Do you Pay....

@Joe,

Joe;40591 wrote:

Sorry but The IRS code manual is not law. If you think so, try and find out what part of the constitution supports this. I'll give some of what I've been told and looked up.

Sorry, but Internal Revenue Code is law; Title 26 of USC. Section 1 imposes the individual federal income tax, section 11 is for the corporate tax. The IRC was enacted and codified by Congress. You know, the "legislative" branch. To "legislate" is to make law. IRC is law, and the IRS is the department of treasury bureau that enforces said law. You could try to argue that this law is unconstitutional (good luck), but it is law.

Aedes wrote:

Furthermore, since all you're interested in is legal technicalities (rather than principles), you would clearly be 100% content paying taxes if a constitutional amendment passed tomorrow unambiguously codifying the enforceability of income taxes along with an unambiguous definition of income.

It is entirely codified and unambiguous within the IRC. There is no argument here...

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

There are rules of life as well, and I understand them well enough to know that supporting the family is more important than wasting my time trying to change a system that I don't oppose.

Said the sheep to the wolf. lol.

"I say to fight, you take it, that I'm going to whip someones ass ." Eminem

1984!? just kidding. But you sound like a Washbrain.lol

1 Reply

@Joe,

Joe;40789 wrote:

Said the sheep to the wolf. lol.

"I say to fight, you take it, that I'm going to whip someones ass ." Eminem

1984!? just kidding. But you sound like a Washbrain.lol

No. I sound like someone who knows a bit of what we're talking about here. You sound like you are full of it-- you are just plain wrong to claim that there is no law that provides for a federal income tax.

If you have a lot of time and money to throw away, you could just refuse to pay taxes, hire a really good lawyer, and challenge the issue. Like we've been saying, good luck if you choose that route. Otherwise, what are we supposed to do about it?

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

No. I sound like someone who knows a bit of what we're talking about here. You sound like you are full of it-- you are just plain wrong to claim that there is no law that provides for a federal income tax.

If you have a lot of time and money to throw away, you could just refuse to pay taxes, hire a really good lawyer, and challenge the issue. Like we've been saying, good luck if you choose that route. Otherwise, what are we supposed to do about it?

Dont pay a tax that doesnt represent you and and stop funding a military agenda. Is that reallly hard? Dont pay and fight it if they come after you. thoudands of people know the real laws and follow the amendments. not finacial word play to control options/ just do what you got to do. Whats right. The rest will follow.

2 Replies

@Joe,

Joe -- if you're trying to create a little movement here, it's not working. Most of us are pretty convinced by the combination of what we see on the books and the non-generalizability of the case law you've cherrypicked.

You're completely convinced by your veracity, though. So pray tell, rather than just stuffing your whole 'gross' income in your pocket, what CONCRETE things are you doing to change the system and how much progress have you made?

0 Replies

@Joe,

Call me lazy but I pay taxes on my income because I am lazy and just do not care to hassle with not paying. Sure, I could fight for it but there is the chance that I could lose. Not to mention the fact that I would have to pay court fees and a lawyer which would cost me more in the end.

Frankly, I see it as a duty which I am obligated to fulfill since I have chosen to live in a society that needs income tax to support operations. If you don't like it... leave.

0 Replies

@Joe,

Joe;40803 wrote:

Dont pay and fight it if they come after you.

That's pretty lazy itself. Is your investment in this issue nothing more than trying to convince people on an internet forum? Some altruism.

Why don't you try and take this to court on behalf of poor people who are fighting foreclosures because of overwhelming medical bills, and convince the courts that the government has improperly collected tax revenue? You could really make peoples' lives better this way.

Or why not go to credit agencies and convince them that everyone's gross income is actually 30% higher, because the federal income tax is a sham. That would get banks to start lending again and it would solve the credit crisis.

Why aren't you doing these things to help humanity instead of just being greedy and hoarding your cash?

0 Replies

@Joe,

Joe;40803 wrote:

Dont pay a tax that doesnt represent you and and stop funding a military agenda. Is that reallly hard? Dont pay and fight it if they come after you. thoudands of people know the real laws and follow the amendments. not finacial word play to control options/ just do what you got to do. Whats right. The rest will follow.

US Code is real law.

But how about this; since you don't know about how the laws work in this country, and since this is a philosophy forum, try presenting your philosophic argument for why we should not pay taxes. Your legal argument is bunk, but at least you could try to argue based on the principles and philosophy of the matter. You have not even done this yet.

I don't see anything wrong with the idea of an income tax, because as citizens of this country, we get certain benefits from the government, and these services have to be payed for. I would be in favor of slashing a lot of the programs we spend money on, and trying a new type of income tax (while cutting down on IRS waste and corruption in the process), along with keeping income tax rates low across the board. Without the income tax, what else will the federal government do for its main stream of revenues? Switch to sales tax? What?

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Sales taxes disproportionately affect the poor, because they have to spend a higher proportion of their income. Wealthier people can save and invest. So a pure sales approach would punish the poor and take liqudity from the wealthy out of circulation (which would further decrease tax revenue).

Just to head off any philosophical argument to abolish income taxes.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;40824 wrote:

Sales taxes disproportionately affect the poor, because they have to spend a higher proportion of their income. Wealthier people can save and invest. So a pure sales approach would punish the poor and take liqudity from the wealthy out of circulation (which would further decrease tax revenue).

Yes, of course, this would be a bad system. I am mainly interested to see if the OP has some idea for the government to better or more fairly raise money, or if he is entirely against the government collecting money from the citizens (and supports some type of anarchy). I'm hoping it is the former, but in this case, if you leave out sales tax and income tax, you will have to make up a lot of money somewhere, probably quite unfairly.

Thoreau wrote:

"I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government."

0 Replies

@Joe,

I know -- I agree with you that in the end his main philosophical angle will be anarchy. And I agree that it's strange that he chooses to take on legal minutia as a justification for why he should act as if we have an anarchy in place.

0 Replies

@Joe,

Honestly, rather than taxes being the issue that a good citizen should go after, they should focus on corporate influence on government. That would do far better than attempting to undermine a government system that many rely on.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

Honestly, rather than taxes being the issue that a good citizen should go after, they should focus on corporate influence on government. That would do far better than attempting to undermine a government system that many rely on.

Let's go one step further and create a co-dependency.

Let us force the corporation to pay more in taxes, relieving the tax strain on the common man. This creates a situation where the corporations require the governments support for continuity of operations while the government depends on the corporations for tax money. The corporations grow because people have more money to spend on products which offsets the amount spent in extra taxes. The coroprations can stop paying large sums of money under the table for things and spend it on taxes instead. The people win, the corporations win, the government wins.

Right up to the point where the government becomes a corporation which is inevitable once the corporations have that much control over the tax bracket.

1 Reply

@Icon,

Icon;40885 wrote:

Let us force the corporation to pay more in taxes

We already have that in capital gains taxes.

Quote:

This creates a situation where the corporations require the governments support for continuity of operations

Why would that be the case?

Quote:

The corporations grow because people have more money to spend on products

Except that many products are purchased by corporations and not by individual consumers. If American Airlines buys airplanes from Boeing, who in turn buys jet engines from Pratt&Whitney and tires from Goodyear and wires and computers and seats and lights from various other corporate entities, then how does tax relief for consumers help out any of these companies? It may allow AA to charge more for tickets, but they have to anyway because of fuel costs and employee benefits.

So the burden will be shifted back to consumers anyway, and the heavy tax load may force corporations to limit purchases, limit productivity, and even limit maintenance (which is the case for many airlines in developing countries).

2 Replies

@Aedes,

This thread jumped from one extreme to another. I'm working on ways to express concerns more neutrally, without jokes or any kind of sarcasm but other people sound like they are just convincing themselves and patting each other on the shoulder. Anyways

I make distribute DVDs about political ideas and stances that I feel represent the Constitution. For free. I transcribe interviews, sometimes I will make donations to people I think have revolutionary ideas. Other then that, I work, Love my family and friends. I think I represent alot of feelings and thoughts. Enough to "preach" against things. Sometimes I just want people to see between the lines.

I cant argue if you guys believe in an income tax. If thats what the people want then the democracy works.
I have a feeling there are alot of people who dont want to and that if established that there wasn't a law, They probably wouldn't pay it. Also, I think you guys make these arguments boring and without any critical thinking. Its always gotta be this side or that. Weather YOU want a income tax doesn't matter in the context of this thread. What my question was pertaining to was how much does an American citizen know about his government. Based on my research, not alot. And when they do find out, whos gonna criticize anything that matters, even less. Or at least with out their own comfort in the way.
I just think based on MY research that people have proven in Supreme Court, the highest, That a tax on wages isn't a law in blank ink.

Thanks for the feedback guys.

2 Replies

@Joe,

Joe;40907 wrote:

I just think based on MY research that people have proven in Supreme Court, the highest, That a tax on wages isn't a law in blank ink.

Well, go present this "research" to a law professor, judge, et al., and it will be easily shot down by the tax codes we have on the books.

If you really want to investigate problem areas of the govt. that people don't know about, I would look into the federal reserve and its actions and power over the economy, especially in the midst of this "crisis" we are having. And now the dept. of treasury, with its Goldman-Sachs CEO Paulson, essentially now taking the role of national investment bank...read through the economic stimulus act if you really want to see how the govt. has robbed us. One big difference is that the people have some voting influence over tax policy...the bailout was entirely orchestrated by corporations and their bought-out congressmen.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

We already have that in capital gains taxes.

Why would that be the case?

Except that many products are purchased by corporations and not by individual consumers. If American Airlines buys airplanes from Boeing, who in turn buys jet engines from Pratt&Whitney and tires from Goodyear and wires and computers and seats and lights from various other corporate entities, then how does tax relief for consumers help out any of these companies? It may allow AA to charge more for tickets, but they have to anyway because of fuel costs and employee benefits.

So the burden will be shifted back to consumers anyway, and the heavy tax load may force corporations to limit purchases, limit productivity, and even limit maintenance (which is the case for many airlines in developing countries).

I suppose I should have made it more clear that I was being purposely ridiculous.

The fact of the matter is that the system actually need to work its way back towards the people from the corporations and the only way that is going to happen is if the government needs the people to be happy more than they need the coroprations large under the table influences.

0 Replies

@Joe,

Joe;40907 wrote:

I have a feeling there are alot of people who dont want to and that if established that there wasn't a law, They probably wouldn't pay it.

This is a pragmatic issue. If it came to light that there weren't such a law, don't you agree that a valid income tax law would immediately be written and passed?

Quote:

I just think based on MY research that people have proven in Supreme Court, the highest, That a tax on wages isn't a law in blank ink.

Case law from the Supreme Court only matters if it's generalizable. So why hasn't it been generalized then?

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

Well, go present this "research" to a law professor, judge, et al., and it will be easily shot down by the tax codes we have on the books.

If you really want to investigate problem areas of the govt. that people don't know about, I would look into the federal reserve and its actions and power over the economy, especially in the midst of this "crisis" we are having. And now the dept. of treasury, with its Goldman-Sachs CEO Paulson, essentially now taking the role of national investment bank...read through the economic stimulus act if you really want to see how the govt. has robbed us. One big difference is that the people have some voting influence over tax policy...the bailout was entirely orchestrated by corporations and their bought-out congressmen.

I realize that it would be shot down in court. But I wanna know why At least Ten cases presented the idea that a income tax on the people is prevented legally by the constitution. How else would they fight Large bills owed to the government, and win.

As far as the Fed goes, what your talking about is a fascist ownership, that is called "capitalism".

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

This is a pragmatic issue. If it came to light that there weren't such a law, don't you agree that a valid income tax law would immediately be written and passed?

All I can say is, your solution, that is really a question, would have to be asked with the entire country.

Quote:

Case law from the Supreme Court only matters if it's generalizable. So why hasn't it been generalized then?

irrelevant. again your asking questions on how the machine runs, but any answer I can give is your own balance. So again, dont understand how this reflects to the issue brought up in my first post.

1 Reply

Do you Pay....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know