of sanity until you happen to glance in your psyche's rearview mirror and see the bright line behind you, fading so fast that you just don't care?

      I've always wondered how that works.
      • MaxD, on 04/25/2008, -3/+5I agree, that's a really interesting thought. My biggest fear (besides being eaten by vampiric penguins) whilst I was growing up was that I was certifiable, but nobody had the balls to tell me!! I mean - how _can_ you be absolutely sure?

        That being said and done, ***** rich wanker not paying his taxes. How selfish.
        • idleminded, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2"My biggest fear (besides being eaten by vampiric penguins)..."

          ... What?
        • kemp34, on 04/25/2008, -3/+2You should be proud of your willingness to plunder others. Sad.
          • MaxD, on 04/26/2008, -0/+4What?? I work full time. I pay my taxes. I just happen to think that things like roads, schools and hospitals are worthwhile. If I'm paying my taxes on my pittance of a salary, then I reserve the right to get pissed when somebody who is earning 100x what I earn refuses to give back? How is that plundering others? I play by the rules of the game and it's irritating when people cheat (because the cheating does nothing more than screw the rest of us over).
          • Midtowner, on 04/27/2008, -0/+2If you don't think the 'plundering' of others is okay, then how 'bout this: While you are free to live in your home, stop using the city based water. Water is a highly subsidized product -- the cost of delivery is dwarfed by the use charges which municipalities charge. The shortcomings are funded by the plunder of others. Stop using your electricity. While I'm quit certain that you pay your electric bill, the government uses plunder to pay for subsidies for new plants, plant maintenance, delivery apparatus maintenance. Also, stop driving on roads. Those are entirely funded by plunder. Get the picture?

            Living in an organized society, there are certain functions which the government has to provide. It can't do those things without money. People who don't pay the taxes are the ones plundering from those who do.

            If you don't like that, there are any number of uninhabited islands in the world where you will not be required to pay taxes.
    • SoxSweepAgain, on 04/25/2008, -10/+27Folks, I love America to death and hate paying taxes, but:
      16th Amendment to the Constitution:
      "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. "
      • silentboom, on 04/25/2008, -11/+6It was not properly ratified.....I see many government apologists here, they didn't do their research. They can put you in jail for this, because they are tougher than you. Period.
        • stix213, on 04/25/2008, -2/+4So you are going to argue now there isn't a 16th Amendment? Good luck with that dummy.
        • FKnight, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2It was ratified by 42 states. Look it up. And don't pull that "Ohio wasn't really a state until last month" crap or whatever that damn conspiratard argument is. Only 36 states (3/4ths) were required to ratify in 1913.
        • BlacklabelSAR, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2The Constitution explicitly prohibits an unnapportioned tax. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Nothing changes that. Yeah they did it anyway. Doesn't make it Constitutional or legal.
          • FKnight, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1I hate to break this to you, but an Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified, by DEFINITION *cannot* be considered Unconstitutional.
          • Izult, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1hate to break it to YOU but the laws governing ratification were broke in the ratification of this amendment. Even State constitutions were violated in the effort to get this on the books.
        • Midtowner, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1I'm just wrapping up a law school class on income tax law..

          Pretty sure I've done my research.
    • brundlefly76, on 04/25/2008, -7/+15Just like insurance cheats, the only people tax evaders are ***** is TAXPAYERS.
      Have fun in jail Wesley.

      • soppinglemon, on 04/25/2008, -5/+1wesley snipes is the man
        • brundlefly76, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4He's the has-been of has-beens.

          Ever since Blade his career has been nothing but a string of overseas low-budget action flicks no one has ever even heard of.
        • kemp34, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Because he got black balled.
          • brundlefly76, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Black balled? By who? For tax evasion? Why would any producer care?
      • KiraDnote, on 04/25/2008, -4/+33 misdemeanors gets him a 3 year jail sentence, even though he has no priors. That's not fair, but as the Judge said, that's the way it works when you are a high profile person.
        • brundlefly76, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4Where is the judge quoted as saying that in the article??!!

          I'm sorry, but if I did not file a tax return for 3 years in a row, and was a millionaire, I would have my bags packed for jail, because I'm not an idiot.
    • fromonesource, on 04/25/2008, -11/+5America Freedom to Fascism: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5355374476 ...
    • beyondinfinite, on 04/25/2008, -8/+7HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT
      Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.
      http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notrat ...
      • stix213, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3If this were actually true, the states that supposedly didn't approve it would have said something at the time. BS ALERT
      • stix213, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4People please don't believe this complete moron. None of that crap on beyondinfinite's link is actually true.



        Court response to U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986) in response to this very subject, and why you are 100% wrong both by written law and by precedent:



        “Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states’ ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.



        “Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “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.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders.



        “Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.



        “Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas’. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review.”
    • samoan27, on 04/25/2008, -1/+9Taxes have to come from somewhere. Could someone please explain why everyone is defending an elite upper class citizen for passing the responsibility onto everyone else.
      • ZenMojo, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Because they're elite upper class citizens who don't want to pay taxes?
      • Izult, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1I'm willing to pay taxes so long as i'm kept informed as to where the money is being spent. The way it works now is beyond insane.
    • ZenMojo, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5Some ***** are always trying to ice skate uphill.
    • Karna101, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5***** the irs
      • DarkShroud, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1You can try but in the end they bend you over the barrel you'll soon be living out of. And then they might have you sent to jail to be bent over again.
    • RP4408, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2The Independent Thinker’s
      INCOME TAX FACT SHEET
      Each year, millions of Americans report their earnings
      to the IRS, allowing a significant portion of their wealth
      to be claimed by the government. Yet the law itself stipulates that tax is
      only to be paid on a certain kind of income — a truth about which most
      Americans remain blissfully unaware. Here are 10 facts you should know:
      1. The income tax is an excise tax, not a direct tax. It applies only to revenue
      in which the federal government has a direct ownership interest.
      2. What is called “income” by the Internal Revenue Code is not “money” or
      “receipts” or “earnings.” It is defined as receipts resulting from the exercise of
      federal privilege. Are you doing business with or are you paid by the federal
      government?
      3. The income tax was instituted in 1862. The 16th Amendment (1913) did not
      expand the scope or definition of taxable “income.” Until the 1940s, only about
      4% of Americans (those who worked for or were involved with the federal
      government) paid annual income tax.
      4. During WWII, the government called for Americans to pay income tax as
      support for the war effort. Patriotically, a large number of citizens complied.
      5. The Internal Revenue Code grew to more than 3 million words. A wagewithholding
      program was instituted and thousands of professionals now help
      Americans prepare their tax returns.
      6. Each year, millions of W-2 and 1099 reports are issued for “wages” or “nonemployee
      compensation” by payers who misunderstand that these forms are
      intended for federal entities making federally connected payments. These
      forms serve as legal testimony and, without rebuttal, make the named
      individuals liable for paying an “income” tax.
      7. The “Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return” is intended as a way for
      individuals to correct information “testimony” made about them by others.
      Americans have until April 15th of each year to correct their record. Not filing a
      tax return waives your right to properly report your “income.”
      8. While Congress cannot take your money directly, it has created a tax code
      that is convoluted enough to deceive most people. “Income,” “wages,”
      “employee,” “employer” and “trade or business” are all specifically defined in the
      Code, and yet most of us interpret these words in a common or everyday way.
      9. Once a return (1040 Form) is filed, it is legally valid and answers the
      question of whether or not you were engaged in taxable activities for that year.
      It is the means — provided by law — for YOU to set the record straight.
      10. The U.S. tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary
      compliance. The government will accept your money unless you inform it every
      year that you are entitled to non-payment or to a refund of what you have paid.
      ______________________________________________________________
      Most people in America are woefully uninformed about the nature of who
      is to pay income tax. Reporting “income” and subtracting “expenses” is
      the only relief available to many, even with the help of trained
      professionals, all of whom operate under the same misconceptions.
      Common misunderstandings:
      ! There is no law that says I have to pay income tax
      ! The 16th Amendment was never ratified
      ! Filing a tax return admits me into “the system”
      ! It’s better not to file a tax return
      ! It’s better to pay my taxes and stay out of trouble
      FACT: Only certain kinds of “income” are taxable. The U.S. Constitution denies
      the government the right to tax a person’s exercise of the fundamental
      individual right to work or trade. Although many people believe the “income tax”
      is unconstitutional, they do not understand how the imposition of this tax has
      become legal. The good news is that the Internal Revenue Code provides you
      a way to declare your freedom from income tax each and every year.
      “CRACKING THE CODE” by Pete Hendrickson is a book that explains this
      simple and lawful process. Join thousands of Americans who have unchained
      themselves from a pervasive system that feeds on their ignorance. “Cracking
      the Code” has enabled those who read it to demand their money back from the
      IRS. Wouldn’t you like to be one of these people?
      Your freedom is something which you must participate in.
      Don’t wait for someone else to give it to you!
      CRACKING THE CODE:
      The Fascinating Truth About Taxation in America
      www.LostHorizons.com
    • britoca, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5fine, get off my freeway then, I pay for it every month. Oh and don't step on my sidewalks as well, alright?
  • MadKennyP, on 04/25/2008, -19/+77"For the record, we note that the following beliefs, which are stock arguments of the tax protester movement, have not been, nor ever will be, considered `objectively reasonable' in this circuit:

    (1) the belief that the sixteenth amendment to the constitution was improperly ratified, and therefore never came into being;
    (2) the belief that the sixteenth amendment is unconstitutional generally;
    (3) the belief that the income tax violates the takings clause of the fifth amendment;
    (4) the belief that the tax laws are unconstitutional;
    (5) the belief that wages are not income, and therefore are not subject to federal income tax laws;
    (6) the belief that filing a tax return violates the privilege against self-incrimination; and
    (7) the belief that Federal Reserve Notes do not constitute cash or income."

    -- Cheek v. United States (U.S. Supreme Court, 1991, citing U.S. v. Buckner, 830 F.2d 102, 1987)
    http://laws.findlaw.com/us/498/192.html
    • demicritter, on 04/25/2008, -17/+36As long as the state premises their case, without a basis in law, they'll always unfairly stack the desk against the citizenry. More people need to bone-up on "Jury Nullification." Effectively, the jury are the arbiters of the case and render whatever decision they like in spite of the Judge's instructions to the contrary. When some instrument of the state, READ: JUDGE, establishes their own law, contrary to the Constitution, it is time for the people to turn them out and overturn their wild-eyed push for tyranny and total control over our money and lives.
      • familynight, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3oh, ffs, it's not without basis in law, and the word that you're actually looking for there is statute, not law, which also happens not to be true. don't me wrong. i like jury nullification, but you seem to suggest it gives us a basis for revolution, which is nuts. i wish i didn't have to pay taxes, but you are dead wrong about the lack of standing for tax law. statutory basis aside (which clearly exists, link below), we live in a common law country, not a civil law country. the decisions of judges can be given weight as law. it gives our legal system flexibility and adaptability that many countries lack. is it always a good thing? no. however, switching to civil law would be akin to a revolution, i.e. it's far from our current system. at any rate, if a judge's decision is unconstitutional, it can be overturned by a higher court. the supreme court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality and constitutional interpretation, lacking direct congressional action. if you don't like that, tough *****, that's our legal system. why would a judge want control over our money or lives? they don't even control the instruments (except in extremely rare circumstances) of the executive branch that collect taxes or otherwise control us. your argument makes it sound like some random judge or cabal of judges is trying to establish crazy laws, which is a bizarre and ignorant notion of our legal system. anyway, read the link below if you want some references for your tax argument.
        http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
        • fyngyrz, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2"if a judge's decision is unconstitutional, it can be overturned by a higher court."

          The problem is that the supreme court has been consistently approving unconstitutional law. Ex post facto laws (forbidden not once, but *twice* in the constitution), the inversion of the commerce clause, laws that restrict freedom of speech, laws that infringe on the the right to bear arms, laws that infringe on the right to keep arms, search prior to warrant, seizure prior to warrant, warrant w/o probable cause, detaining citizens w/o hearing, detaining citizens w/o representation, the taking of land for commercial purposes, infringement of the right of the people to peaceably assemble... to this we can add a whole bunch of things that have yet to make it to the supreme court that there is no certainty at all that they will rule against, because they have NOT been using the constitution as the final arbiter.

          The problem is that the constitution has no teeth; there is no agency or entity that can force those judges to obey it, and as we see, they know that and they do whatever they want. This attitude has clearly filtered down to the federal legislature, and from there to the state legislatures. All of them are making unconstitutional laws on a regular basis.

          So please, don't lecture people about the laws being legitimate. Any thinking person knows better. The law has become an arbitrary set of rules enforced by a government that does whatever it wants, not one that obeys or is bound in any way by the constitution. We do what we're told not because it is assured to be constitutional, but because the government uses force to coerce us into acting in certain ways, and if we act in ways that we know to be right -- such as insist on our right to free speech or free assembly -- we can be arrested, fingerprinted, our DNA recorded, our prospects for employment shattered, and our transition to the permanent underclass assured.

          As to why USSC judges would rule as they do -- what social circle do you think supreme court judges exist within? Who are their friends? Where do the perks come from? Who pays them homage and respect? What jobs do their kids have open to them? I mean, really, are you that naive? The perks and privileges of power have never changed significantly, except perhaps to increase steadily with time.
      • Midtowner, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Some people need to bone up on basic civil procedure. In a non-criminal tax case, there is no jury.
    • Jenadae, on 04/25/2008, -5/+13Isn't that highly unconstitutional?
      • familynight, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4no. it's not even a little bit unconstitutional. why would you think so? why would a court allow any of those propositions to be considered objectively reasonable? maybe, you're reacting to the first line. judges don't write decisions that they expect to be overturned. that is not to say that they can't be overturned. writing that a court will always hold a certain position is not unconstitutional, but it also doesn't limit the same court or a court above it from overturning the decision. it just sounds like the judge was a little bit annoyed at having to listen to such moronic arguments.
    • badassninja, on 04/25/2008, -2/+8What the hell does rant mean?
      • MadKennyP, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3I gotta assume you're referring to demicritter's and not my Supreme Court cite. I hope.
    • fromonesource, on 04/25/2008, -7/+3America Freedom to Fascism: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5355374476 ...
    • mwalker05, on 04/25/2008, -4/+1yes but, the IRS is a private firm based in puerto rico. care to explain how that ties in with all this?
    • 4degrees, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1a judge saying he/she wont listen to people... ahh America.
    • AriaStar, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Most ***** right now is that he paid the money, yet tax dollars that can't be spared are now going to be used to keep him in jail as well. Since when can they have you both pay money AND sit in jail?
      • DarkShroud, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Whenever the judge fines you and then orders jail time. They're just getting you prepped for what will happen to you in jail.
    • nydwarf, on 04/26/2008, -0/+2How can an amendment to the Constitution be un-Constitutional??
  • fivecent, on 04/25/2008, -17/+8Heh - he can kill vampires with ease but the IRS proved to powerful for ol' Wesley
  • StingingNettle, on 04/25/2008, -11/+115Come on Wesley, the U.S. really needs this money so we can maintain our triple A credit with the rest of the world, and to fund pointless wars so Haliburton can have a no bid contracts and make lots of money. In fact, maybe you should just hand it over to Haliburton directly.
    • demicritter, on 04/25/2008, -5/+40Actually, most of the Federal Income Tax money is used to repay the privately owned Federal Reserve (here's the link: http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqf ... debt interest. The government runs mostly on the hidden taxes we pay in products we buy and services we subscribe to:

      Here's a partial list:
      Federal Unemployment Tax
      Workers Compensation Tax
      Social Security Tax
      Medicare Tax
      State Income Tax
      State Unemployment Tax
      School Tax

      Sales Taxes (State and Local)

      Real Estate Tax
      Property Tax
      Building Permit Tax
      Well Permit Tax
      Septic Permit Tax
      Utility Taxes
      Severence Tax

      Corporate Income Tax
      Accounts Receivable Tax
      Privilege Tax
      Inventory Tax
      Food License Tax
      Fuel permit tax

      Inheritance Tax
      Interest Expense
      Capital Gains Tax
      IRS Penalties
      IRS Interest Charges

      Liquor Tax
      Luxury Taxes

      Marriage License Tax
      Service Charge Taxes

      Telephone federal excise tax
      Telephone federal universal service fee tax
      Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes
      Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
      Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
      Telephone state and local tax
      Telephone usage charge tax

      Vehicle Sales Tax
      Vehicle License Registration Tax
      Recreational Vehicle Tax
      Trailer registration tax
      Road Toll Booth Taxes
      Toll Bridge Taxes
      Toll Tunnel Taxes
      Watercraft registration Tax

      Gasoline Tax

      Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)

      Dog License Tax
      Fishing License Tax
      Hunting License Tax
      Cigarette Tax

      These are what pay for the junkets, Congressmen, their pensions, military and so forth. Federal Income Taxes are gravy for the bankers.
      • silentboom, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3And when they don't have the money they inflate the currency which is another tax.
    • Asianwaste, on 04/25/2008, -4/+8Some ***** always trying to skate uphill.
  • michaelw, on 04/25/2008, -9/+106If they cryogenically freeze Wesley Snipes in prison, they'll also have to make sure Sylvester Stalone gets the same treatment. Just In Case.
    • Twisty, on 04/25/2008, -8/+4Do it fer the lulz!
    • AlexanderCurtis, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3The crux of implementing this is, will Stallone be able to knit?
    • nastri83, on 04/26/2008, -0/+1son of a... you beat me to it!
  • wocheck, on 04/25/2008, -14/+2are they filming Undisputed again?
  • dienaked, on 04/25/2008, -15/+7The Justice Department is just hitting these 'celebrities', ie-Marion Jones, Wesley Snipes, Tammy Thomas(not yet sentenced) and others, with big amounts of jail time so that when they get around to finding Barry Bonds guilty of perjury it won't look out of place when they give him the maximum sentence allowable. After that it will be back to the normal plea-bargains and slaps on the wrist.
    • ajwinder, on 04/25/2008, -0/+8um lets be honest, if Congress calls for an investigation, and someone lies under oath, that person should be put in jail for contempt of congress (which also has no max sentence, they can rot forever with that charge). The same should happen to Harriett Miers and Alberto Gonzales, and for the same reason - the Congress should have the right to thoroughly investigate any issue it deems important and punish indefinitely those who hamper such efforts. Otherwise, well, we run into the issue we have today where a corrupt executive branch gets way with anything and everything.
      • objectivist, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5Congress lacks the ability to enforce anything without the consent of the governed. As they will soon find out.
      • dienaked, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2Exactly, they let the 'insiders' go, while the celebrities/sports figures are being reminded that they aren't quite as powerful as they think they are.
        • DarkShroud, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1If you lie under oath and get caught it doesn't matter who you are you go to jail.
    • maz2331, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1It's going to be interesting how this plays out in the appellate courts. They may well toss the sentence as excessive, since selective prosecution and (especially) selective sentencing is frowned upon.

      District courts get overturned on stuff like this. It's a LOT harder to just bamboozle a Circuit Court.
  • slapshot24, on 04/25/2008, -19/+51Just to get this out there on the record, here's the complete (20+ pages of it) rebuttal of all of those nonsense arguments about "there's no law saying I have to pay my taxes."
    http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
    Or just listen to the courts: “Indeed, as we have repeatedly held, the entire Internal Revenue Code was validly enacted by Congress and is fully enforceable.” United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146 (10th Cir. 1990).
    • demicritter, on 04/25/2008, -35/+17Nice job, tool. Keep spouting the "IRS company line." The IRS is a criminal organization with the US Flag on the wall.
      • DarkShroud, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1If you don't like it move to a country that doesn't require taxes... oh right.
    • samby, on 04/25/2008, -7/+17Hey slapshot I know from personal experience that the best way to get dug down by digtards like demicritter is to post the facts of the case. But thanks anyway. Keep it up! There is intelligent life somewhere...
    • 007brendan, on 04/25/2008, -5/+13Here's the "Rebuttal":

      -"I would file returns and pay taxes if Congress, the IRS, or the courts would just show me the law that requires me to do so".-
      Yeah, right.
      Tax protesters are regularly shown the law, but they refuse to believe it. There are tax protesters who have met with the IRS and been told why they have to file returns, have been indicted for failing to file returns, have met with lawyers and judges who have told them why they had returns, been convicted by juries of failing to file returns, and have still claimed not to know why they were required to file returns.
      The claim that “I would file returns and pay taxes if they would show me the law” is just another delusion that tax protesters adopt to convince themselves that they are not criminals.

      Maybe someone can help me out with my Fallacy Detection. I think this is the Fallacy of Circular Reasoning.
      • uziko, on 04/25/2008, -7/+2i was with you until you started that fallacy *****, someone tried pulling that on me once, it's similar to the troll response

        it just shows that you disagree with the person but you don't know how to debate the person about it

        here's how it went with me *i said something, he says "that's a double fallacy" i say "i don't know what the ***** "fallacy" means but if you would like me to I will explain why you are wrong"
      • Daedalus17, on 04/25/2008, -5/+3How is keeping your own justly acquired property criminal?
        • vulapine, on 04/25/2008, -0/+5If the law states that you should pay an amount of monies in proportion to the real value of said received property during a calendar year beginning January 1 and ending on December 31, and you fail to do so, that would mean you are breaking that law, making you a criminal. Just like if you purchase a car, you will usually be required to license and register the car with the state. Failure to do so makes you a criminal.
          Just as if you own a home and your state requires that you pay a tax on the value of that home. Failure to do so makes you a criminal.
          Laws aren't always just, but breaking a law is always criminal.
        • XanderDee, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1Yes and that is what you call freedom.
          • DarkShroud, on 04/27/2008, -1/+1Try living in a country where they don't even need laws to take what's yours.
          • XanderDee, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1DarkShroud - You already do. They take you taxes by force you are guilty and must be proven innocent and what about 1933 gold confiscation?
    • consonance, on 04/25/2008, -2/+11Finally, common sense. Many people (including libertarians) forget that the legilsative makes the laws, the president executes them, and the judiciary interprets them. In the United States, we have common law, and Supreme Court decisions are binding. Say what you want about judicial review--hell, the Founding Fathers didn't know much about it, and that's why Article III is the shortest Article in the Constitution--by the time John Marshall dided, there was no one in the United States who claimed that the Supreme Court didn't have judicial review. And guess what? The Supreme Court has ruled that the tax laws are legal.
    • kocurejd, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3Thanks for the citation. I get a boner for Blue Book form.
    • brjndr, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3I love people who think they don't have to pay taxes. Eventually they end up paying the IRS and me.
      -Friendly Neighborhood Tax Attorney
  • purpmint008, on 04/25/2008, -21/+31 year for every ***** vampire movie.
    I don't think we should be forced to do work by the government though. Just my horrible 2 cents.
  • chicofaraby, on 04/25/2008, -33/+7On one hand, tax cheats really piss me off.

    On the other hand, I doubt a famous white person would have received that sentence.
    • demicritter, on 04/25/2008, -14/+9Tax cheat? How about tax tools? Every moron that unquestioningly sends off the proceeds of the personal work just to pay off the Federal Reserve debt should have their heads examined.

      Think about it? Tax cheat is a convenient label created to marshal forces against the people. Paying your fair share is another. Taking of people's labor, especially under a progressive tax system, are the same tenets employed by Marx. Rape in the name of the State.
      • chicofaraby, on 04/25/2008, -13/+14Shut up and pay your damn taxes or find another country to live in. The USA has a cover charge.


        whiny little bitch...
        • JDenigma, on 04/25/2008, -14/+5Off to the ovens for those "tax cheats" eh?

          I pity you, you Stockholm Syndrome victim
          • chicofaraby, on 04/25/2008, -4/+7So there's no difference between jailing tax cheats and the Holocaust?

            Are you sure?
          • JDenigma, on 04/25/2008, -8/+5Not in principle. It's only a difference in degrees. The Holocaust was murder of innocent people who hurt no one and that is rather authoritarian. Jailing people who don't pay taxes and murdering those who resist going to jail over it is also authoritarian control and punishment of people whose only "crime" is wanting to keep the money they earned to decide on their own terms, what to do with it. Both actions are immoral and authoritarian. It's just committing violence against people for different reasons. Don't give me the government services ***** argument either.

            I see I'm also getting buried by the troglodyte blood thirsty trolls here.

            You wouldn't do the same thing yourself to your neighbor, would you?
          • chicofaraby, on 04/25/2008, -2/+6That darn government, always pestering people to obey laws....

            I'd be happy to see all of the people who don't want to pay their taxes in the USA pay them somewhere else. I hear Saudi Arabia's taxes are nice and low.

          • JDenigma, on 04/25/2008, -5/+5Ah, it's the old redneck argument of LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT yeeehaaawww!!!!

            You know, as long as you support these taxes and support putting people in jail over it, then you really have no right and have no credibility to complain about what the government choose to spend its money on. Idiot!

            You might want to clean your knuckles there. Their rather dirty and oh straighten your back more as you walk.
          • CkMaverick, on 04/25/2008, -7/+3@Chico
            There is no law that requires a citizen to file a tax return. The government is trying to enforce a make-believe tax on your labor that they have no authority to demand for. They did not have the ability to create new taxes when the income tax went into effect. People are paying a tax that they don't have to and being thrown in jail went they don't even though it is not illegal.
      • ssn697, on 04/25/2008, -4/+10So, you aren't paying taxes, right? Is that because you are an unemployed loser, or because you are 13 years old?
        • JDenigma, on 04/25/2008, -8/+5Oh real intelligent. Just attack and personally smear because you're jealous that they might not pay their taxes unlike you. Boo hoo. At least they're more moral and have more courage than you do. You however are an enabler of the mafia committing the murderous war in Iraq so the blood is on your hands. It doesn't surprise me that someone who is immoral who would support theft would also have an snotty, nasty response like yours in insulting a person. It's a reflection of your character.
          • ssn697, on 04/25/2008, -2/+8So, you don't pay taxes either, right?
          • JDenigma, on 04/25/2008, -11/+4Why, just so you can try to smear me too? What difference does it make whether I do or not? I plan on in due time, choosing my battles for civil disobedience with the government. As for those who already don't pay their taxes, I applaud them for their conviction and courage. No one has a right to their money without their consent.

            So, let's say that you were for example part of Tony Sopranos crew in New Jersey,(a show that I watched religiously) would you agree to doing a job where you, Paulie Walnuts, and Big Pussy had to go shake down a store owner for their money in return for your local security you were already providing to their store, a service which they never agreed to or wanted in the first place?

            Would you go to your neighbors door yourself and tell them they must fork over a portion of their money in the name of some "noble" cause you're promoting in your neighborhood to help some people or yourself, and you'd be demanding it of them under the presence of intimidation all the while holding a gun in your hand?

            Do you believe products and services should be provided at the point of a gun?
          • JDenigma, on 04/25/2008, -10/+4Hmm, buries and no response. I love it when I strike a nerve with people and get buried for it. I wear it as a badge of honor :-)
          • ssn697, on 04/25/2008, -2/+8LOL, the lame old Libertarian buzzword argument. You forgot to uses "coercion". Try harder next time.

            You enjoined a social contract, by being an American citizen. Paying taxes is part of that contract. Don't like it? Move to a country with no taxes. You are free to do that. SAve your "it was ratified!" *****. I am not interested in that red herring.

            Your Soprano's analogy shows you spend WAY too much time in front of the TV, and not enough in the real world.
          • GarretJax, on 04/25/2008, -2/+1JDeniqma; wow, hard to believe how many freedom haters are on Digg. I can't believe all this ***** that I keep reading from these government enablers. It is truly sad.

            For example, "You enjoined a social contract, by being an American citizen. Paying taxes is part of that contract. Don't like it? Move to a country with no taxes. You are free to do that. Save your "it was ratified!" *****. I am not interested in that red herring."

            I never contracted with any government. Just because I was born on a plot of land surrounded by imaginary lines drawn up by some long dead people, I am part of some social contract? Well, if it was a 'social' contract, wouldn't it be voluntary? That is the world I would prefer to live in. One where people voluntarily deal with one another. A lot of people hate Walmart and I can understand why. But they can make the decision not to do business with Walmart. Walmart won't come and steal their home or other property, or put them in jail or even kill them for not doing business with them. The government will do all of those things if you refuse to buy into their 'services'. I wish others would wake up to government coercion like you have JDeniqma. Whether or not you pay taxes, I for one salute you!

            Live free or die! Or is it take it up the arse or be killed?
          • CLARIFINATOR, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1 ssn697 said: "JDenigma forgot to type 'coercion.'
            American citizens do not have the freedom to decide which contracts they are bound by, regardless of whether or not they chose to be citizens. The United States Government can sign up it's citizens for any program it wants, regardless of cost, and take the payment from the American by force. I, ssn697, find being owned and controlled by the US government comforting - I know the government will take care of me as long as I am productive.
            Persons who wish to own themselves and control their own lives should leave the USA. There is no place for individual freedom in my country.
            A person who makes a reference to any production from the entertainment industry watches too much television."
          • JDenigma, on 04/26/2008, -3/+1ssn,

            Don't give me that ***** social contract argument. The social contract is a figment of your imagination. All the social contract is, is a made up set of rules dictated by whomever is in charge at the whim of the moment. The mob determines the terms of the social contract. Did I voluntarily sign the contract? Nope. Just because I was born here doesn't mean I agreed to it either. Those are rather primitive, immoral terms if I must say so myself. The only "social contract" should be that of the old English common law in that you do no harm to other people by infringing upon their natural rights. Don't commit violence against other people. Apparently you support violence because you're a primitive person. You're also still a primitive tribalistic black person as I hear you're a black person but apparently you still believe in being a slave to the government in staying on the modern day plantation and taking it up the ass from the government. Don't like me bringing up the black issue? ;-) Well, you deserve it given the attitude of your posts and the fact that you're the immoral thug in all of this who should be against slavery considering what was done to people who looked like you in the past in this country. One would think those like you would have a better understanding of this as opposed to the lily white surburbanities living in their secluded islands.

            I should make up my own contract that applies to the government and say that it applies to you even if you didn't vote for it. So it's mob rule, right? Voting at the ballot box is a means of violence through the proxy of voting by which to dictate the rules of societal living upon those in the minority.

            All you could respond with was a childish rebuttal and insult of me. You couldn't refute my points lil one. I guess you were educated in a ghetto school. ;-)

            Why don't you open up your shouts to me so I can respond to you privately or contact me at my email if you're so inclined since you're such a big boy with your violence?

            A big ***** you to all of you sycophants who dugg ssn as well.

            No one can respond to my arguments I notice so they just insult me. That just emboldens me.
    • Darph.Bobo, on 04/25/2008, -4/+8Oh so now it's a race thing Mr. Sharpton?
      • Aitese, on 04/25/2008, -2/+11Look up Willie Nelson...look up how much he owed ($17m give or take a dollar or two)...look up how much time he spent behind bars (I'll help you out...it's somewhere between zero and none)
        • DarkShroud, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1He went down on his news and said I'll work it out and pay. So Willie lost just about everything but he stopped denying to pay taxes and with the help of others was able to rebuild. Snipes did not and taunted the IRS. So now he's going to jail to be made an example of.
    • brufleth, on 04/25/2008, -4/+4I really hate playing the race card and maybe there is some reasonable explanation but it is odd that he's receiving three years for owing some taxes when the perpetrators of most white color crimes (even those that cost people billions [see: Enron]) often get off with less or even no time spent in jail.

      Maybe Mr. Snipes just caught a bad break but when there seems to be so many people who get off with just a fine it is a little odd when one guy gets three years of jail.
      • Aitese, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2I think the fact is, and this is coming from a black man, too many lazy, incompetent and downright criminal black fools who make the rest of us look bad, have used the race card so much it's like the boy crying wolf...when something truly reflecting the injustice in the world surfaces people don't want to hear it anymore as they can't discern it from the ***** claims. I can't stand Sharpton for his part in it. For me there does seem to be a double standard here (I mentioned Willy Nelson earlier, who owed WAY more) but in the current climate anyone daring to call it racism will just get shouted down.
        • brufleth, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2Well it just seems a little odd all around. Maybe I'm just not getting all the information. It seems strange to give someone three years in jail for not paying taxes. It especially seems odd because he can probably pay back the taxes, fines, and interest. I would still expect some sort of proof before I definitely said it was racism but it is certainly one possibility. As you pointed out and like I said, plenty of people do a lot worse and get off with much less. The disparity is suspicious.
          • Aitese, on 04/25/2008, -0/+2I agree, I'm only stating it's a possibility...from what I've read it does seem he had previous chances to rectify the problem and pay up but decided to go along with a couple of guy he KNEW to be uncertified accountants who he says told him it was perfectly legal.
      • krc1, on 04/25/2008, -2/+6"...the perpetrators of most white color crimes (even those that cost people billions [see: Enron]) often get off with less or even no time spent in jail."

        WorldCom CEO Bernard Ebbers: 25 years
        Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling: 24 years, 4 months
        Adelphia Communications chief financial officer Timothy Rigas: 20 years
        Adelphia Communications founder John Rigas: 15 years
        Tyco International CEO Dennis Kozlowski: 8 1/3 to 25 years
        Tyco International CFO Mark H. Swartz: 8 1/3 to 25 years
        ImClone Systems CEO Samuel Waksal: 7 years, 3 months
        Enron CFO Andrew Fastow: 6 years
        • Aitese, on 04/25/2008, -3/+1You just listed some of the biggest and most high profile cases in your nations history...did you think there was any chance of thse men getting off knowing the feelings of people all across the US who lost everything because of them? People see the IRS as a faceless organisation so if Snipes got off no one would care...but the guys involved in Enron? There would have been riots!
          • JohnReb, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4ENRON was specifically mentioned by the original commenter as one of the examples of white-color criminals getting off easy. Countering that with the actual punishment received by those criminals is certainly valid.
    • fromonesource, on 04/25/2008, -5/+1what exactly is he cheating here? he is cheating no one. wake up and realize that it is your own government that is cheating you. there is no law requiring you to pay an income tax. you are cheating yourself.

      I suggest you learn more about the income tax: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5355374476 ...
  • jana67, on 04/25/2008, -22/+22It doesn't matter if you are rich or poor, they will take whatever they want when they want! Even if you have nothing left for your children. Even if you have attempted to make timely payments! They want you to fall flat on your face. Protect yourself any way you can....
    • JDenigma, on 04/25/2008, -15/+13Don't let the feds intimidate you or anyone else because of this. They're just using Wesley Snipes as an example in the hopes of scaring and intimidating people to comply with their orders. There are many people who fly underneath the radar and successfully don't file their taxes without ever being caught. I hope more people start resisting. Once they do, let the government burn baby burn. They won't be able to put millions of Americans into jail. The government will lose its legitimacy and authority.
      • eazyyweeezy, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3its mad how celebrities can get away with doing drugs etc, when the normal person gets a more serious fine or charge, but when it comes to money they have no tolerance even for the celebrities, all America and the UK care about is money, there money hungry government scum conning us all!!
  • demicritter, on 04/25/2008, -12/+37Saw a 60 Minutes piece on Will Smith and how the IRS garnered 70% of his wages for 3 years until they got what they wanted. Joe Lewis, the famous boxer and US military veteran, was put into the poor house when the IRS literally took everything he had. Max Schmeling, the German boxer knocked out by Lewis to claim the heavyweight championship, paid for Lewis' funeral. The IRS left him and his family with nothing.
    • dimitrisokolov, on 04/25/2008, -1/+12Which is why you let your money flow through a corporation and pay yourself a small salary and deduct as much as possible and funnel whatever you can offshore. Or if you do own money and cannot pay, just go on a payment plan. As long as the IRS is getting something from you, you're fine.
      • samby, on 04/25/2008, -3/+5Actually from what my stockbroker roommate tells me if you can afford the legal paperwork you can set up a trust fund in the Cayman Islands to shelter your income completely. He says all the rich people do it which is why they're not worried about the top tax bracket and the tax on capital gains.
        • turiya04, on 04/25/2008, -2/+14If your roommate was a decent stockbroker, he could afford not to have you as a roommate.
    • fromonesource, on 04/25/2008, -4/+5America Freedom to Fascism: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5355374476 ...
  • demicritter, on 04/25/2008, -20/+18Fear, intimidation and lessons by example: the tools of the Jackbooted IRS thugs. But when asked to produce the actual text of the law mandating the filing of Federal Income tax....they fall ominously silent instead preferring to responds with guns and the force of the bureaucracy....like the Mafia.
    • samby, on 04/25/2008, -5/+8This is a lie.

      See this page: http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/ta ...

      26 U.S.C. § 1
      There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . who is not a married individual a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

      and: (from the website, in case you want to research further)
      Sections 1, 61, and 63 impose the tax,
      Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and
      Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return.
      • ChristPissed, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Define "taxable income". Where is "taxable income" defined?
        • familynight, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2if you don't think that taxable income is defined by the tax code, you've never studied the tax code. MacEnvy already replied to this comment with fewer insults than i could manage above. here's his comment:

          http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/63.html

          26 U.S.C. § 63 "Taxable income defined"

          I swear, you people are unmitigated morons. Income taxes are NOT against the law, they ARE clearly enumerated in USC, and Congress and the President HAVE made them official law of the land. Even if you don't like it, and someone told you otherwise one time.
    • vulapine, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2'Fear, intimidation and THE LEGAL SYSTEM: the tools of the BROWN LOAFERED IRS AGENTS But when asked to produce the actual text of the law mandating the filing of Federal Income tax....they PROVIDE A COPY OF THE TAX CODE OR A LINK TO IRS.GOV WHICH HAS THE FULL TEXT OF THE LAW AND IF THAT FAILS TO CONVINCE, THEN with PENS, PAPER and the force of the bureaucracy....like ATTORNEYS.'
      Now your comment is accurate and no longer sounds paranoid. Like all debt collectors, they use fear and intimidation, so I have no beef with that.
      I have not yet seen any photos of IRS agents in Jackboots, pointing weapons at people, but my experience is limited to this iteration of planet earth.
      • mr5150, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1Why does an IRS agent need a gun? (It's used as a fear device..why?...becasue our government has become no better than the criminals it purports to capture.
  • bradspangler, on 04/25/2008, -19/+16I think a lot of people are losing sight of what's really important, here.

    Even if the federal government did have all of it's proverbial i's dortted and t's crossed (and for all I know, they might) their so-called "laws" would still be unjust impositions and their taxes still theft. That is the nature of all political governments. That is the message that needs to be spread.

    Those of you obsessing over the form of the law are putting Liberty farther off rather than bringing it nearer. No statist could obscure the libertarian message as much as lame half-libertarians do.

    There is a matter of justice here and you would reduce it to a question for clerks and trivia buffs! Shame on you all!
    • Doomxeen, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5Yeah... Arguing about this or that being "constitutional" is rather pointless. We aren't going to have a REAL debate about whether they are legally taxing us or not. People like demicritter need to realize that those of us that abide by the law and recognize it as such aren't necessarily happy about what happens with that money. If I were getting some free healthcare... I wouldn't have a complaint in the world.
      • DarkShroud, on 04/27/2008, -0/+1It wouldn't be free because it's payed for by taxes.
    • JigoroKano, on 04/25/2008, -1/+6I miss the days when communists and fascists were the idiots.
    • objectivist, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4Finally someone who has been self-educated. Bravo on the comment above.
  • rhartman, on 04/25/2008, -6/+43Snipes argues that he was duped by an unethical accounting firm, the jury agrees and acquits him of the felony charges. Regardless, the prosecutor suggests the "maximum sentence" because of the media saying Snipes won a victory and the judge agrees stating, "This will send a crystal clear message." Power trip much?

    I know we always hear about celebrities and/or the rich and famous getting off easy, but in this case it is a classic backfire. I don't think it is cool to skip out on your taxes, but somehow I think Snipes is getting a little more than he deserves here. If he goes to jail, how do they expect he'll earn an income to make restitution for the balance of the taxes he owes?
    • SillyRabbits, on 04/25/2008, -3/+8Normally I'd be inclined to buy into that argument. However, if I remember correctly, it wasn't even a legitimate accounting firm. The accountants had already been convicted for trying to pull the same stunt before, and already had their certifications stripped because of it. It's the certification that protects you as a client. It was shown that Snipes was completely aware of that. He still went ahead and did it anyway. Now he's trying to pretend that he didn't know any better. At that level of wealth, if somebody tells you they have a way to avoid paying any taxes, you should obviously take it with a grain of salt (especially when the accounts are no longer certified to practice). It would be trivial to verify it with any CPA - and they all would have told him NOT to do that under any circumstance. His argument is little more than saying something like "Hey, my cousin Freddy said that wasn't illegal and I believed him".
    • stix213, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2When you skip out on millions in taxes..... yes MILLIONS in taxes, you should expect to get the maximum sentence allowed.
      • kemp34, on 04/25/2008, -1/+1I never advocate anybody going to prison for not paying taxes.
  • Libberkey, on 04/25/2008, -6/+25Thank you, Charley Reese, for pointing out that "Remember, the Constitution gives 100 percent of the power to only 546 people – 435 members of the House, 100 senators, nine Supreme Court justices, one president and one vice president. Everybody else either works for these people or is delegated power by these people."
    • demicritter, on 04/25/2008, -2/+8It's the rule of law vs. mob rule. The fact that our elected representatives have been given "jobs for life" by a disinterested electorate it our main problem. People invest very little effort into our politics. They vote and then return home to continue with their dull, safe little lives. Watching TV. Paying their taxes and cutting the grass to keep up with the Jones is typical. The fact that most people believe the Federal Reserve is part of our government is testament to the vast ignorance they've been sold.
      • fyngyrz, on 04/25/2008, -0/+4"It's the rule of law vs. mob rule."

        Yes, it is. However, we never authorized our government to rule us by any law they care to make. We authorized them to act in our employ as specified by the constitution; it is literally the constituting document that explicitly lays out what they may, and may not, do in broad but clear strokes. They no longer obey the constitution in many areas; this means the power they exert in those same areas is unauthorized. It is no less effective for all that, but it certainly should not be mistaken for legitimate action.
  • JDenigma, on 04/25/2008, -6/+17You know, the IRS making examples of famous people and handpicking select people to audit and arrest for not filing is analogous to the RIAA trying its equally futile attempt at suing people who share and download copyright protected music. Most people never get caught by the RIAA and the RIAA can't do a damn thing to stop it. Same with the IRS. Neither can stop it. Neither are effective and neither are legitimate except for a fake aura of legitimacy. Their authority and legitimacy is an illusion. Much like with the RIAA, the more people who disobey the IRS and the government, the more they will get exposed for being nothing but a thuggish gang that can't control the people once they choose to rebel against it.

    Something for the RIAA haters to think about.
    • vulapine, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2Aside from your poor attempt to mash together two unrelated items which (I infer) you dislike, I have to make a note about the "handpicking select people to audit" statement.
      Audits are generally random unless you submit a return that shows you making $1million and claim that you owe no taxes due to a loss. If you had a legitimate loss (my uninsured $20 Million house burned down), you will be fine. If, however, you're just trying to get out of paying taxes and still netting more than the average person does in 10 years, well, that's a problem. If stopping someone for driving 80 in a 30 is "handpicking" drivers for traffic stops, then you might have a point. Of course if your wife is having a baby and you are rushing her to the hospital you will probably get an escort.
      Please resume your parania.
      • JDenigma, on 04/26/2008, -2/+1Your rambling post makes no sense. I don't know what ***** point you're trying to make in your rationalization for theft. All you bring up is your nitpicky argument about auditing and the rest of your post is just irrelevant. Apparently my analogy failed you and you couldn't handle it. I'm sorry that you're an immoral thuggish lemming. Bend over and grab your ankles. I know how you love to be creamed ;-)
        • vulapine, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Since you cannot be convinced to reason (I knew this already) I shall pick at you more to my pleasure and your annoyance.
          My post is no more rambling than yours.
          What theft are you talking about? I was giving no rationalization for theft.
          The whole thing was about audits, because you seemed to not understand anything about audits (only judging from your above post.
          Nothing about me is apparent to you. You assume.
          As if to prove my point without fail, you ASSUME that I am Immoral, you need a thesaurus to find a better word than thuggish (maybe brutish?), and you ASSUME that I am a lemming (my handle shows otherwise).
          The innuendo is uncalled for, and I should do nothing of the sort.
          Again, you ASSUME to know.
          You, sir, are the pointless rambler. Evidence should make this apparent to even your fecal mind.
  • rac1234, on 04/25/2008, -17/+10As Ali G would say, "Is it because I is black?"
    • solidcube, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2As he would say and as I would burst out laughing at. "What Would Borat Do?"
  • Runningflame570, on 04/25/2008, -9/+13Hes already faced tax evasion charges once and got off without much of a penalty to speak, its not like he shouldn't have seen this coming.

    P.S. Of course this was submitted and dugg by the "ebil gubermint" types...
  • madfrogurt, on 04/25/2008, -27/+35Wow, didn't know we had anti-tax tards on digg too. Be sure to explain why we would all be better off never paying taxes and how a government - any government - could work without them.

    Oh and don't call this a "libertarian" argument against all taxes, it's an anarchist argument.
    • solidcube, on 04/25/2008, -12/+10Well, see, they take our tax money and squander it on bouncing rubble in forsaken wastelands. You've been paying into social security all your life. Are you ever going to see any of that money? Hell no. They misuse it to SUCH AN EXTENT that it's not even like robbery.
    • Infowarmachine, on 04/25/2008, -9/+11you cant read can you.. look at the other posts in this thread already

      federal income tax is just one of 30+ different taxes
    • madfrogurt, on 04/25/2008, -6/+8Federal income tax is also the largest source of income for the country. It either has to be replaced by something else (a National Retail Sales Tax would only hurt the middle class) or we'd have to gut a fair amount of programs.

      And while that "30+ different taxes" line might be a good sound bite, you and I only pay about 5 or 6 on average, while a few dozen or so are based upon very specific businesses. And as long as those taxes are progressive, I couldn't care less.
      • djcgmcse, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5It may be the largest single source of income, however it does only account for about 1/3 of the federal governments revenue.

        In fact, if we removed all income tax, the revenue generated would be equal to that of 10 years ago, when Bill Clinton was President.
    • 007brendan, on 04/25/2008, -6/+10In the past, the U.S. government has worked with much less money. But now spending has gotten so bad that taxes are becoming oppressive. I believe we've already crossed the point on the Laffer Curve where some people don't see the benefit of working, but instead mooch off of poorly managed government welfare programs.
      • madfrogurt, on 04/25/2008, -3/+9How does that explain almost every European country then? They seem to be getting by just fine on a much, much larger tax rate.
        • JDenigma, on 04/25/2008, -8/+3Depends upon what you would consider to be the criteria for "getting by just fine" and what your standards are for how free people should be. Of course, regardless of what your criteria are, you shouldn't act like you speak for everyone in your country and force your criteria on each and every other individual even if they agree to what your criteria are. Just because your particular European country may not be at war like the U.S. government is, doesn't necessarily mean that things are hunky dory in your country either. If you think a simple thing like simply not being at war is good enough to be considered a good government, then you have pretty low standards. I guess you prefer your "peaceful slavery" then.

          "They seem to be getting by just fine on a much, much larger tax rate."

          Words of a slave who has come to love his master as with the Florence Nightingale effect or the Stockholm Syndrome. Why don't use just give away all your money while you're at it if you think a large tax rate, whatever arbitrary number that would be, is such a great thing. Sign yourself over to being a slave if that's so great. Hell, you're already a slave anyway if you're forced to give away some of your earnings. A slave is a slave, no half-slave there. It's pathetic how you Euro-trash also love to bitch about how awful the U.S. is, but at the same time can't seem to take any criticism about any of your European countries and think they're so great.
    • AWBoy666, on 04/25/2008, -7/+6Madfroqurt-

      Being a Republican, I wanted to make a comment exactly like yours. The idealists that dominate this site would prefer the entire elimination of the federal income tax. However, they never discuss how that income would be replaced. They also discuss how the money is spent poorly without going into any detail except to say we spend too much on the war (which I might even consider agreeing with).

      No one here is going to suggest an actual solution to the problem because, like all liberals, they only want to discuss the issue and its causes, not its solutions.

      Not to mention the hypocrisy between saying the income tax is unconstitutional and that Americans should have free federal healthcare. How could you ever connect those two dots?!?!
      • urgeigh, on 04/25/2008, -4/+8I guess you "Pro-Tax Tards" don't agree with the United States Supreme Court. And wow at this comment: "Be sure to explain why we would all be better off never paying taxes and how a government - any government - could work without them." How ever did the United States exist before 1913? The U.S. did fine for the better part of 150 years without a Federal Income Tax. Maybe from taxing all the money that corporations and other companies make, and tariffs and trade with other countries? Hell, even sales tax. The Federal Government simply should not be as large as it is either, there's a Department of Everything, government spending and waste is absolutely ludicrous, when in essence the idea of a Federal Government was originally to provide a unified national defense an to provide stable currency for our economy. Did you know Abraham Lincoln printed money backed simply by the "good will" of the Federal Government? It wasn't backed by any precious material nor was it backed by a national debt. simply printed out of thin air, and it was insanely successful. They were called "greenbacks". No one's saying we don't need any taxes, but a Federal Income Tax really is unconstitutional. Income is technically a profit or a gain. Trading Labor for wages is not making a profit. Thus, the wages you earn for your labor are not income. And for the record, I'm not for national healthcare either. So yeah.. no hypocrisy. Keep up the good work though, sheeple.
        • madfrogurt, on 04/25/2008, -1/+3Can you name a single modern state that operates under your system? AS communication and transportation increases, so does government. The liberties won from a limited state would be immediately swallowed by large cartels and businesses that have no incentive to care about the average person.
        • d3mps3y, on 04/25/2008, -3/+3i was waiting to make my post, then i figured id find someone on here that knew what they were talking about. I'm glad i finally found it. We obviously need taxes for the US to work, but its our state taxes that pay for our roads and such, not the fed. Get rid of the FED and the their tax, it is unconstitutional and there are plenty of people making huge profits over the past 8 years that don't need more income, take 90%+ of their income and put that toward the debt, it'd be gone quick. Its nice to pay $4 a gallon for gas knowing record profits are being made off of us. Thanks America! How'd we get so backwards? Oh yeah, the creation of the FED by bankers and not politicians. Our leaders being corporate puppets, fattening their own pockets while people die in their name.
        • urgeigh, on 04/25/2008, -1/+5No, because every single significant country in the world is controlled by a central bank. The United States really was an anomaly (and a damn successful one at that) until the Fed took over. I mean GEEZ look how good the dollar is doing now... you know why it's not doing good? Because our national debt is out of control. You do know The Federal Government gets roughly 60% of all it's money on loan from the Federal Reserve? And there's interest on all of it. That's where our debt comes from. They borrow money from the Fed, who prints the money, and tack it on to our debt. Thus putting more money in circulation every time the government takes out a loan and thus increasing the money supply and in turn reducing the value of our money. Not to mention all the false tampering they do by adjusting interest rates. Economic depressions and highs and the "business cycle" are all caused by the Fed's manipulation of our market. Even Alan Greenspan himself said on National T.V. that by definition we are not operating in a free market economy, because the economy is not allowed to correct itself, the Fed does it for us. And sooner or later, it's going to bite us in the ass, and it really looks like we're well on our way into the crapper at the moment. Even our forefathers, except for a few of the original "republicans" like Alexander Hamilton (who was possibly being paid by the owners of the Bank of England) were steadfastly against a central bank ever being implemented in the United States. Especially against it were Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams just to name a very, very few prominent ones. It's kind of funny how they don't teach you that in public schools, but it's right there in recorded American history for all of us to read and see for ourselves. So much that the founding fathers feared has come to be in this country, and it sickens me how everyone just accepts it as a necessity when there really are viable and realistic solutions that have already worked in the past.
          • d3mps3y, on 04/27/2008, -0/+0it is sickening that we are not taught this stuff. It is even more sickening that people think this country was founded by Christians, and we have always been 'One Nation Under God'! Its all *****! This country was founded so that kind of stuff wouldn't happen!
        • urgeigh, on 04/25/2008, -1/+4And I'm not even arguing the fact that it's a law. It is. I just completely disagree with it and think the 16th could be repealed if our Government operated more truly to it's original intention. I bet the people digging me down don't even understand what the hell I'm talking about, sigh. I didn't post a single thing that's untrue above.
        • flclfan22, on 04/25/2008, -0/+3You cannot compare 1913 to 2008.
      • JDenigma, on 04/25/2008, -1/+10What world are you living in? You seem to be confusing liberals and libertarians with each other. You think a liberal proposing "free" healthcare would be the same type who would also be calling for the abolishment of the income tax? Liberals don't want that. That's what libertarians and old style constitutionalist conservatives would call for.

        I'm an anarcho-capitalist libertarian all for abolishing the income tax so I'm no liberal and I do not want "free" healthcare socialized medicine. I don't know why you were equating the tax protesters with liberals. So you can't call me as being one of those hypocrites there.

        The income tax isn't even necessary if you have a constitutionally limited government that isn't out of control with growth and spending. We were able to get along just fine for quite some time without the income tax with much less revenue for the government when it was restrained to its constitutional limitations. The solution isn't to replace it with anything else either. Stop all the unconstitutional spending, then it won't be a problem.
    • demicritter, on 04/25/2008, -6/+2One would assume that by anti-tax tard that you're a big government stick up their asses type of guy? Hmm. It's easy to spew your inanities. It doesn't take a brain cell...only a stem and you typify the level of ignorance that keeps you a working functionary for the tax system. You're a W-2 kinda guy, unthinking, unknowing and just waiting for day you can retire and then begin living your pitiful life.
  • AshamedAmerican, on 04/25/2008, -12/+3Guess now I'll start betting whi..RED! RED! I meant red!
  • dimitrisokolov, on 04/25/2008, -6/+10The question is, why aren't the American people protesting and pressuring congress to eliminate the IRS and taxes and replace it with a VAT or consumption tax? The people need to have a real grass roots effort and start grilling every congressmen and senator on why they are not supporting a fair tax.
    • SillyRabbits, on 04/25/2008, -2/+3Because the upper 50% of income earners pay 96% of the tax. With VAT, everybody would have to start contributing...
      • 47f0, on 04/25/2008, -2/+2Agreed on VAT, but disagree on FairTax. Some really good people have done a great deal of number-crunching, and FairTax is, explicitly and by design, a progressive tax.
        • draculthemad, on 04/25/2008, -5/+2fairtax is *****. theres a reason theres a sliding scale now. For people in the lower income brackets, even 10% of their income is the different between eating on a regular basis and not. Or worse.
      • 4degrees, on 04/25/2008, -1/+2wasn't it Buffet that challenged these rich folk, that are paying this 96% of the tax, to proove that they pay more income tax than their secratary? so far no take