Court: Taxpayers can ignore IRS summonses

Status
Not open for further replies.
The 16th Ammendment states:

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.

Now how much more black and white can that possibly be!? To even further argue about the 'legal' aspect of income tax is pure lunacy.

Now if you want to argue, or don't think its legal, fine. The point you need to remember is that congress has been given the POWER to collect tax, and if you refuse to let them collect, you are in direct violation of the 16th ammendment. Period. Game over. Go directly to JAIL, do not pass GO.
 
So you quote the 16th Amendment in defense of...ummm...the 16th Amendment...

More "substance" I presume? So the big question is "Exactly what substance is this?" I have my ideas.
 
Now if you want to argue, or don't think its legal, fine. The point you need to remember is that congress has been given the POWER to collect tax, and if you refuse to let them collect, you are in direct violation of the 16th ammendment. Period. Game over. Go directly to JAIL, do not pass GO.

So what are they charged with? "Violations of the 16th Amendment"? Please.

Which sections of the USC require me to pay income tax?
 
So you quote the 16th Amendment in defense of...ummm...the 16th Amendment...
The 16th Amendment as ratified in 1913 is the justification for Title 26 of the US Code. Are you really this dense? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
A tax system that requires government to routinely spy on citizens who must sign away their 4th and 5th amendment rights every April 15th is inherently evil. Those who enforce that system are in support of that evil.

The income tax needs to die a quick death so that we can move toward a more free people.

The income tax allows government to have financial control over people earn money. With small tax credits and deductions the fed and state governments can leverage and control behavior. 53% of D.C. lobbyists are tax code lobbyists. You want to reduce the number of lobbyists? Repeal the income tax.

A sales tax is regressive? Poor people pay income tax every time they make a purchase. Harvard University and the National Taxpayers Union estimates that 25-30 percent of a product's cost is due to income taxes passed along the lines of production. A loaf of bread that cost a buck actually has 30 cents of income tax tagged to it. Worse, a person who takes home a dollar to buy that loaf of bread had to earn $1.20 (pre tax). So he earns $1.20 to buy a 70 cent loaf of bread. The income tax costs millions of man-hours and billions of dollars to comply with. Since income tax is paid during production, it puts our exports at a disadvantage to foreign goods which come here untaxed.

Starve the Beast.

Rick
 
Last edited:
The substance is that it makes income tax legal. Income tax is not only legal, but necessary. What monies are we going to rely on for public works, and all the other things our taxes, in theory go to pay for? Are we going to leave it up to the american people to donate money to fix roads, ect? Please. Your average american won't even donate a few pennies to the salvation army or somesuch during holidays. Income tax may be seen as an evil, but it is a necessary one.....
 
the Supreme court dodged, and ruled that the issue of whether an amendment was really properly ratified was "nonjudiciable", which is Supreme courtese for "We don't care whether or not you're right, we're not touching this with a ten foot poll!"

i Love it!

yeah yeah intrusion , never really thought of that, true point except that to make money legally it's pretty much in public anyway. i know we could go on about that forever.
Are we going to leave it up to the american people to donate money to fix roads, ect? Please. Your average american won't even donate a few pennies to the salvation army or somesuch during holidays. Income tax may be seen as an evil, but it is a necessary one.....

THank YOU! why cant more people realize this. the guy with 10 million needs his workers to get to work or no?

our incomes are protected by the fact that our military (tries to) keep us secure, and our general public services are intact.
 
The income tax allows government to have financial control over people earn money. With small tax credits and deductions the fed and state governments can leverage and control behavior.
Bingo, ten ring and bullseye! This is exactly why a simple consumption based tax has no chance, although it would be more efficient and require much less administration to collect. Congress is not about to relinquish any control over the minutia of our lives.
 
Delirious said:
What monies are we going to rely on for public works, and all the other things our taxes, in theory go to pay for?
What kind of tunnel vision does it require for someone to maintain that a tax on income is the only way to fund constitutional government functions?

Try sales taxes, excise taxes, import, export, flat ...

C'mon, get with the program and at least educate yourself before you post here.

Rick
 
. . . flat . . .
Flat? Flat what? Flat Tax? Oh, you mean a flat tax on INCOME. :rolleyes:
C'mon, get with the program and at least educate yourself before you post here.
Right back at you Ricky. You say you hate the income tax, then you suggest a flat tax on income. Ridiculous.
 
DMF, I know you're smarter than that, so this is you being disingenuous.

Even though I support repealing the income tax completely for reasons already stated, a flat tax would remove three (and only three) of those objections.

A truly flat income tax (no special deductions for homes, etc) would remove those tax lobbyists from DC and your state capitol. It would happily reduce the legislative control Congress and your local legiscritters have over you (and business) through manipulating the tax code. It would be far cheaper to comply with.

It would still allow the .gov to spy on citizenry; it would still inflate prices, it would still harm exports, etc, etc.


Rick
 
Last edited:
Where did the report post/thread to moderator buttons go?
Bottom left of the post window there is a small white triangle with a red border and black line in the center.
 
DMF, you were a great help in finding the Whine Button for Dustind but did you figure out the differences between a steeply graduated, heavily coded income tax as we have now and a flat income tax with one high deduction (Forbes current version is family of four pays no tax up to the first $42,000)?

Do you agree that the income tax is oppressive, intrusive, wasteful...or not?

[edited to add: corrupt and prone to abuse by government officials, arbitrary enforcement, no two accountants come to the same answer on tax forms, and attacking enemies of US Presidents -- Nixon, Clinton, LBJ, et al]

Anyone who supports the current income tax is either none too informed or a big-government statist with designs on your wealth, labor and behavior.

Rick
 
Quote:
Are we going to leave it up to the american people to donate money to fix roads, ect? Please. Your average american won't even donate a few pennies to the salvation army or somesuch during holidays. Income tax may be seen as an evil, but it is a necessary one.....

THank YOU! why cant more people realize this. the guy with 10 million needs his workers to get to work or no?

Where in the world have you been hiding? How many millions were donated after 9/11? How many millions were donated after the tsunamis? How many people donate every sunday at church for local programs? Americans are more than willing to donate, you just have to tell them why it is important. Maybe you haven't been donating but there are plenty who have been.

As for private roads, that is bunk. I used to take the toll-road all the time in Houston and didn't mind paying for it one bit. That is a privately funded road and there are cars on it everyday. Go read this article posted recently about how a group of businesses tried to keep roads privatized:

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=123899

whatever. i am totally poor and taxes are expensive to me..
but if i didnt pay them, we wouldnt have things like roads, police, military, firefighters. not to mention the endless jobs created.

If you are poor, you don't really pay taxes. Top 20% pays 80% of the taxes and according to Rush's analysis of the IRS numbers, the top 50% pay 96.03% of the burden. So unless you are making in the top 50%, don't fool yourself and think that you are building bridges, roads, or employing the cops. The same cops who are sponsored by thousands of citizens who donate for a car sticker that says "Cop Supporter 2004".

Besides, the money you pay in is squat compared to what the "greedy rich" are paying. Does it hurt to pay it? Of course it hurts! It pains me everytime I pay, but you don't think that someone dropping a check for $15 million pales in comparison to what you drop? You don't think that *they* feel $15 million is expensive to them?

"Oh but they can afford it!" comes the predicatable reply.

Yeah, sure they can but what do the rich get for their money? Other than national defense, the rich don't get squat for the money they put it because they are still paying more property taxes, gas tax, and sales tax than you are. You, as a self-described poor person, reap all the benefits of their sucess. Poor people receive the handouts, drive on the roads they paid .0001% of, and enjoy the defense they paid .000000001% of. In addition, if you are poor you don't create jobs, the "greedy rich" do. Remember, that many of those "greedy" rich were once poor and they elevated themselves through hard work and dedication. You want to trivialize that rather than emulate it.

Besides, what is "greedy rich" anyhow? Is it someone who owns a metal shop employing 15 people making $200,000 profit for himself? Is it a multi-billionaire like Bill Gates employing thosands and creating revenue the size of small countries? Is it a guy making $50,000 a year with a small home business on the side and a regular day job? Maybe it is as simple as someone who is making more than you do?

greedy rich people who think they desrve every dime they made forget that they would not hav emade it without the thousands of people under them ,

Plain and simple, those workers under him don't deserve the money he makes. Who took the risk to start that company? Who puts in the work to make sure that it stays afloat for those 1000 workers? Who helps pay for their insurance? Why are those 1000 workers only content to be workers and not running their own company? Maybe it is because they aren't qualified to do anything but be a "poor worker"? Don't fall for the hard working poor man illusion that everyone wants us to believe in, that is a socialist myth. Those workers willingly work for the pay they receive and if they want more then they are welcome to go and get it. However, it requires that they put in extra hours, learn new skills, attend college, or even switch jobs! I haven't seen any company owners balking at the employees taking advantage of their tution assistance programs in fear that they may lose their "greedy" money.

who think that even though they need 1000 skilled workers, they shouldnt have to help pay for the schools, and even though it takes
BILLIONS to defend this nation , and that a rich person is having more stuff protected, doenst mean they should pay more taxes.

Yes, all that extra stuff that the rich paid taxes on. All that extra stuff that a worker had to build and has a job because the rich bought it. All those property taxes the business pays that fund the schools. All the gas tax that company pays while its fleet of vehicles deliver goods and employee people. All the fees the business pays that keeps the city government running. All the money that businesses donate to universities, schools, and libraries. If you don't think a normal business pays its fair share, you haven't tried to run one.

"The big companies don't pay income taxes though, they weasel out of it." comes the cry!

You are right, they received tax credit by matching my 401k contribution, providing me insurance, contributing to stock purchase plans so the workers can own part of the company, donating products to schools, providing training to workers, providing scholarships, matching employee donations to charitable organizations, investing in capital equipment, and the list goes on and on and on.

Think about it= you have ten million dollars, i have 10 dollars.
who is the invader going to attack first??

Neither of you, since it doesn't matter. Nobody invades for dollars, they invade for natural resources, slaves, and property. Your $10 doesn't exist and neither does Bill Gates' billions. They are all fictional and only hold water because people believe that they exist. You can't steal Bill Gate's stock and then sell it because, guess what, nobody will buy it. You can't steal $1 million and use it because the currency will be worthless without the US backing it.

taxes are a pain, but without them, the country would grind to a halt.

No argument there, I just think that you are looking at the issue in a very close-minded way.
 
That somebody clings tightly to a different view does not justify being insulting...

Derius_T, before the dollar was so weakened by various central government actions, highways were paid for by the users, in the form of a consumption tax on gasoline and diesel. Look up "Highway Trust Fund". Inflation led to the adding of general revenue funds.

I note that Toll Roads such at the Pennsylvania Turnpike or the Sunshine Turnpike are not paid for by funds from taxes on income.

Many dams and reservoirs are quasi-privately built, owned and operated by Water Supply Districts which issue bonds. The bonds are paid off by sale of water. The great majority of these do not levy taxes.

And Sally gets a ton of money at Christmas time. "Put a nickel on the drum, save another drunken bum..."

:), Art
 
Man! As I read this thread it always amazes me the number of gun owners that actually advocate the violation of property rights through taxation and how Marxist collectivism has really permeated into their own conciousness. It's even complete with class warfare of that the 'rich' business owners need to pay (From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs). "The interests of the state and the public good outweigh the rights of people, so give us your money or we'll take your house, put you in jail, and garnish your wages." (The 2nd Plank of Communism: 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.) No matter how you cut it, when money or property is taken by threat of force it is called stealing.

I don't care what worldly texts created by man say about whether it is okay to steal from a person for this reason or that. It is only the Supreme Law-giver that must be followed, and the state's action is a violation of the 8th Commandment. My rights are absolute, they are not 'constitutional' as that document does NOT grant ANY rights, but was intended to try to restrain the federal government.
 
Oh Ricky, your hypocrisy still amazes me. While I would prefer a flat tax, over the current structure, they are both taxes on income which you previously said was wrong. Also, you suggest things like a sales tax, and taxes on imports and exports. Those will be subject to just as much (if not more) manipulation than income tax. Lobbying won't decrease, but how and why lobbyists are there will just change. Income tax directly affect voters, and gets voter attention. Manipulations in a sales tax, tariffs, etc. won't affect as many voters directly and are therefore more likely to get attention from lobbyists.
 
DMF. Don't insult us with your stupid comment. I was responding to Delirous who thought that the income tax was the only source of money to the fed.gov. I showed him just *some* of the other methods of taxation avialable to .gov at all levels. In no way did I endorse an income tax over a sales tax, which I favor.

I finally figured out another thing that DMF was confused and whining about (he's still off base, but I understand his confusion). "Flat" refers to a constant rate of taxation, be it income tax, sales, exports, etc. It is not limited to income taxation.

Back the to the thread. DMF, you didn't answer the question. Your claim of hypocracy because I offered analysis concerning different tax structures strongly suggests you don't know the meaning of the word. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to be responsive. That's not your bag.

Back to the debate. The common sales taxes (as proposed by Tauzin and others) are all flat-rate over the spectrum. No changes for big purchases or little ones. Rich or poor. However, their proposals do rebate a portion of each person's annual sales tax payments up to some fraction/multiple of the poverty line. So, it cannot be said that a sales tax hurts the poor (is "regressive") since that portion is refunded.

If it is truly flat -- then there is no room for a lobbyist to move. If he says, please reduce the tax on my client's product, he should be rebuffed with a terse, "Sorry, this is a flat rate tax. Everybody pays the same. No exceptions." If there are exceptions, then it isn't a true flat tax.

The common flat-rate income tax is of the same theory. Forbes's current figures are these (extrapolated from his 2000 proposal): Each individual gets a standard $16,000 deduction. If a person makes $16K -- he pays no income tax. If a married couple make $32K, they pay now income tax. If a married couple have a kid, the kid gets a $5K deduction. Two kids = $10K. So, a family of four will pay Zero % income tax on their first $42,000. This will take poor people completely out of the income tax.

Let's say the tax rate under this system is the same as Forbes 2000 plan. They will pay 17% on each dollar thereafter. The same fam of 4 making $84K will pay 17% on $42K for an effective tax rate of 8.5%. A fam of 4 making $168K will pay 17% on $126K for an effective rate of 12.75%.

This is still an income tax so it is a distant second place to the sales tax, but it is also *far* better than the current scheme. I would take it just as I would take repealing the 1968 Gun Control Act while not having the political capital to repeal the 1934 NFA. Only a bonehead would take this to mean that I support NFA or 1986 FOPA. Perhaps DMF would care to clear this up.

More half-thoughts from DMF:
Also, you suggest things like a sales tax, and taxes on imports and exports. Those will be subject to just as much (if not more) manipulation than income tax
Not if the tax is flat. However, the benefit is that without an income tax, those lobbyists, should they be successful in manipulating import duties will have less effect on me than if they were manipulating an income tax which covers *directly* anyone who bothers to earn money.
Income tax directly affect voters, and gets voter attention.
Most people I talk to don't have a clue how much income tax they pay. Most say, "Hey, I got a refund," and ignore the thousands their employers sent in automatic witholding. Now, have those same people have to write a check for, say $3,000 or $5,000 every April 15th, and you'd get some attention. Move tax day from April 15th to the Monday before a Presidential/Congressional election and you'd see a measurable change in turnout and electoral habits.
Manipulations in a sales tax, tariffs, etc. won't affect as many voters directly
Nonsense, a sales tax would have the federal portion right there on the sales receipt. I don't support import/export duties since they are hidden -- unless they can be tabulated as easily as a sales tax, and they can't.

Rick
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top