Could this become a Waco/Ruby Ridge? Happening RIGHT NOW!

[nico]

Personally, I am OK with people not paying taxes as long as they also don't enjoy the benefits provided by those taxes. I find it difficult to believe that the Browns managed to run up a $625,000 tax bill without taking advantage of the benefits Uncle Sam provides through taxes.

You can either declare your independence and live that way or suckle from the federal teat. You don't get to do both and then declare your patriotic indignation and ask for my sympathy.

I completely agree. I wonder if the wife happened to drive on a publicly funded road on her way to court.

Threads like this remind me of why the gun grabbers seem to have such an easy time of painting gun owners as nuts; because way too many gun owners are nuts:banghead:

 

[Glockfan.45]

FWIW, just because we elect the legislators that make the tax laws, doesn't mean we have representation

Exactly, The problem in this country is the notion that its was founded as a democracy. It was founded a republic and has become a democracy through corruption. As the Founders wrote it some odd years ago the Government only has the power to levy taxes over foreign commerce, not domestic income. Alot of folks are aware there is NO LAW authorizing the Federal Income tax. The Feds actions through the IRS are little more than extortion. Yes some folks will cite the 16th ammendment, however There is no legal documentation that the majority of the 38 States ratified the 16th Amendment in the exact wording submitted to the States by (then) Secretary of State Philander Knox. The Supreme Court has refused to hear every case regarding this that has been brought before them . I wish I had half the courage this man does. It should go without saying that I find myself utterly ashamed at the responses some of you have given this.

 

[gc70]

Personally, I am OK with people not paying taxes as long as they also don't enjoy the benefits provided by those taxes.

How can anyone avoid 'enjoying' at least some of the benefits provided by federal taxes. It could readily be argued that even the air we breathe benefits from federal expenditures on pollution control.

 

[Rasputin747]

If we asked any of our congressmen or Senators, I'm sure the "Necessary and proper" clause would be brought up. They always have some back up plan.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There is a lot of waste in the tax system and a lot of govt "services" that are simply BS. However, in a society with representative govt and bound by the rule of law, the way we address this is through our legislators.

I agree with you. However, since several of the comments seemed to address the issue from the angle of personal morality, I thought it was fair to point out that you don't get to opt out of the costs if you still claim the benefits. There is nothing moral or just about that.

Not that I know whether Brown fits into this category or not; but I'm skeptical that he does not.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

As the Founders wrote it some odd years ago the Government only has the power to levy taxes over foreign commerce, not domestic income.

Really? Could you point out the part of the Constitution that says that domestic income may not be subject to taxes?

Alot of folks are aware there is NO LAW authorizing the Federal Income tax.

Congress passed this thing called "The Internal Revenue Code of 1986." Are you suggesting this doesn't authorize federal income taxes or that this is not a law?

The Feds actions through the IRS are little more than extortion. Yes some folks will cite the 16th ammendment

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an income tax in Springer v. United States (1881), about 32 years prior to the 16th amendment. This case challenged the constitutionality of the income tax levied from 1864-1872. Pollack overturned an income tax; but not on grounds that Congress lacked the power. Instead they overturned it on grounds that direct taxes must be apportioned. This is why the 16th Amendment includes the words "without apportionment."

 

[McCall911]

Sounds to me like he has bought hook, line, and sinker into some of the drivel found on the Internet.

Drivel on the Internet????

NEVER!!!



OK, y'all figure it all out. I'm just here for the entertainment!

 

[Lucky]

Bartholomew there is a contest by the tax protesters, if you can answer a couple technical questions they will pay $50,000. At least that's what the Freedom to Fascism movie said.

The movie also said that the definition of income did not include payment for labour, more corporate profits and such.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

A Little Something About Taxes:

There are gasoline taxes that pay for the roads. We have property taxes that educate our kids. We have sales taxes and a myriad other embedded taxes in all the products we buy. We had telephone taxes that helped pay for wars. Income taxes are but a portion of the taxes collected.

So, Mrs. Brown can indeed ride on our roads without guilt - especially if she or Mr. Brown ever bought gasoline. If they paid their property taxers, they paid for their and their neighbor's kids education. If they bought anything at the corner store, they paid sales taxes and/or other embedded taxes that covered the cost of their local police, trash collection, and for the snow plows that keep the streets clear in winter. Those taxes they paid also paid for the IRS agents and US Marshals - along with all their arms and other technology - camped out on their door step.

Income taxes are nothing more than a device for social engineering, and redistribution of the worth of the diligent to defray the burden on society of the indolent.

Income taxes - especially graduated income taxes - discourage entrepreneurship. The harder you work, the less and less of your success is yours to keep as you earn more and more.

This begs the question: "Is it criminal behavior here, or is it cognizant dissidence?" I don't think it has anything to do with greed.

The Brown's apparently didn't try to hide their income. I didn't see where they were accused of lying on any tax forms. They simply didn't file. There is nothing illegal about paying for their house with postal money orders, either. I pay cash for a lot of stuff myself, and use money orders as well. You watch. Soon, it'll become illegal to use cash for anything.

It's all about control. And what is control if it isn't tyranny... It's the antithesis of freedom. It's the government standing over your head with a noose, itching to drop it and give a yank. It's sort of a test of your character. It's left up to you to be honest. Screw that. There are way too many people "cheating the system". Just look at how much the government doesn't collect from the incomes of those in the drug trade.

The income tax needs to go away. Institute a system where the government only gets the money it can actually take - like a national sales tax - just like it collects taxes on gasoline. No more IRS agents. No more Joe Average tax-evading-citizen-turned-criminal by a flub on their tax forms. No more government intrusion in your finances. No more avoiding taxes by drug dealers.

Look what the J F Kennedy, Regan, and Bush tax cuts did for the economy AND TAX REVENUES TO THE GOVERNMENT! Now, imagine the economy with the income taxes gone. Revenues to the government would skyrocket, and the economy would rise exponentially. People will have more money to buy more, producers will have to produce more, and the government only needs to get the hell out of the way and let it all happen.

I'm on the Brown's side on this issue, even though they may have made a couple of tactical mistakes. They won't die in vain. There are way too many things in this country just waiting to come to a head. This is just one of the issues.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

Forever Armed wrote:

If more Americans were like him, we'd still have a free country.

if more Americans were like him we'd just have to build more jails.

 

[Kim]

There was a case a few years back. Seems it was in Memphis or Tulsa and it was a woman. I do not remember the details but the Feds were shocked they lost. I feel sorry for the man. They need to leave him alone till he comes out on his own. If he stays in his concrete house for the rest of his life that would be penalty enough. He is a little stupid though. These people however are just as stupid as the anti-war old gray hair I saw on FSTV in one of their propaganda documentaries. She claimed she had not paid taxes for decades as she refuses to give a dime that will go to support the military. Maybe she gets by cause everything under the table is under the table and does not owe anywhere near what this guy does. EVEN though I hate taxes I pay them. I really think this guy has been brainwashed by those anti-tax possi comitatas groups and their writings. He really believes he is right. It is kinda SAD. They should NOT kill the guy for not paying taxes.

 

[Gordon]

Personally I pay all my taxes, cuz Jesus did
I am pretty pissed that our 'elected leaders' are gonna (have been giving)give all MY paid in full social security income to aliens, legal or ,and their imported old folk, even if they are not 'vested'. Also paying MY social security to whino's druggies and whacko's kinda burns my fern It's gonna be gone before I get what was stolen by force from me!
That said I have never been much of an armored 'sconce' kinda person. I chose to bring the fight to the enemies' families' front door. Mao had some pretty good resistance ideas!

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The movie also said that the definition of income did not include payment for labour, more corporate profits and such.

True. Getting paid for your labors is not a financial gain. It is an exchange of your labor's worth for the money's worth. No one gets paid more than their labors are worth, therefore, no gain. It isn't profit. It's simply an exchange.

Woody

How many times must people get bit in the (insert appropriate anatomical region) before they figure out that infringing upon rights sets the stage for the detrimental acts those rights are there to deter? B.E.Wood

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So, Mrs. Brown can indeed ride on our roads without guilt - especially if she or Mr. Brown ever bought gasoline.

In 2004, federal taxes on gasoline yielded $24 billion in revenue. The federal government spent $30 billion on highways in 2004. So those highways are not entirely funded by gasoline taxes.

If they paid their property taxers, they paid for their and their neighbor's kids education. If they bought anything at the corner store, they paid sales taxes and/or other embedded taxes that covered the cost of their local police, trash collection, and for the snow plows that keep the streets clear in winter.

Property and sales taxes are local taxes and pay for local services. We aren't discussing local services. However, I bet that those local services spent a lot more than they received in local taxes and they made up the difference with federal funds.

Those taxes they paid also paid for the IRS agents and US Marshals - along with all their arms and other technology - camped out on their door step.

No; because those are federal agents and are paid from federal revenues - not state and local revenues.

Income taxes are nothing more than a device for social engineering, and redistribution of the worth of the diligent to defray the burden on society of the indolent.

48.8% of the federal government's revenue comes from individual income taxes. 13.5% comes from corporate income tax. 34% comes from payroll taxes. The remainder comes estate, excise and other sources of revenue.

People like to talk about smaller government; but if we all followed the example of the Browns' and did not pay income or payroll taxes, that would mean a spending cut of 82.8% (essentially all defense spending, all social security, and all medicaid would have to go before you could even hope to meet that goal...and you would still need to cut from the remaining programs)

As for a national sales tax, I think there are a lot of strong arguments for it in addition to the ones you made. A sales tax is a tax on consumption, not income, so it rewards saving and investment. It also creates a small tax across a broad base instead of the narrower base and higher tax we have currently. The downside is that taxes discourage whatever is taxed and a consumption tax discourages consumption - which can have a nasty effect on the economy if you aren't careful.

The movie also said that the definition of income did not include payment for labour, more corporate profits and such.

Well, I can tell you that this argument will absolutely not fly with the IRS or any federal court in the nation. Sec. 61 of the legislation I mentioned earlier defines gross income as:

"All income from whatever source derived."

True. Getting paid for your labors is not a financial gain.

Not what the Internal Revenue Act of 1986 says:

Sec. 61 - Gross Income Defined:
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;

Here is a great link from a Libertarian who opposes the income tax and does a nice legal dissection of the usual tax protest arguments (including some offered in this thread):
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0608b.asp

 

[bear71]

Very informative posts, Bart.

I feel comfortable paying Federal taxes on one major point alone, I am very reasonably assured that a foreign military will not be rolling tanks down my mainstreet anytime soon. That peace of mind alone is worth quite a few bucks in Federal income taxes.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Property and sales taxes are local taxes and pay for local services. We aren't discussing local services. However, I bet that those local services spent a lot more than they received in local taxes and they made up the difference with federal funds.

The answer for this is to take less at the national level, and collect it at the local level and cut the "middle man" out of the picture. It'd be much more efficient!

No; because those are federal agents and are paid from federal revenues - not state and local revenues.

True, but still, some of what the Browns bought and paid for went to embedded federal taxes(corporate income taxes, the corporation's share of payroll taxes, etc).

And Bart( may I call you Bart?), How can cutting out 48.8% of the federal government's revenue from income taxes and 34% of its revenue from payroll taxes and replacing it with a sales tax be a problem? Maybe if we all decided to stop paying those taxes, Congress would be forced to institute the sales tax. It wouldn't require any amendments to the Constitution, but it would sure help if the pesky 16th Amendment were repealed!

I wouldn't worry about any spending discouragement as a result of implementing the sales tax. By getting rid of all the embedded taxes in products, the products will cost less to produce, and the products will end up costing about the same when you add the sales tax in, and the people will have more to spend with no taxes taken from their paychecks.

Woody

How you prepare yourself today is all you'll have to defend yourself tomorrow. B.E. Wood


And Bear71, I can't disagree with you on that point of funding the military! But, it can be funded just as easily with a sales tax!

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

And Bart( may I call you Bart?), How can cutting out 48.8% of the federal government's revenue from income taxes and 34% of its revenue from payroll taxes and replacing it with a sales tax be a problem?

It is a pseudonym, so no need to stand on formality. I didn't mean to imply that replacing income tax with sales tax would be a problem. Just that if we all did what the Browns' did, we would be without services that I think we would all agree were essential and part of the federal government's job.

 

[cbsbyte]

Personally, I don't buy this guys tax protest arguments, its too convient. The only people who actually use the argument, are criminals who are trying to hide their criminal act behind some BS argument. In truth, he got caught cheating on his taxes, and instead of making right, he decides to pull this nonsense to make it a national issue, and get all the anti government right-wingers all hot and bothered(as evident on this board), so in the end they can set up a relief fund for him to bail him out of hot water. This guy is either a genius, or a complete fool. I do have to say I feel sorry for his wife for marrying this guy. In the end the real loser is his own family.

 

[Eleven Mike]

What a man...sends his wife to fight the court battle, while he hides at home...

What would be the alternative? For his wife to be in the house with him, waiting to get shot, blown up, gassed? At least in state custody she won't face all of that.


But some of you are treating this like a Rambo movie. Ooh! Ooh! Betcha he'll take out a couple of 'em with his rifle!!111

 

[thexrayboy]

No matter how this ends it won't end well. The absolute best outcome is the feds hold siege till he runs out of food etc. and comes out. All other outcomes are worse. And yes the feds will absolutely crucify these people.
Federal agencies may turn a blind eye towards activities from time to time when it serves their purpose but income to support the huge money addiction the government has is sacred. When it comes to insuring that their subjects surrender their money willingly and on time the government will brook no compromise. You pay or you become an example of what happens to those who don't pay. You can negotiate, jump through hoops, etc. and thats ok.
Refuse to pay....the gloves come off and the hammer starts to fall.

And if this does end violently we as citizens will not know the truth. We will get the sanitized one sided government story of the last days and hours of
a kook. They have already started to marginalize and excoriate these people.
That way if they have to kill them they will already be seen in the eyes of the populace as "outsiders".

 

[Sindawe]

Just that if we all did what the Browns' did, we would be without services that I think we would all agree were essential and part of the federal government's job.

If you would, please enumerate those services which you feel are essential and part of the Fed's job. For me, those are in order of importance:

1. Nation Defense
2. Diplomatic relations with other nations.
3. Running the Federal courts (Dept. of Justice)
4. Maintenance of Postal Roads & Airstrips
5. Regulation (as in consistant rules) of interstate commerce.
6. The infrastructure of the actual Federal government.
7. Discharging the obligation of SS to retired individuals and those above a cut off age. Those below are shifted to a privitized system, lets say 45 y/o.
8. Servicing the principal and interest of the national debt.

Thats about it. Health and Human Services, Labor, Education, etc, etc, etc are the job of the states or local governments.

Just for laughs, lets see where all the current Federal spending goes...

Source: http://www.federalbudget.com

Not what the Internal Revenue Act of 1986 says:

Sec. 61 - Gross Income Defined:
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;

Yep, so sayeth a branch of the same gargantuan organization in which another branch classifies as shoelace as a machine gun.

War really IS peace,
Black really IS white,
The sun really IS just the moon at night.

 

[bouis]

Arguing that Congress has no power to tax income or that it there's no statute requiring you to pay taxes is silly.

However -- my preferred tax protester argument goes something like this: the federal government's taxing power has to be used "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." I take this to mean that any tax money collected must be used for a legal purpose, and that Congress can't legally collect taxes to pay for unconstitutional expenses.

[edit: dang, I really got beat to the punch by the chart above...]

Unfortunately I think it'd be a lot harder to stay under the IRS's radar by admitting your income, but only paying half or a third of your taxes...

 

[DMF]

The Browns, who were charged with conspiring to evade taxes, conspiring to disguise large financial transactions and disguising large transactions, maintained there was no law requiring them to pay federal income taxes.

For anyone who doubts it actually exists, do some reading here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/26/subtitles/a/toc.html

Title 26, Subtitle A, has it all. I'll admit it's long, boring, and a little complicated, but it's all in there. Title 26 most certainly create an income tax, as allowed for by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.

Now the criminal offenses and penalties are in a separate portion of Title 26, and short and uncomplicated. So the tax protest scam artists point to the short and uncomplicated penalties, and try to tell people that the actual law requiring the tax doesn't exist. Knowing many won't bother to actually look up and read the other portions of Title 26.

Those are all in Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 75:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/26/subtitles/f/chapters/75/toc.html

Hey I don't enjoy paying taxes either, but they are real, and they are legitimate based on the 16th Amendment, and Title 26 of the US Code. Anyone who believes otherwise is many cards short of a full deck.

Again, if you think I'm wrong sack up and stop paying your taxes, but at least be a man about it and call a press conference explaining your reasons, and challenging the government to prove it's case.

I look forward to seeing you on the news, at least twice.

 

[thexrayboy]

Again, if you think I'm wrong sack up and stop paying your taxes, but at least be a man about it and call a press conference explaining your reasons, and challenging the government to prove it's case.

I look forward to seeing you on the news, at least twice.

I'm not going to join the debate about whether income tax is or is not constitutional. I will say this.

Those who wish to challenge it in court are essentially fighting the same fight as Fincher in Arkansas. He wants to argue the constitutionality of the laws banning firearms possession in relationship to the Second Amendment. The courts refuse to even allow that argument to surface in court. They will only hear statements of fact regarding what he did or did not do. Arguments using the constitution to justify his acts are quashed.

The same essential problem appears to face those who refuse to pay taxes based on their position it is not constitutional. The court in which you appear will not allowe you to use that issue in your defense. As far as they are concerned the issue is settled. You have to pay tax. Your case then revolves around did you or did you not pay your tax as the law requires. Basically a no win case for the tax protester. A defense based on the constitutionality of a law has a poor chance at best at even being heard let alone prevailing in the current court system

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

There's a book that every single THR member should read:

"The Ballad of Carl Drega" by Vin Suprynowicz

It's very good. Very appropriate book to have right next to "Unintended Consequences" on your book shelf. Although, this book isn't fiction - it is about as mandatory as a must-have as UC is. It is story after story of individuals who fought back against government tyranny and what happened to them. Different scenarios, different outcomes - but nonetheless, you lose when going up against the Feds alone. Libertarians will like it, since most neo-cons will view the laws the government was enforcing as constitutional.