EPT:D
i want the law, no official statement, no community message, no site that pretents to be anything that is not law based. i want the law. point.
come with that and im fine. thank you.
income tax legal - Page 2
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
VabuDeltaKaiser
Germany1107 Posts
:D i want the law, no official statement, no community message, no site that pretents to be anything that is not law based. i want the law. point. come with that and im fine. thank you. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6639 Posts
Bam. | ||
KwarK
United States43357 Posts
On February 05 2010 11:47 Conquest101 wrote: And as has been mentioned before, so what? What's the alternative? Everyone else paying taxes but you not paying taxes seems to be the general idea of people who like this. Maybe it does work but the people who did it are onto a good thing and don't want the word getting out. If someone went to court with that defence and won it'd be in the interests of everyone involved to get out of taxes personally but act like it never happened. If too many people did it the Gov would patch the loophole. :p | ||
|
Conquest101
United States1395 Posts
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html AMENDMENT XVI Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913. Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16. 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. On February 05 2010 11:53 KwarK wrote: Everyone else paying taxes but you not paying taxes seems to be the general idea of people who like this. Maybe it does work but the people who did it are onto a good thing and don't want the word getting out. If someone went to court with that defence and won it'd be in the interests of everyone involved to get out of taxes personally but act like it never happened. If too many people did it the Gov would patch the loophole. :p Shhhhhh. Man, don't give it away. I might have to start paying taxes again, if that happens. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On February 05 2010 11:51 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote: so finally will there ever be anyone who can link or quote the law that forces us citicens to pay income tax or still not ? :D i want the law, no official statement, no community message, no site that pretents to be anything that is not law based. i want the law. point. come with that and im fine. thank you. Since you're not actually read any of the posts above yours for some godforsaken reason, here's an image of the original document of the 16th amendment that clearly states that congress has the right to lay and collect taxes on income. http://www.footnote.com/image/4346755/ | ||
|
Conquest101
United States1395 Posts
On February 05 2010 11:58 koreasilver wrote: Since you're not actually read any of the posts above yours for some godforsaken reason, here's an image of the original document of the 16th amendment that clearly states that congress has the right to lay and collect taxes on income. http://www.footnote.com/image/4346755/ I don't know man. That's not an actual document. Just an image. That could be doctored. I think we should go steal the original copy and FedEx it to this guy. | ||
|
ShadowDrgn
United States2497 Posts
On February 05 2010 11:51 VabuDeltaKaiser wrote: so finally will there ever be anyone who can link or quote the law that forces us citicens to pay income tax or still not ? :D i want the law, no official statement, no community message, no site that pretents to be anything that is not law based. i want the law. point. come with that and im fine. thank you. 26 U.S.C. § 1 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of ... a tax determined in accordance with the following table:" blah blah blah. Happy now? /lawyer | ||
|
neVern
United States115 Posts
http://www.piercingtheillusion.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18&Itemid=13 A lot more formal and it sites it's sources well. | ||
|
neVern
United States115 Posts
On February 05 2010 12:02 ShadowDrgn wrote: 26 U.S.C. § 1 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of ... a tax determined in accordance with the following table:" blah blah blah. Happy now? /lawyer What income is taxable? And are people being forced to pay taxes that are based on voluntary compliance? Do people living in the 50 states with a citizenship actually have to pay an income tax? If you live in the 50 states, you do not have to pay it and your income is NOT taxable. So that source really means nothing. Certain foreign incomes are taxable, however. | ||
|
neVern
United States115 Posts
On February 05 2010 11:53 Conquest101 wrote: See this guy is stupid. Not a troll. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html AMENDMENT XVI Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913. Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16. 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. Shhhhhh. Man, don't give it away. I might have to start paying taxes again, if that happens. Did you know Supreme Court cases ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment gives the US Government no new power of taxation? There were already laws that the government can tax certain FOREIGN incomes, but they still do not have the right to tax citizen's incomes in the 50 states. The 16th amendment is useless, and provided nothing new. This is why the Constitutional Party wants to abolish the 16th Amendment with the Liberty Amendment. | ||
|
thopol
Japan4560 Posts
On February 05 2010 12:10 neVern wrote: What income is taxable? And are people being forced to pay taxes that are based on voluntary compliance? Do people living in the 50 states with a citizenship actually have to pay an income tax? If you live in the 50 states, you do not have to pay it and your income is NOT taxable. So that source really means nothing. Certain foreign incomes are taxable, however. What the fuck are you talking about? The US code means nothing in a discussion about taxation? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. You ask a couple of questions and come to a conclusion that you make appear as though you reached it through logical means. You aren't making a logical argument though. You aren't making an argument at all. You have some questions, an assertion which is not really true, and somehow now we suddenly don't think the US code doesn't mean anything. What? EDIT: I don't mean to be excessively condescending, but edit your posts instead of stringing them together. I don't want to be interpreted as flaming you. You have just confused me to no end. | ||
|
Conquest101
United States1395 Posts
I think this quote from a case tried by the Fifth Circuit Court sums the refutation up nicely. "We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit. The constitutionality of our income tax system—including the role played within that system by the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Court—has long been established... [Petitioner's argument] is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish." The Supreme Court, and indeed, courts at every level of the Judicial system have constantly and consistently ruled in favor of the legality of the US income tax system. I could start listing them... but see above quote please. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6639 Posts
On February 05 2010 12:14 neVern wrote: Did you know Supreme Court cases ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment gives the US Government no new power of taxation? There were already laws that the government can tax certain FOREIGN incomes, but they still do not have the right to tax citizen's incomes in the 50 states. The 16th amendment is useless, and provided nothing new. This is why the Constitutional Party wants to abolish the 16th Amendment with the Liberty Amendment. Two questions:What are you smoking and where can I get some of it? http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html you HAVE to pay taxes, somehow I don't think the government would be dumb enough to omit that from their laws. | ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
On February 05 2010 11:31 Megalisk wrote: Didn't someone post something like this recently, then got shot down by every poster?? The constitution declares that the federal government has the power to levy and dollect taxes..I don't know where people get this crap from.. | ||
|
thopol
Japan4560 Posts
I have an uncle who thinks taxation is stealing. I think that these people don't talk politics with people who don't think the same thing that they do. They end up thinking the little expressions they use and the 'government is bad, XYZ must be bad because the state has mandated it,' mentality is reasonable political expression. | ||
|
ShadowDrgn
United States2497 Posts
It's in section 63. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000063----000-.html Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction). Just knock off the conspiracy theory stuff. As much as I hate taxes and would love to not pay them, the federal government really can force you to pay up. | ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14899 Posts
good god people >< | ||
|
neVern
United States115 Posts
On February 05 2010 12:32 ShadowDrgn wrote: It's in section 63. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000063----000-.html Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction). Just knock off the conspiracy theory stuff. As much as I hate taxes and would love to not pay them, the federal government really can force you to pay up. That doesn't mean anything. And in no way is that conclusive. In Subtitle A, there is no reason to conclude that a majority of US incomes are taxable. When the IRS describes which incomes they CAN tax, they say nothing about taxing citizens in the 50 states without voluntary compliance. Also, that definition is different than the legal definition, which makes you even more insulting. | ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
On February 05 2010 12:38 neVern wrote: That doesn't mean anything. And in no way is that conclusive. In Subtitle A, there is no reason to conclude that a majority of US incomes are taxable. When the IRS describes which incomes they CAN tax, they say nothing about taxing citizens in the 50 states without voluntary compliance. Also, that definition is different than the legal definition, which makes you even more insulting. Basically you want to assume that whenever the law talks about income, it actually means "foreign income" and doesn't explicitly say so because somebody somewhere is retarded. Guess what, it doesn't work that way. When the Sixteenth Amendment says "we can tax income" you can't just up and say "you didn't say you could tax domestic income." They can tax any income of anyone in the United States unless it explicitly says otherwise. It's insulting because your position is unimaginably dumb. Of course it's the legal definition; it's in the fucking US Code. That's as legal as it gets. Your position is basically akin to saying that a state that says it can put murderers in prison doesn't say it can put Asian murderers in prison, so they have no constitutional basis for imprisoning me if I commit murder. It's stupid. | ||
|
thopol
Japan4560 Posts
On February 05 2010 12:38 neVern wrote: When the IRS describes which incomes they CAN tax, they say nothing about taxing citizens in the 50 states without voluntary compliance. I still don't quite understand what you are talking about. Your pseudo-legal mode of English may seem intellectual and knowledgeable to your friends, but it seems to me like you're obfuscating your stupidity with syllables. That said, I think I comprehend something that is at the root of your problem. You seem to imply here that you think that if federal and state law are at odds there is some kind of impasse. This is not the case. Federal law has precedent. Of course, you could be talking about something else entirely. | ||
| ||
