john.roberts85
Well-Known Member
Or not... taxation isn't unconstituional.
Totalitarianism Marches On ....
- Thread starter ViRedd
- Start date
Or not... taxation isn't unconstituional.
hom36rown
Well-Known Member
[SIZE=-1]1. In 1913, the 16th Amendment was "fraudulently and illegally declared to be ratified" by Secretary of State Philander Knox;
2. There is no law that requires most Americans to "file a tax return, pay the federal income tax or have the tax withheld from their earnings;"
3. People who file a Form 1040 "'voluntarily' waive their 5th Amendment right not to bear witness against themselves;"
4. The IRS "routinely violates citizens' 4th Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure," by failing to properly obtain warrants issued; and 5. The IRS "routinely and grossly violates citizens' due process rights" and "operates far outside the boundaries" of U.S. law.
[/SIZE]2. There is no law that requires most Americans to "file a tax return, pay the federal income tax or have the tax withheld from their earnings;"
3. People who file a Form 1040 "'voluntarily' waive their 5th Amendment right not to bear witness against themselves;"
4. The IRS "routinely violates citizens' 4th Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure," by failing to properly obtain warrants issued; and 5. The IRS "routinely and grossly violates citizens' due process rights" and "operates far outside the boundaries" of U.S. law.
john.roberts85
Well-Known Member
You're speaking of one form of taxation, income taxation, not taxation itself. For instance, a poll tax is unconstitutional. How do you illegally ratify a Constitutional Amendment? Either it meets the requirements or it doesn't. Where did you copy and paste this from?
hom36rown
Well-Known Member
yes i know
KQED | You Decide: Federal Income Taxes
KQED | You Decide: Federal Income Taxes
john.roberts85
Well-Known Member
So how was the 16th Amendment illegally ratified?
"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."
ViRedd
New Member
We need to be taxed in order to pay for government. The Founders built in a tax intended for free men. That would be the tariffs, duties and excise (sales) taxes provided for in the original Constitution ... Article I, Section 8.
The 16th Amendment provides for a tax on income. What IS at issue is what the term "income" means. In other words, if the IRS Code says you must pay a tax on income derived from wages, how does one derive income from wages? Well, you would have to take a portion of your wages and invest it. If you have a gain on that investment, then you also have derived an income from your wages. Just to tax the wage on it's own is where the "slave tax" comes in. Wages are an even exchange for one's labor. You give an hour's labor for an hour's wage. When government taxes a portion of that wage, they are taxing an equal portion of your labor. If they tax that portion of one's labor ... government "owns" that portion of labor. The slave masters of old owned 100% of the slave's labor. Our government own's up to 35% of one's labor, depending upon one's tax bracket.
Its not paying taxes that I disagree with so much ... its the method of collection and the taxing of labor that I detest.
Vi
hom36rown
Well-Known Member
there are claims that states recieved different wordings of the ammendment, and also that certain states were falsey reported to ratify the ammendments, these things are obviously hard to prove but there is the fact that ohio wasnt even considered a state until 1953, some would argue that that means it was improperly ratified. I was honestly juss throwing this out there for of the hell of it to be honest though, There have already been cases regarding this matter, and they have all failed
ViRedd
New Member
Well, I believe that the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified. I believe that the IRS routinely violates the 4th, 5th and 13th Amendments to the Constitution as well. But here's the catch: Just try to make the claim to an IRS tax auditor that you refuse to turn over your books and records unless he can produce a valid search warrant. Try to tell him that you are innocent until proven guilty. Try to tell him that the 13th Amendment not only outlaws slavery, but involuntary servitude as well ... and you didn't volunteer. Tell him that you refuse to be a witness against yourself and are "taking the fifth." Go ahead, tell him all that stuff ... and he will promptly disallow all of your deductions. After your "audit," you will get a bill in the mail stating your new tax obligations that now include your fine and interest fees. After that, just stop filing ... then you will have to close you bank accounts and stock accounts. You'll have to put your home into a relatives name ... your car too. From then on, you'll have to do all of your business with cash and money orders ... But be very careful not to violate the federal laws against "structuring" in order to get around the "money laundering" laws.
Like I said ... the current tax system is a slave tax system. There is no room in a truly free country for an organization like the IRS to exist.
Vi
Like I said ... the current tax system is a slave tax system. There is no room in a truly free country for an organization like the IRS to exist.
Vi
john.roberts85
Well-Known Member
I still don't understand how it wasn't properly ratified. Also, what is the Supreme Court's current opinion on the definition of income? It seems to me that they hold a direct tax on wages constitutional under the 16th. That's all that really matters in reality.
ViRedd
New Member
To my knowledge the Supreme Court has never defined the term "income" as it is stated in the IRS code. The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter on anything. This is a misconception that our "modern" education system and the current political climate has provided for us.
I do know that the IRS has no definition for income in the IRS code. They are very careful not to define it. Historically, income as it is applied to the federal income tax law is a "corporate profit."
Here's some info from a guy who has fought the battle harder than anyone:
Who is Irwin Schiff
Irwin Schiff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here's some information for you about the ratification of the 16th Amendment:
The Law That Never Was -- The Fraud of Income & Social Security Tax -- Home
Vi
I do know that the IRS has no definition for income in the IRS code. They are very careful not to define it. Historically, income as it is applied to the federal income tax law is a "corporate profit."
Here's some info from a guy who has fought the battle harder than anyone:
Who is Irwin Schiff
Irwin Schiff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here's some information for you about the ratification of the 16th Amendment:
The Law That Never Was -- The Fraud of Income & Social Security Tax -- Home
Vi
HotNSexyMILF
Well-Known Member
If we were to adhere to the historical definition though- the income tax would only apply to the businesses we work for.
Oh the masters wouldn't like that..
IRS= the illegal unconstitutional police for our privately owned for profit Federal Reserve..
ViRedd
New Member
If we were to adhere to the historical definition though- the income tax would only apply to the businesses we work for.
Oh the masters wouldn't like that..
IRS= the illegal unconstitutional police for our privately owned for profit Federal Reserve..
You've got it right, H&S. The IRS is the collection agency for the Federal Reserve. I had to call the IRS one time for a client who was in deep shit with them. I got ahold of a pretty high-up supervisor. He told me that I should understand that the IRS is just like any other creditor ... and that they expected their money. I told him in return that he was in error. That other "creditors" didn't come after people with guns if they don't pay. I told him that only the Mob extracts money owed at the point of a gun ... and that when he retires he should apply for a job with the Mob because the job description was pretty much the same. He just laughed and said: "Man, I can hardly wait for my retirement in two years because this place (the IRS) is a freakin' zoo."
Imagine that!
Vi
</IMG></IMG>
medicineman
New Member
Seems like your ratification comments are askew, as witnessed below, 42 states, well above the 3/4 majority ratified it.
Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by New Mexico. The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two of the forty-eight then existing:
37. Delaware (February 3, 1913) 38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913) 39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913) 40. Vermont (February 19, 1913) 41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913) 42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913), after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911The following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently ratifying it:
The Amendment overruled the effect of Pollock.[22] That essentially means that when imposing an income tax, the Congress may impose the tax on income from any source without having to apportion the total dollar amount of tax collected from each state according to each state's population in relation to the total national population.[23] In Abrams v. Commissioner, the United States Tax Court stated: "Since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, it is immaterial with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or indirect tax. The whole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from [the requirement of] apportionment and from [the requirement of] a consideration of the source whence the income was derived."[24]
The federal courts' interpretations of the Sixteenth Amendment have changed considerably over time and there have been many disputes about the applicability of the amendment.
Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by New Mexico. The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two of the forty-eight then existing:
37. Delaware (February 3, 1913) 38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913) 39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913) 40. Vermont (February 19, 1913) 41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913) 42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913), after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911The following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently ratifying it:
- Connecticut
- Florida (rejected the amendment after it had already been ratified by three-fourths of the states)
- Rhode Island
- Utah
- Pennsylvania
- Virginia
The Amendment overruled the effect of Pollock.[22] That essentially means that when imposing an income tax, the Congress may impose the tax on income from any source without having to apportion the total dollar amount of tax collected from each state according to each state's population in relation to the total national population.[23] In Abrams v. Commissioner, the United States Tax Court stated: "Since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, it is immaterial with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or indirect tax. The whole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from [the requirement of] apportionment and from [the requirement of] a consideration of the source whence the income was derived."[24]
The federal courts' interpretations of the Sixteenth Amendment have changed considerably over time and there have been many disputes about the applicability of the amendment.
john.roberts85
Well-Known Member
Well it has been since Marbury v. Madison, and I don't see that changing any time soon.
ViRedd
New Member
From Med's post:
"the Congress may impose the tax on income from any source without having to apportion the total dollar amount of tax collected from each state according to each state's population in relation to the total national population."
Yes, that's accurate ... but notice that the term "income" is not defined. If you can find where "income" is defined in the IRS code, let me know. Perhaps your wife can find it. If so, I'd be VERY interested in the info.
From John.Robert's post:
"Well it has been since Marbury v. Madison, and I don't see that changing any time
soon."
It will change eventually ... as soon as we once again have true statesmen in the legislature.
Vi
"the Congress may impose the tax on income from any source without having to apportion the total dollar amount of tax collected from each state according to each state's population in relation to the total national population."
Yes, that's accurate ... but notice that the term "income" is not defined. If you can find where "income" is defined in the IRS code, let me know. Perhaps your wife can find it. If so, I'd be VERY interested in the info.
From John.Robert's post:
"Well it has been since Marbury v. Madison, and I don't see that changing any time
soon."
It will change eventually ... as soon as we once again have true statesmen in the legislature.
Vi
john.roberts85
Well-Known Member
From Med's post:
"the Congress may impose the tax on income from any source without having to apportion the total dollar amount of tax collected from each state according to each state's population in relation to the total national population."
Yes, that's accurate ... but notice that the term "income" is not defined. If you can find where "income" is defined in the IRS code, let me know. Perhaps your wife can find it. If so, I'd be VERY interested in the info.
From John.Robert's post:
"Well it has been since Marbury v. Madison, and I don't see that changing any time
soon."
It will change eventually ... as soon as we once again have true statesmen in the legislature.
Vi
It's been two-hundred plus years. I don't think there's anything wrong with judicial review. Also, aren't you glad that the Supreme Court has incorporated the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment? Aren't you happy that states must recognize those rights, too?
medicineman
New Member
Vi, I'm pretty sure any 3rd grader could define income. I'm pretty sure everyone knows what income is.From Med's post:
"the Congress may impose the tax on income from any source without having to apportion the total dollar amount of tax collected from each state according to each state's population in relation to the total national population."
Yes, that's accurate ... but notice that the term "income" is not defined. If you can find where "income" is defined in the IRS code, let me know. Perhaps your wife can find it. If so, I'd be VERY interested in the info.
From John.Robert's post:
"Well it has been since Marbury v. Madison, and I don't see that changing any time
soon."
It will change eventually ... as soon as we once again have true statesmen in the legislature.
Vi
Income: a gain usually measured in money that derives from labor, business, or property.
Thanks to merriam webster, you also now know.
Notice the labor part.
ViRedd
New Member
I don't think there is anything wrong at all with judicial review. That's what the judges jobs are ... to review the constitutionality of the laws passed by the legislature.
I am NOT happy that the federal courts have legislated from the bench. When the Supreme Court legislates, instead of just ruling on constitutionality of our laws, we revert back to a dictatorship run by nine politically appointed men and women who rule our lives. That's taxation without representation. Think not? Federal courts/judges have actually ruled in certain jurisdictions to create new taxation. Here's an example: Excerpts From High Court Decision That Judges May Order Tax Increase - New York Times
Med sez ...
"Vi, I'm pretty sure any 3rd grader could define income. I'm pretty sure everyone knows what income is."
I know you went further than the 3rd grade, Med ... so how about you defining it as it appears in the IRS code? Here's a heads up for you; If you can find where the term "income" is defined in the IRS Code, I'll point you in the direction of those who have standing offers to pay you a VERY substantial sum for the information.
Vi
