| Forum Index > Closed |
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
It's like two hours long, but yeah, it's interesting as fuck. Never pay Federal Income Tax again. If your State Income Tax states that "Anyone who is required to pay a Federal Income Tax must pay a State Income Tax..." then you don't have to. Watch the video regardless, it's a great movie/documentary, even though it does drag on at some points. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
Don't let them fool you. Until the 16th amendment is repealed, you must, by law, pay federal income tax. Sorry. It sucks. Oh well. | ||
|
Pressure
7326 Posts
| ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
| ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
its fake ruin your life if you sochoose | ||
|
tenbagger
United States1289 Posts
On January 05 2007 20:44 Haemonculus wrote: I just try to really carefully monitor my income. At certain levels, your tax rate will jump, and I've actually saved money by working less at the end of the year to assure that I don't hit that magical number which will knock your percentage up a notch. uh, I don't think thats right. For example, if you earn between $0 and $7550, then your tax bracket is 10%. If you earn between $7550 and $30650, then your tax bracket is 15%. If you earn between $30650 and $74200, then your tax bracket is 25%. So let's say that I earn 31,000, I pay 10% on $7550, I pay 15% on $23100 and I pay 25% on $350. The fact that you got bumped up to the 25% tax bracket has no effect on the tax rate you pay on your first $30,650 of income. So therefore, you did not save money and you should of consulted a CPA. | ||
|
DevAzTaYtA
Oman2005 Posts
On January 05 2007 20:44 Haemonculus wrote: I just try to really carefully monitor my income. At certain levels, your tax rate will jump, and I've actually saved money by working less at the end of the year to assure that I don't hit that magical number which will knock your percentage up a notch. too much war3? ;o | ||
|
perLi is 2down
United States533 Posts
lol | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
| ||
|
BuGzlToOnl
United States5918 Posts
On January 05 2007 21:52 Haemonculus wrote: Eh, all I know is that in MD, as long as I don't make more than $10,000, I'll get a crazy refund. Is that true for PA also? Were not that far apart.  | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On January 05 2007 21:52 Haemonculus wrote: Eh, all I know is that in MD, as long as I don't make more than $10,000, I'll get a crazy refund. I have little interest in law in general, so I think I might be spewing stuff out the ass here, but I think that may have to do with working while under 18? | ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36401 Posts
On January 05 2007 20:44 Haemonculus wrote: I just try to really carefully monitor my income. At certain levels, your tax rate will jump, and I've actually saved money by working less at the end of the year to assure that I don't hit that magical number which will knock your percentage up a notch. lol this is totally incorrect | ||
Bockit
Sydney2287 Posts
On January 05 2007 20:44 Haemonculus wrote: I just try to really carefully monitor my income. At certain levels, your tax rate will jump, and I've actually saved money by working less at the end of the year to assure that I don't hit that magical number which will knock your percentage up a notch. The new tax percentage only applies to money earnt *over* that level (inside the bracket). Then again, if you could get away with working less and still managed to enjoy the same quality of life, then go for it  | ||
|
Sky101
United States1758 Posts
On January 05 2007 21:04 tenbagger wrote: uh, I don't think thats right. For example, if you earn between $0 and $7550, then your tax bracket is 10%. If you earn between $7550 and $30650, then your tax bracket is 15%. If you earn between $30650 and $74200, then your tax bracket is 25%. So let's say that I earn 31,000, I pay 10% on $7550, I pay 15% on $23100 and I pay 25% on $350. The fact that you got bumped up to the 25% tax bracket has no effect on the tax rate you pay on your first $30,650 of income. So therefore, you did not save money and you should of consulted a CPA. You are totally correct. The US tax system is progressive, which is what you described. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On January 05 2007 22:48 Myrmidon wrote: I have little interest in law in general, so I think I might be spewing stuff out the ass here, but I think that may have to do with working while under 18? No. The money you earn has a bit of "grace" allowed to it. If you were single in 2006, the first $8,450 you earned was immune to taxes. Many businesses deduct taxes from your paycheck automatically, and your W2 form reflects this, but the businesses usually treat taxes as a flat tax (rather than graduated tax-- which is probably why people get so confused come tax season), so if you don't make more than $8,450, you get all those taxes back as refund. And if you only earn a little bit more than $8,450, you'll get most of your tax back as refund. If your earnings total in into tax brackets beyond what your business deducts and you have few if any deductables, you may end up owing additional taxes to the IRS. | ||
|
5HITCOMBO
Japan2239 Posts
On January 05 2007 20:42 Tadzio00 wrote: Don't get sucked in. IF the ratification of the 16th amendment was a fraud, the argument has some footing, but most of america-- and most importantly, the government and justice system-- believes the ratification was legal. The tax "law" they're pretending doesn't exist is called Title 26 of the US Code, which is "A consolidation and codification of the general and permanent laws of the United States arranged by subject under fifty titles." Don't let them fool you. Until the 16th amendment is repealed, you must, by law, pay federal income tax. Sorry. It sucks. Oh well. Did you watch the video? They cited supreme court cases where it was ruled as repealed. I'm not saying that you shouldn't do your research, though. | ||
|
alphaentity
United States525 Posts
Cause all I know is that the 16th amendment has not been repealed... But the whole idea is stupid...why won't IRS just refer ppl to the 16th ammendment and title 26? Cause doesn't the 16th amendment say that ppl can get taxed on their incomes and the tax doesn't have to be apportioned? | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On January 06 2007 23:38 5HITCOMBO wrote: Did you watch the video? They cited supreme court cases where it was ruled as repealed. I'm not saying that you shouldn't do your research, though. I think you should do your research before you get busted for tax evasion. They cited a (district court) judge that said if you look closely it looks like the 16th amendment wasn't properly ratified. That's way way WAY different than saying it's repealed. Repealing an amendment can only be done by congress, and they can only do it by making & passing a new amendment that counters a prior one. The supreme court of the united states, even if it wanted to, cannot annul a constitutional amendment. Their job is to interpret and protect the Constitution and its amendments, not change or remove parts of it. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On January 07 2007 00:04 alphaentity wrote: why won't IRS just refer ppl to the 16th ammendment and title 26? They did: Wiki account of a New York Times article dated July 31, 2006. Russo just refused to believe that title 26 was the law. Edit: there's some clever film-making slight of hand in there. At the 12:00 minute mark the IRS Assistant Commissioner is asked whether american citizens are required to pay taxes, then before she answers, it cuts from her to the IRS Commissioner explaining why it's important to pay taxes without mentioning any laws, then it cuts to slide of text that says, "Why didn't he answer the question?" Well, the answer to that could be many things. 1) Maybe he wasn't asked that question, we don't know if he was. 2) Maybe he did answer the question, but it was cut out of the film. 3) Maybe the Assistant Commissioner already answered the legal question and was cut out of the film, and the Commissioner decided to play up the responsibility angle when he was later asked the same question. At the end of the Commissioner's response we get a hint at what question was being asked of him, he says: "So, yes, I think there's a fundamental obligation; that it is an understood and well accepted one." Hm... maybe the question he was asked was "Do Americans have a fundamental obligation to pay taxes?" But maybe not... you can't tell for sure 'cause of the way the film's been cut. At 17:40, there's another text slide that says "...Federal Judge Emmit Sullivan ruled the government does not have to answer the American's people's questions, even though it is guarenteed in the First Amendment." The problem with that statement is that it isn't guarenteed in the First Amendment, as Sullivan says. The First Amendment provides a guarentee to free speech, religion, and the ability to petition the government for redress of grievance. That is, if the government harms you unlawfully (they bomb your house for no reason), you can demand restitution. At 24:30 Russo asks, "The government says that in 1913, the 16th amendment allowed a 3rd form of taxation. What was the Supreme Court's ruling on that?" An old man (mysteriously unidentified) responds by quoting a Supreme Court decision: that the 16th amendment conferred no new power of taxation to Congress. This is true, but misleading-- actually, the question is misleading, the answer is precise like a razor. The Constition gives Congress the power to tax the people of the United States and sets up restrictions on the apportionment of direct income taxes in art. I, § 8, cl. 1; art. I, § 2, cl. 3; and art. I, § 9, cl. 4. The 16th amendment doesn't give Congress any new taxation powers-- that is, it doesn't create a third type of taxation-- it simply removes the restrictions of apportionment. Here's the text of the 16th amendment: "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." Collecting taxes from incomes, or direct taxation (one of the 2 powers of taxation congress has, the other being indirect taxation) is an old power, removing certain restrictions on that power is what changed. At minute 30 he finally interviews an ex-IRS commissioner, Sheldon Cohen and he cuts that conversation to shreds. Did Cohen really say that he didn't think "they are sincere people" in reference to the IRS, or was he referring to the tax resisters? The film makes it look like he's refering to the IRS, but the cut job on the sequence and a failure to understand why he'd bash the organization he used to run makes me think otherwise. Count the cuts, it's insane. Then Russo forces in some bullshit il-logic about filling out a tax form violating the 5th amendment. What. The. Hell. Has. He. Been. Snorting? Really, man. I'm not gonna disect every last bit of this entertaining piece of fiction. Don't just absorb what Russo's film is saying. Watch how it's put together. Think to yourself whether anything he's saying makes sense. And if you don't know enough to determine if it makes any sense, think for yourself and look some stuff up-- google's fun! | ||
|
aseq
Netherlands4001 Posts
What they should really do is see which things should be taxed and which shouldn't. Many of these things come from old systems. For example, i think we could get rid of VAT. If it turns into some extra income tax then at least we will know how much tax we're paying in total and we'll see that for that amount, we can probably build our own roads, hire teachers and doctors easily, since the govt is such a money-wasting organisation. | ||
| ||
|
|
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
The PondCast
Douyu Cup 2020
Oliveira vs Trap
Jieshi vs XY
soO vs FanTaSy
TY vs Coffee
Douyu Cup 2020
Neeb vs Impact
MacSed vs Cyan
Scarlett vs Kelazhur
INnoVation vs Dear
Douyu Cup 2020
Maestros of the Game
herO vs Classic
Maru vs Serral
BSL22 NKC (BSL vs China)
Douyu Cup 2020
BSL22 NKC (BSL vs China)
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
