Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/9/2006 6:32:46 AM EDT
On March 8, 1913 the Internal Revenue Service began to levy and collect (some would say illegal) income taxes.

I have heard that "the biggest whistle-blowing movie ever to hit the silver screen is about to explode on the scene that will expose not only the illegality of the income tax, but the whole rotten, unconstitutional, fraudulent monetary system as well."

It is Aaron Russo's America: From Freedom to Fascism, & you can view a trailer here:

www.freedomtofascism.com/

Has anyone here seen the film yet and what are your thoughts? Would you recommend it?
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 6:53:21 AM EDT
Just watched. All too true.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 6:58:30 AM EDT
More tinfoil asshattery from the lunatic fringe.

Whenever you hear someone state the Income Tax is unconstitutional (despite a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT permitting it), you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 7:27:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
More tinfoil asshattery from the lunatic fringe.

Whenever you hear someone state the Income Tax is unconstitutional (despite a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT permitting it), you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say.



BINGO

Represent everything that is wrong with 3rd party alternatives nuts.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 7:31:11 AM EDT
Yep, Income Tax is definately illegal. Just sign your 1040 and send it in blank. I've heard there's nothing they can do and will leave you alone if you don't go on TV and brag.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 7:37:28 AM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 7:55:45 AM EDT
Some old stuff on income taxes.

In Springer v. U.S. , the Supreme Court rejected the claim that the Income Tax of 1864 was unconstitutional. Springer, the plaintiff, had argued the income tax was direct, and thus subject to apportionment among the states. The justices, however, drew upon legislative precedent in concluding unanimously that direct taxes encompassed only real estate or slaves. By contrast, the income tax "fell within the category of an excise or duty." The Court deferred to congressional authority in determining the scope of the tax power.

1895 In one of the landmark cases in the history of constitutional law, Pollock v. Farm Loan and Trust Co. , the Supreme Court declared the Income Tax of 1894 unconstitutional. The Court had never before invalidated a congressional tax measure; in four cases since 1868, including the most recent, Springer v. U.S . (1880), the justices had deferred to Congress and upheld income taxation, ruling it an excise or indirect tax, rather than a direct tax requiring apportionment among the states.

Cartoon commenting on the Supreme Court decision overturning the 1894 income tax law, 1895. Source: Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress. (larger image)

But in two separate Pollock rulings in April and May, the Court reversed its prior pronouncements. Speaking for the majority, Chief Justice Fuller focused on the specific sources of income subject to assessment. Since it had long been established that a tax on land was a direct tax, Fuller concluded that a tax on the income derived from land (rents or real estate sales) must also be considered a direct tax. Similarly, he dismissed any distinction between real and personal property; the direct tax clause circumscribed federal taxes on personal property and the income derived from it just as it did for real estate. The justices also agreed that Congress could not tax the income from state and municipal bonds. This decision had nothing to do with direct taxation; it struck the court, rather, as a violation of the principle of federalism ? the national government had no power to tax the instrumentalities of the state. Since the elimination of these bases of taxation stood to alter the tenor of the original income tax law as passed by Congress, the Court proceeded to strike down the entire measure.

In coming to these conclusions, the justices concurred with the historical argument presented by the appellants ? that the delegates at the Constitutional Convention had designed the direct tax clause to protect the sovereignty of the states by limiting the power of the national government in matters of taxation. (In fact, the delegates had proscribed the clause in the process of addressing slavery's impact on representation, not to protect state sovereignty.)

Dissenting Justices Harlan and White rued the majority's rejection of the Springer precedent. To proponents of income taxation, the ruling seemed a reactionary response on behalf of monied interests, or, as the Pulitzer's New York World characterized it, "another victory of greed over need." More conservative commentators, however, rejoiced at the decision. "Thanks to the Court," the New York Tribune effused, "our government is not to be dragged into a communistic warfare against the rights of property and the rewards of industry."

Cartoon commenting on the first of two Supreme Court decisions striking down the 1894 income tax law, 1895. (larger image)

Yet the Pollock decision did not signal the utter demise of the income tax. The justices did not go nearly as far as the plaintiffs desired. The Court did disqualify certain classes of property from federal income taxation (real and personal property, state and municipal bonds), and overturned the 1894 act. But the justices did not rule that all sources of income fell under the direct tax rubric. They conspicuously demurred on the status of salaries, gifts, inheritances, and corporate profits. Counsel for the appellants had hoped the Court would declare all categories of income subject to apportionment, and thus beyond the pale. Similarly, Joseph Choate, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, sought to convince the Court that income taxation violated the "uniformity clause" in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. He attempted to expand the concept of uniformity beyond geography to gradations of wealth, rendering the Constitution, in effect, "wealth blind." If the Court had accepted this idea, the instruments of a progressive tax — exemptions, exceptions, graduated rates — would have been neutralized at both the state and federal levels. Justice Joseph Field applauded this line of argument; in his concurring opinion he criticized his colleagues for ignoring the matter of uniformity and failing to render such "class legislation" completely inoperable.

In short, the Pollock decision raised an institutional barrier to the implementation of a national income tax, but did not preclude its resurrection at a later date.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 8:10:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
Some old stuff on income taxes.

<snip>



All of this was mooted by the ratification of the XVI Amendment in 1913.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 8:21:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2006 8:22:22 AM EDT by thedoctors308]

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
More tinfoil asshattery from the lunatic fringe.

Whenever you hear someone state the Income Tax is unconstitutional (despite a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT permitting it), you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say.



Whenever you hear someone state that the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional, despite the fact that the Supreme Court declared it constitutional....(Miller v. US)you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say

Whenever you hear someone state that segregation is not constitutional, despite the fact that the Supreme Court declared it constitutional...(Plessy v. Ferguson)you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say

Whenever you hear someone state that Blacks and Whites are deserving of equal rights, despite the fact the fact that the Supreme Court ruled it constitution to deny blacks rights....(Dred Scott v. Sandford) you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 8:24:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
More tinfoil asshattery from the lunatic fringe.

Whenever you hear someone state the Income Tax is unconstitutional (despite a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT permitting it), you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say.



Whenever you hear someone state that the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional, despite the fact that the Supreme Court declared it constitutional....(Miller v. US)

Whenever you hear someone state that segregation is not constitutional, despite the fact that the Supreme Court declared it constitutional...(Plessy v. Ferguson)

Whenever you hear someone state that Blacks and Whites are deserving of equal rights, despite the fact the fact that the Supreme Court ruled it constitution to deny blacks rights....(Dred Scott v. Sandford)



And your point is?

Plessy and Dred Scott are no longer the law of the land. The XVI Amendment was ratified. It is not an opinion, but a statement of fact. Perhaps you should try READING the text and then demonstrating how my statement is incorrect in regards to income taxes.

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


Link Posted: 3/9/2006 8:27:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2006 8:28:48 AM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
More tinfoil asshattery from the lunatic fringe.

Whenever you hear someone state the Income Tax is unconstitutional (despite a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT permitting it), you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say.



Whenever you hear someone state that the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional, despite the fact that the Supreme Court declared it constitutional....(Miller v. US)you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say

Whenever you hear someone state that segregation is not constitutional, despite the fact that the Supreme Court declared it constitutional...(Plessy v. Ferguson)you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say

Whenever you hear someone state that Blacks and Whites are deserving of equal rights, despite the fact the fact that the Supreme Court ruled it constitution to deny blacks rights....(Dred Scott v. Sandford) you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say



Not hardly the same... the 16th Amendment clearly makes a income Tax Constitutional. So it is true…

Whenever you hear someone state the Income Tax is unconstitutional you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 8:31:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2006 8:32:03 AM EDT by CRC]
The 16th Amendment needs to be repealed.

Who would disagree?


CRC

Link Posted: 3/9/2006 8:33:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
More tinfoil asshattery from the lunatic fringe.

Whenever you hear someone state the Income Tax is unconstitutional (despite a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT permitting it), you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say.



Whenever you hear someone state that the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional, despite the fact that the Supreme Court declared it constitutional....(Miller v. US)you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say

Whenever you hear someone state that segregation is not constitutional, despite the fact that the Supreme Court declared it constitutional...(Plessy v. Ferguson)you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say

Whenever you hear someone state that Blacks and Whites are deserving of equal rights, despite the fact the fact that the Supreme Court ruled it constitution to deny blacks rights....(Dred Scott v. Sandford) you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say



Oh boy.

Do you really not understand the difference between a bad law or bad supreme court decision conflicting with an Amendment, and something done by an Amendment itself? Or or you just throwing stuff around to see if people buy it?
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 8:40:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
Some old stuff on income taxes.

<snip>



All of this was mooted by the ratification of the XVI Amendment in 1913.




That may be the first time I have seen that word used in that manner.


If I wanted to read something in the spirit of "from freedom to fascism" I'd re-read Plato's "Republic" not the rantings of some Hollywood producer who doesn't like to pay taxes.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 8:42:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2006 8:55:19 AM EDT by nightstalker]

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
Some old stuff on income taxes.

<snip>



All of this was mooted by the ratification of the XVI Amendment in 1913.



Sort of right, but all the controversey over the 16th Amendment related to whether it was properly ratified in a proper time frame etc. I'm satisfied it was but others aren't.www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm

I thought the most interesting thing about my stuff was that they certainly did not think "salaries" were exempt from income taxation. Mostly they argued about taxes on rents from real estate and what constituted a "direct" tax.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 8:46:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
More tinfoil asshattery from the lunatic fringe.

Whenever you hear someone state the Income Tax is unconstitutional (despite a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT permitting it), you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say.



Whenever you hear someone state that the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional, despite the fact that the Supreme Court declared it constitutional....(Miller v. US)you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say

Whenever you hear someone state that segregation is not constitutional, despite the fact that the Supreme Court declared it constitutional...(Plessy v. Ferguson)you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say

Whenever you hear someone state that Blacks and Whites are deserving of equal rights, despite the fact the fact that the Supreme Court ruled it constitution to deny blacks rights....(Dred Scott v. Sandford) you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say



Oh boy.

Do you really not understand the difference between a bad law or bad supreme court decision conflicting with an Amendment, and something done by an Amendment itself? Or or you just throwing stuff around to see if people buy it?



I'm saying that you can call something constitutional all you like, but it doesn't make it so.
I'm also saying that what you might call constitutional today, the Founders would disagree with you.
If they wanted an income tax, they would have put one in the constitution.
The lack of an income tax limits the size of our government, and protects our liberties.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 8:50:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2006 8:54:55 AM EDT by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
I'm saying that you can call something constitutional all you like, but it doesn't make it so.
I'm also saying that what you might call constitutional today, the Founders would disagree with you.
If they wanted an income tax, they would have put one in the constitution.
The lack of an income tax limits the size of our government, and protects our liberties.



Well, they actually provided the mechanism that would allow others to add or remove constitutional provisions. Once again, READING the Constitution would serve you well.


Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.




You will note that the Framers put only one item beyond the range of amendment: No amendment could strip states of equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent. And even that is not an absolute prohibition, as the equal suffrage provision could be removed if ALL states agreed to do so.

BTW, I did my Doctoral work in Constitutional Law and History. I love these debates. I get precious few opportunities to shine light in the dark places of Constitutional ignorance.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 8:51:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2006 8:52:23 AM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
More tinfoil asshattery from the lunatic fringe.

Whenever you hear someone state the Income Tax is unconstitutional (despite a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT permitting it), you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say.



Whenever you hear someone state that the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional, despite the fact that the Supreme Court declared it constitutional....(Miller v. US)you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say

Whenever you hear someone state that segregation is not constitutional, despite the fact that the Supreme Court declared it constitutional...(Plessy v. Ferguson)you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say

Whenever you hear someone state that Blacks and Whites are deserving of equal rights, despite the fact the fact that the Supreme Court ruled it constitution to deny blacks rights....(Dred Scott v. Sandford) you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say



Oh boy.

Do you really not understand the difference between a bad law or bad supreme court decision conflicting with an Amendment, and something done by an Amendment itself? Or or you just throwing stuff around to see if people buy it?



I'm saying that you can call something constitutional all you like, but it doesn't make it so.
I'm also saying that what you might call constitutional today, the Founders would disagree with you.
If they wanted an income tax, they would have put one in the constitution.
The lack of an income tax limits the size of our government, and protects our liberties.



Duh... if THEY had wanted people to be able to amend the Constitution THEY would have put provisions in for Amendments… oh wait THEY did.

I am say if something is put in to the Constitution by Amendment it is Constitutional and it is ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

Like it or not a income tax is without doubt Constitutional.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 8:51:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:


I'm saying that you can call something constitutional all you like, but it doesn't make it so.
I'm also saying that what you might call constitutional today, the Founders would disagree with you.
If they wanted an income tax, they would have put one in the constitution.
The lack of an income tax limits the size of our government, and protects our liberties.



Well, if it's part of the actual constution, then it's constitutional. There's really no arguing with that.

Whether it is good or bad can be debated, but not whether it's constutional.

Your statement is almost as funny as the people arguing that a propsed amendment to the state constitution would be unconstitional. That is impossible, since the amendment, get this, AMENDS the constitution, thereby making whatever they've done constitutional.

Arguing against the constitutional validity of a constitutional amendment only hurts whatever cause you are trying to advance. Why? Because the vast majority of people will dismiss you as crazy when they hear your theory. You will get nowhere with that approach.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 9:59:35 AM EDT



Not hardly the same... the 16th Amendment clearly makes a income Tax Constitutional. So it is true…

Whenever you hear someone state the Income Tax is unconstitutional you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say.




Being ruled on as constitutional and being a correct ruling by the court are two different things.
Case in point the recent court ruling on imminent domain. Do you think its right for citys and towns to be able to seize and sell property to the highest bidder? The court thought so, but I think its bull#$%*

Link Posted: 3/9/2006 10:03:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By amendment:


Not hardly the same... the 16th Amendment clearly makes a income Tax Constitutional. So it is true…

Whenever you hear someone state the Income Tax is unconstitutional you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say.




Being ruled on as constitutional and being a correct ruling by the court are two different things.
Case in point the recent court ruling on imminent domain. Do you think its right for citys and towns to be able to seize and sell property to the highest bidder? The court thought so, but I think its bull#$%*




What

Ruling... there is a Constitutional Amendment that specifically ALLOWS an income tax there is NO ruling in question. A income tax is now hard coded in the Constitution.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 10:08:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By amendment:


Not hardly the same... the 16th Amendment clearly makes a income Tax Constitutional. So it is true…

Whenever you hear someone state the Income Tax is unconstitutional you can safely dismiss everything else they have to say.




Being ruled on as constitutional and being a correct ruling by the court are two different things.
Case in point the recent court ruling on imminent domain. Do you think its right for citys and towns to be able to seize and sell property to the highest bidder? The court thought so, but I think its bull#$%*




Your pontificating on the meaning of the Constitution would hold more weight if you used correct terms. Eminent Domain, not IMMINENT.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 10:13:11 AM EDT
There was a case in KY, TN or somewhere up there where someone took it to court. There was a thread here about the guy who did not pay his taxes and won. I do not remember it but the thread went on for pages.

This was about I think his 1999 taxes or some where around that time. I would love for someone to find that link!
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 2:15:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2006 2:21:05 PM EDT by Scorp1us]
I saw the trailer. I cannot testify to what is the movie but in
general I expect it to be largely correct. Its affiliated with We The
People foundation and they got a nice ruling form the Federal Court of
Appeals that the IRS can't take anything and you need not cooperate
with fines, et al, without taking you to court.

I''m not going to register for an account. PAEBR332 is wrong.
Amendment XVI is not the source of the governments power to tax
income. The consitution permits it. Amendment XVI only makes the
implementation of income taxes to be forced into excise taxes
(required to be uniform) and not direct taxes. The reason is in
nightstalker's post - the Surpreme court overturned the income tax in
Pollock because they could no longer determine if the wormding meant
it was indirect or direct. Congress came up with the 16th to prevent
future laws from being struck down for that reason.

In later SC cases, it was settled that property which produces income
can be taxed indirectly by ownership of the property. It is not the
property being taxed, it is the owning of property, as measured by the
amount of income.

Still, that does not change the fact that the work you and I do should
not be taxed. There is no property producing the income. The only
wages the government can tax are Federal wages (as defined in 26 USC
3401, 3306, and 3121.) Most people do not make those kinds of wages,
but the W-4 creates a presumption that you make those wages, which all
too often does not go unrebuted. Without wages there is no liabilty
from federal income tax, social security taxes, medicare taxes and
FUTA taxes).

Any income from interest or dividens IS income by ownership of
property and as such must be reported as income.

I found this interesting…

------------ IRS WEB PAGE EXCERPT --- http://www.irs.gov/faqs/faq-kw59.html


1.16 IRS Procedures: W–4 - Allowances, Excess FICA, Students, Withholding

What can be done if an employer will not withhold income taxes, social security, and Medicare from my pay?

Generally, in situations such as this, the employer is not considering you to be an employee. Rather, you are being treated as an independent contractor (self-employed person). If you cannot resolve this matter with your employer, and if you feel that an employer-employee relationship exists, you should submit a Form SS-8 (PDF), Determination of Employee Work Status for Purposes of Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax Withholding. The factors used to determine if an employer-employee relationship exists are covered in Chapter 2 of Publication 15-A (PDF), Employer's Supplemental Tax Guide.

If your status as an employee is not at issue, it may be that you are in a category of employment whose earnings are not defined as wages under U.S. federal tax and social security law. Find out from your employer the reason that social security and Medicare taxes and income taxes are not being withheld from your pay. If you have further questions, contact the IRS at 800-829-1040 or visit an IRS walk-in office for assistance. [emphasis added]




If anyone wants to see how deep the rabbit hole goes:
Here is a concice explanation

If you hunt around the site you can get 90% of what is in the book. For $20 it is well worth it.


For those of you who disagree with my assessment of the 16th amendment, it comes from the Congressional Research Service. See the yellow and underlines paragraphs here
[edit : added the link to CRS page]
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 5:22:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Scorp1us:
<snip>
I found this interesting…

------------ IRS WEB PAGE EXCERPT --- http://www.irs.gov/faqs/faq-kw59.html


1.16 IRS Procedures: W–4 - Allowances, Excess FICA, Students, Withholding

What can be done if an employer will not withhold income taxes, social security, and Medicare from my pay?

Generally, in situations such as this, the employer is not considering you to be an employee. Rather, you are being treated as an independent contractor (self-employed person). If you cannot resolve this matter with your employer, and if you feel that an employer-employee relationship exists, you should submit a Form SS-8 (PDF), Determination of Employee Work Status for Purposes of Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax Withholding. The factors used to determine if an employer-employee relationship exists are covered in Chapter 2 of Publication 15-A (PDF), Employer's Supplemental Tax Guide.

If your status as an employee is not at issue, it may be that you are in a category of employment whose earnings are not defined as wages under U.S. federal tax and social security law. Find out from your employer the reason that social security and Medicare taxes and income taxes are not being withheld from your pay. If you have further questions, contact the IRS at 800-829-1040 or visit an IRS walk-in office for assistance. [emphasis added]




<snip>



The section you quote deals only with whether you are an EMPLOYEE or an INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. If you are an employee, federal taxes must be withheld by your employer. If you are an independent contractor, you pay the taxes direct to the IRS yourself. The other categories exempt from federal taxes are spelled out in the tax code. 99% of the US population is NOT exempt.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 5:32:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2006 5:51:36 AM EDT by Scorp1us]
Wrong again.

Only employees can have "wages" as it is part of the definition! If you are an independent contractor, then your pay mgiht fall into the "Self Employment" sections (TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 2 - TAX ON SELF-EMPLOYMENT INCOME) And even then the term "trade or business" has a special definition which excludes the 99% of Americans. (The emplyment taxes are found in TITLE 26 > Subtitle C - Employment Taxes - where SSI, Medicare, FUTA and the provisions for witholding from "wges" are found)

You seem to have forgotten that the exceprt says "If your status as an employee is not at issue,". Though only employees can have "wages", not all employees have wages. The term "employee" is more expansive than the term wages, which only applies to employees receiving pay inder certain circumstances.

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS are not EMPLOYEES. That is the most wrong thing I've read in this thread (aside from your other posts) Even people withour knowlege of the IRC would tell you that
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS are not EMPLOYEES. As you can see, they fall in totally different sections of the code.

If you contintue to make claims without reading the statutes, then you will continue to be wrong.

Edit: Reorganized for clarity.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 5:53:46 AM EDT
Well now. This just got interesting...
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 7:09:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2006 7:41:37 AM EDT by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By Scorp1us:
Wrong again.

Only employees can have "wages" as it is part of the definition! If you are an independent contractor, then your pay mgiht fall into the "Self Employment" sections (TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 2 - TAX ON SELF-EMPLOYMENT INCOME) And even then the term "trade or business" has a special definition which excludes the 99% of Americans. (The emplyment taxes are found in TITLE 26 > Subtitle C - Employment Taxes - where SSI, Medicare, FUTA and the provisions for witholding from "wges" are found)

You seem to have forgotten that the exceprt says "If your status as an employee is not at issue,". Though only employees can have "wages", not all employees have wages. The term "employee" is more expansive than the term wages, which only applies to employees receiving pay inder certain circumstances.

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS are not EMPLOYEES. That is the most wrong thing I've read in this thread (aside from your other posts) Even people withour knowlege of the IRC would tell you that
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS are not EMPLOYEES. As you can see, they fall in totally different sections of the code.

If you contintue to make claims without reading the statutes, then you will continue to be wrong.

Edit: Reorganized for clarity.



Since it is tax time Scorp1us, how about we run a little experiment to see which of us is correct. I will pay my income taxes as usual. YOU GO AHEAD AND REFUSE TO PAY ANY INCOME TAX THIS YEAR. In fact, please submit to the IRS a demand for a full refund of any income taxes you paid in 2005. Make the claim that your wages are not liable to income taxes at all. After all, you are claiming this is valid and legal. We can then compare the results of our two differing approaches.

Talk is cheap. Since you are so confident that most Americans are exempt from income taxation: PROVE IT THROUGH YOUR OWN ACTION!
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 7:31:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2006 7:36:07 AM EDT by Scorp1us]
Hey now, no need for shouting. First, refunds/returns being sent now are for 2005, not 2006. You have to wait another year for 2006 refunds.

But for 2004, my refund can be found on page 4:

Other refunds

PS. You got pwned again
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 7:41:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2006 7:46:09 AM EDT by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By Scorp1us:
Hey now, no need for shouting. First, refunds/returns being sent now are for 2005, not 2006. You have to wait another year for 2006 refunds.

But for 2004, my refund can be found on page 4:

Other refunds

PS. You got pwned again



Really? I got owned? Please post how much you PAID in income taxes in 2004. If the number is higher than $0, then your claim that paying income tax is optional will be proven to be BS.

Also, BTW, I got a larger refund last year than all but one of those you posted in the first link. And I STILL had to pay federal income taxes. You also need to explain all those "Overpaid Tax Applied to Other Taxes You Owe." Each of those is clear evidence, in black and white, that these people STILL PAY FEDERAL TAXES. Or maybe they just pay what they don't really owe out of the kindness of their hearts.

It appears that you are another snake oil salesman pitching bad advice on the internet.
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 7:53:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2006 8:20:35 AM EDT by Scorp1us]
Well first of all reread my posts. I never said that the income tax was unconsitutional/inapplicable/etc. I only said that most americans pay income taxes on wages when they don't actually have wages.

And yes, the big whomping refund of $16k is mine, consisting ENTIRELY of withheld federal income, SSI and medicare taxes (all of which were calcualted on alleged "wages".) The gvernment had it. They gave it back.

I paid $0 in income taxes for 2004. I had $194 of other income, to which I applied the standard deduction.
I did not itemize - no need to.


EDIT: The applied to other taxes part:

If the IRS has documentation (1099, w2) that you have not included in your returns, your liability will of course be higher. When this happens, the IRS can apply any refund you would have to the alleged liability for those years. If you file a 1040X and rebut any incorrect information, the IRS will attempt to apply and refund due to previous years which have an unpaid liability. When the IRS runs out of unpaid liabiities that is the time you finally get a check. The people who have payments applied underpaid their taxes. This could be accidental or on purpose. If someone fails to send you a 1099 or w2 and you don't inlcude it, but the IRS gets a copy, it will create that exact situtaion.
Top Top