Tax dodgers taunt police from hilltop compound

[cassandrasdaddy]

thanks jeff

for proving my point about youth and definitive statements


you might be surprised at how many folks could disprove those bold statements that seem so "sure" in the campus magic kingdom

 

[helpless]

cassandrasdaddy wisdom is not guaranteed with age. You should be careful playing the age card, especially on the internet.

This goes to everyone.

Good luck convincing anyone of anything, Only History will tell us if Ed and Elaine Brown's cause was a just.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

cassandrasdaddy,

perhaps in your next post you could add a little to the discussion at hand, rather than the age-related ad hominem attacks you used in your last three.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

the browns

apparently don't really believe their own propaganda. if they believed it they wouldn't have tried to hide the money with the money orders. albeit badly. when i make large money order purchases i was aware the feds collected that info, did they miss that? think they were gonna slip better than a mill through the cracks? they made a bad attempt to ceat got caught. payup or get ready for the house of many doors.

all the attempts to portray them as heroes of the revolution with comparisons to slavery or doing hard time for the man are amusing should be printed out and mailed to em when they end up without net access. this is a fight they will lose. one way or another. quietly in cuffs i hope but they might elect a more pyryhic end but that choice is theirs. they might wanna try the insanity defense, i'd go for that itd credible and grows more so each time they speak

 

[helpless]

apparently don't really believe their own propaganda. if they believed it they wouldn't have tried to hide the money with the money orders. albeit badly. when i make large money order purchases i was aware the feds collected that info, did they miss that? think they were gonna slip better than a mill through the cracks? they made a bad attempt to ceat got caught. payup or get ready for the house of many doors.

all the attempts to portray them as heroes of the revolution with comparisons to slavery or doing hard time for the man are amusing should be printed out and mailed to em when they end up without net access. this is a fight they will lose. one way or another. quietly in cuffs i hope but they might elect a more pyryhic end but that choice is theirs. they might wanna try the insanity defense, i'd go for that itd credible and grows more so each time they speak
__________________

Still saying nothing...

 

[Thin Black Line]

Perfect example of what happens when people try to use bogus sources, like wikipedia, to support their arguments.
[and]
Whether you like it or not there is an income tax as established by the 16th Amendment, and Title 26 of the US Code. The IRS was created by the Department of the Treasury, under the statutory authority given to the Sec. of the Treasury by Congress. All of which I clearly posted.

Finding sources much better than wikipedia, where any nutjob can create, add, or delete information on any topic, will serve you well.

DMF, I know this was not between you and I, but after reading a few more
pages of this thread where people argue about the legality of taxes (yes, they
are), I would really still like someone to address this from the original intent
perspective:

http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=3444419&postcount=18

So as DMF and others argue that the tax is legal, I would argue that the rates
constantly and consistently being raised over the last 4-5 generations have
far exceeded the original intent of the lawmakers and citizens who voted for
it at the time. Furthermore, I would have to wonder about the "representation"
I have today that derives its income from my tax money and votes itself pay
raises in the middle of the night (most of you are probably too young to remember
these things). Everything seems a little bit too "back room" for a Constitutional
Republic to be functioning properly --wouldn't you say?

Come on, guys, can we at least look back at a 1% federal tax on incomes over
$62K (adjusted for inflation) compared to what we have now? Might there
be a reason why people today are fed up and want a modern Boston Tea Party?
Anybody care to work the numbers on the tea tax and what percentage of
income it was back at that time?

If you're going to cite the law that supports what the IRS does, let's go back
to original intent and spirit of the law.

Without making the feds stick to original intent, you will lose not only money
in your dealings with them, but other rights like the Second Amendment. This
is what they have been hitting us with for years --saying something does not
mean what it says and distorting original intent over time. This is how you've
lost your 2A, 4A, had your taxes raised at all levels of government, etc over
time.

BTW, here's video on Gonzalez:

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2007/06/21/tx.tax.revolt.kiii

Again, I disagree with where this escalation has gone. Personally, I'd have
weighed the options differently and paid the tax knowing that its enforcement
was backed up by armed force more than true legality under spirit of the law
and its original intent (BTW, we could also bring up discussions back during my
great grandparents' time about how this was to be a temporary tax as well).
Yes, temporary and it's almost 100 years old now.

In any case we now have two sides that seem to be itching for a shootout.
The main goal of both seems to be to "make a point" to the public.

Oh, brilliant.....

 

[nobody_special]

Thin Black Line -- I don't think the intent argument has much merit, insofar as it's a quantitative matter. The 16th amendment doesn't limit the government's ability to levy taxes; in principle, Congress could tax 100% of our incomes.

I'd argue that this is a major deficiency in the amendment, but that doesn't make it invalid.

 

[jpk1md]

Personally I don't question the legality of taxes in General.

My issue is with Poor Representation in Washington and States by mindless sheep that follow the PARTY Agenda instead of their Constituents.

The result is much higher tax rates than I suspect the Founding Fathers ever intended and on more goods/services than intended.

Personally I believe that its a bit absurd that we have a system where people are required to pay both an Income AND Goods/Services Tax.

IMHO Income Tax should go away and Goods/Services Taxes should go UP significantly....tax people on the goods they consume....you want to consume more...thats fine but you're going to pay for the footprint you make/live.

I respect the Browns for having the conviction to stick to their beliefs.

I am troubled by the notion that the Gov't is likely going to use lethal force over disputed taxes while they continue to allow MILLIONS of Illegal Aliens to cross our borders, work illegally, pay no taxes and send that money out of our country/economy....on top of ALL of that the Senate wants to pass this Comprehensive Amnesty Bill.....Maybe the Browns just need to apply for a Z Visa and get Amnesty......

 

[Titan6]

TBL- I guess since you aimed it at me originally I can swing a response on that. I really should have explained what I posted previously.

While I can in no way reduce to Wikipedia length the evolution of the economy of the last 100 years I will point to several things have happened since income tax was imposed in the US. This is overly simplistic but will serve.

Incomes have risen dramatically in the past 100 years. With it the standard of living has risen as well. The US has gone from a rural farm based economy to a manufacturing based economy to a service based economy to a debt based economy (as we sell off all of our assets to support a high standard of living).

One can easily offer that in 1913 Income was even more unevenly distributed than it is today. There were large classes of people who were so poor that they were not even really considered in the make up of wage earners. The standard of living of even a fairly poor person today is much higher than that of middle class person of 100 years ago. When you compare living conditions, life expectancy, health care, number of hours required per work week, you name it; life is much better now. Has freedom diminshed? Of course.

Some of these incomes are entirely artificial. That is because they are provided entirely or mostly due to transfer payments for uneeded goods and services that are otherwise economically not viable or produce no value in of themselves.

What you have to keep in mind that in every economy there will always be an element that contributes little to the economy and only consumes resources. How much of that is allowed depends upon the society. That problem started becoming apparent by the 1980s. The number of direct handouts had risen to an uncomfortable level.

Handouts don't just go to the poor. Keep in mind what I posted earlier, the bottom 50% of wage earners pay virtually no income taxes. This does not mean that they do not contribute to the economy what it means is that they do not contribute to the handout pot or the pot that provides government services. This is important because of the size of government spending now. Handouts also go to corporations and business owners who then take that money to increase the size of the economy. This is not true capitalism as market forces are not entirely at play (unless you consider graft a market force).

Also corporate welfare is in no way new. Go back and look at how the railroads were really built in this country. Grants of large amounts of resources from the government and cheap imported labor. Sound familiar? Look at news articles from the 1860s and the complaints about government contractors and suppliers. Heck, go back to the original Ameircan war profiteer Benjamin Franklin. A $400 hammer or $250,000,000 fighter jet is corporate welfare.

But today the government actually is funding corporation to move manufacturing and services out of the country. What? How can this be? It is a rather confusing boondoggle. Examine the current writing of the tax code and the requirments of regulatory agencies and you will see it.

The effects of the Great Depression, WWII and the Cold War were largely to blame. Conventional wisdom holds that FDR (and later Truman and others) used income tax to transfer wealth to the poorer classes to prevent the ultimate popular rise of socialism and later communism by adopting some of the more benighn aspects of socialism. This can be debated until the end of time about motives and how necessary this was but you can't really dispute that it happened.

The top 5% of income earners pay more than half of all taxes. You really did not think that the top 1% were going to pay by theselves forever did you? After incomes began to expand there was a new defintion of rich. You can also easily argue that someone in the top 5% today lives much better than all but the super rich of a hundred years ago.

Income tax now is just a way to dictate social policy by the purse strings. I am surprised when I say this and people want to argue that the government is not controlling their lives and telling them what to do. But it is fairly obvious when you think about it:

Want to increase home ownership and give a handout to banks? Offer a deduction for mortgages.

Want to increase the population? Give money for more kids.

Want to reduce marriage? Offer a lower tax rate for single people with kids.

Want to increase religious organizations power? Offer people money to donate to religion.

Want to get rid of a religion? Remove it from the supported list.

So whatever the original intent of the tax code was; long ago it became about control. The only question is whose agenda are we pursuing?

After the imposition of income tax until the mid 90s government spending remainder fairly consistent at about 17% of GDP (except during WWII). As we shifted to a debt based economy government spending had to increase dramatically in order to compensate for the lack of production and services provided in the economy. Under Clinton government spending rose to a record 20% of the GDP and now we are approaching 25%.

Clinton financed the spending through increased taxes on the rich. Bush finances our spending through government debt. One could argue that Clinton's policy would have been more successful had the rich been forced to invest domestically instead of sending investments elsewhere and forcing the election of Bush who cut taxes on the rich and began financing the economy through debt.

Most socialist countries run about 33-50% of the GDP so you can see where we are heading. Keep in mind that a million dollars spent in the economy has mulit-level effects in the $5-15 milion range. So by the government borrowing money to spend and thereby ''expanding the economy'' inflation is created.

However in our case we are merely taking money from the world and spending it. Eventually there will be a correction. Greenspan expected this correction about 10 years ago but it never happened. But it will happen.

 

[Matt King]

I'm not so sure about that, Titan6. Can you point out what benefits they enjoyed as provided by the US government.

Did they ask for the Gov't to invade Iraq so that they might be "protected?" Is this how they are getting their National Defense bang for the buck?

Did they get their money's worth out of supporting the various welfare programs they "wanted" to contribute to?

How did the Browns benefit from the government educating kids who were not their own?

Do they use the US Postal Service? (Maybe they do, maybe they don't.)

The Browns' estate seems pretty self-sufficient to me. I'm not sure how much they rely on outside facilities, but I imagine their state taxes takes care of most of that anyways.

Whether or not one thinks the Browns should pay anything is of far less importance than the question of, "Are they getting their money's worth?"

I think most of us, if not all of us, can agree that we are not getting our money's worth.

Did they drive on roads?

Did they send their kids to a public school?

Are they protected by a Military, Police Force, and Fire department 24/7?

Have they ever used a public library?

Have they ever used a trash service?

Have they ever used a rec center?

All of the above are made possible by your taxes. When someone doesn't pay, it's not fair to the rest of us. Be it illegal immigrants or the Brown's, not paying taxes but enjoying the benefits is cheating the system.

 

[DRZinn]

The only real difference between taxation and slavery is of degree. Instead of working for someone else exclusively, I work for someone else about 1/3 of the time. And I have no choice in the matter.

 

[Lupinus]

and if thats all taxes went to many less people would have a problem paying.

 

[Jeff]

Texas, most of those examples are of state taxes, not federal taxes. The issue here is federal taxes.

The Browns enjoy the benefits of a (mostly) free society, payed for by the blood of their predecessors in wars that were justifiable.

I want to know, still, what it is they get for their federal tax money-- today.

I'm still waiting for someone to factually answer that question. I'm not saying they don't get anything, but I want to see a list that breaks down the bloated federal budget. I kinda know what it looks like.

Do you?


cassandrasdaddy,

You have a difficult time understanding what people write, don't you? I guess that's your problem.

 

[LAK]

"No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken"

- Article 1, Sec. 9 U.S. Constitution.

"the requirement to pay taxes involves the exercise of privilege."

- Flint vs. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

privilege: a particular benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class beyond the common advantages of others citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power of exemption. A particular right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others"

- Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed

"The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation"

- Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
That's the U.S. Supreme Court folks - after the "16th
Amendment".

"The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects"

- Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)
SCOTUS speaks again.

"We must reject the broad contention submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts - everything that comes in - are income"

- So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, (1918)
SCOTUS

So is private sector income taxable? Or is it "income" from the exercise of federal privilege that is subject to taxation?

 

[Marshall]

They're still idiots. They either end up in prison or dead. Two pretty stupid choices. But Mr Brown seems ready for death anyway, so he says. Maybe it's a suicide of grandeur.

Here's your general breakdown:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/budget.html

 

[Matt King]

Texas, most of those examples are of state taxes, not federal taxes. The issue here is federal taxes.

I am aware of that however the original poster asked this:

Can you point out what benefits they enjoyed as provided by the US government.

I consider the states to be part of the US government.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The top 5% of income earners pay more than half of all taxes.

No, they pay more than half of all INCOME taxes. When you consider payroll tax (which has a cap that favors those earn a great deal of money and makes up 50% of annual income even though it is supposed to only support certain "social safety net" programs), then the load is much more balanced and the middle class carries a lot of the load.

That's the U.S. Supreme Court folks - after the "16th
Amendment".

Selectively quoting past cases doesn't really equate to an argument. The Supreme Court had already found the income tax constitutional PRIOR to the 16th Amendment. The whole point of the 16th Amendment was to allow a non-apportioned income tax - so to argue that the 16th Amendment does nothing new is to miss the primary reason it was introduced. The cases you are citing actually acknowledge that fact; though you wouldn't know it from the cites you gave.

 

[HiroProX]

Personally, I hope the JBTs sustain disproportionate casualties.

 

[Titan6]

Texas did use some bad examples. I did not even bother because you clearly do not support what the government spends money on.
If you are educated enough to know what state and local taxes go towards than you are educated enough to know what federal tax dollars go towards as well. If you are not I suggest the US budget office web site or the IRS web site. This isn't a debate on how the government spends money. This is also irrelevant. Merely because you don't like the way the government allocates resources or perhaps their stewardship of resources does not entitle a person not to pay.

The only way for you to say no to paying taxes is to move to another country or change the system. Otherwise you go to prison. The Brown's knew the rules they just chose to ignore them.

 

[oldfart]

+1 HiroProX

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

A Little Tidbit For You All To Consider...

This from DMF in comment #106...

26USC61

"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;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust."

...Is just what I was talking about in comment #5 in this thread. The Constitution gets changed up all the time by Congress "defining" words. (The Court has done the same.)

Knowing this little tidbit, now consider that this "definition" of "income" was written into law AFTER the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified. That wasn't the definition of "income" when the amendment became the law of the land. The REAL definition of "income" is more akin to what Cel posted in Comment #103.

Woody

Since no one picked up on this, I'd like to point out that this definition in the US Code is for "GROSS" income. We are not taxed on gross income. We are taxed on net income. In 1913, income was defined as : "That gain which proceeds from labor, business, property, or capitol of of any kind, as the produce of a farm, the rent of houses, the proceeds of professional business, the profits of commerce or of occupation, or the interest of money or stock in funds, etc.; revenue, receipts, salary, especially, the annual receipts of a private person, or a corporation, from property,as,a large income." (Webster's 1913 Dictionary, On Line)

The operative word in this definition is gain. If you have made an even swap of your services for an equivalent sum of money, you've made no gain. You'll use that money for sustenance you didn't grow or hunt down yourself. You'll use that money to pay for shelter you didn't build yourself. You'll use that money for transportation you needed beyond your practical ability to walk, run, and carry. Any tax paid on money prior to those expenditures is unconstitutional.

The man living off the land, requiring no income to sustain himself, doesn't pay tax on his labors. He has crafted his own shelter, farmed and hunted his own food, and carried himself and all else on his own two feet. If this man sells something for cash for a night on the town, he has had a gain. If you have anything left over after all your necessities are paid for, you've had a gain. That gain would be taxable per the Sixteenth Amendment. Though Congress has set certain limits on what you can deduct for certain expenses, not everything is covered. Congress has drifted off the "gain" requirement in the income tax. You can't deduct what it costs you for your house, food, medical expenses, transportation, and the like. You are not being treated with "equal protection under the law" as the man living off the land, even though he supports himself with his labors.

This makes the "Income Tax" unconstitutional as it now stands. The only equitable thing to do is abolish it. This country survived and indeed thrived prior to the income tax. It can continue to to survive and thrive without it.

Woody

 

[LAK]

Bartholomew Roberts,

Of course it is constitutional. But taxing private sector earnings is not.

If you understand the cases cited, the powers of taxation are not changed under the 16th - whether it was ratified or not. And in order to conform with article 1, sec 9 of the Constitution, and any taxation must do so - it requires an execise of federal privilege.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I'd like to point out that this definition in the US Code is for "GROSS" income. We are not taxed on gross income.

Actually, if you read the tax code, Section 63 (titled "Taxable Income Defined) says:

"the term "taxable income" means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter.

So technically, you are taxed on gross income.

In 1913, income was defined as : "That gain which proceeds from labor, business, property, or capitol of of any kind, as the produce of a farm, the rent of houses, the proceeds of professional business, the profits of commerce or of occupation, or the interest of money or stock in funds, etc.; revenue, receipts, salary, especially, the annual receipts of a private person, or a corporation, from property,as,a large income." (Webster's 1913 Dictionary, On Line)

The Constitution gives Congress the power to lay taxes. The 16th Amendment gives the power to lay a non-apportioned tax. Once Congress has that power, it also has the right to modify its use of that power. For example, it can change the definition of income from the 1913 version to the current version, which can be looked up online.

Just because they use their powers in ways you don't care for, doesn't mean that the powers are unconstitutional - especially when the power they are using is explicitly granted in the Constitution.

If you understand the cases cited, the powers of taxation are not changed under the 16th - whether it was ratified or not. And in order to conform with article 1, sec 9 of the Constitution, and any taxation must do so - it requires an execise of federal privilege.

Here is a nice FAQ on various tax protestor arguments and responses to them from law professors and the IRS:
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm

You'll find the "exercise of federal privilege" angle covered thoroughly there.

 

[LAK]

I do not think you are grasping the fact that the tax code is not law, and even if it was it would still have to comply with art 1 sec 9. The IRS is a private institution, and the tax code is it table of regulations; it has no constitutional authority to tax private sector earnings - 16th or no 16th. It can only be applied to the receipts of the exercise of federal privilege.

What "law professors" say who worship the IRS, and the IRS itself say about the exercise of federal privilege is self serving. It is like asking the BATF what the second amendment says.

If there was a shred of legitimacy to any of this the IRS would be a Federal department or agency recorded in the Federal Register, Congress would have written and passed the "tax code" into law, and there would be no such thing as the "Tax court"; tax cases would go to a Federal court where the normal jurisprudence, rules of procedure, evidence etc would apply.

It's worse than a scam - it's racketeering on a mass scale.

 

[Cel]

The Point

Lak and woodcdi +1 The point is if Congress can choose to keep "modifiying" whatever it wants to what's to say they want "modify" the 2nd Amendment to the point we can't own any arms. This is exactly the kind of thing that the .gov does. Pick away at it a little bit at a time until the original intent is distorted to their view and then they can do what they want. The IRS's own website states that the IRS was not created by an act of Congress. So who does the IRS belong to then? It may perform a function of the government but that does not mean it is "owned" by the government. I would suggest some of you look at the origins of the Federal Reserve Bank. Like I said in a previous post, it is NOT a federal bank, but privately owned. They print out all the money, charge us interest on the money they print out, then we have to pay taxes on TOP of that. Even though our government has the power to print out our money, we let some private banks do it and then let them charge us interest on that? This is the type of gov you all support? We have been sold out and continue to be sold out. If you don't think there is something fishy about it, legal or illegal, something is wrong. Then some of you calling for the death of the Browns is sickening. The gov by now has probably spent more money with all their commando actions in New Hampshire then the Browns owe. We'll see how many of you stand when they come for your guns. Disgusting.