Cheney treated like others, angry about it

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Has anyone ever heard the argument that the federal income tax is illegal and unconstitutional? I don't know the logic, but there was a movie about it called "America: Freedom to Facism". Did anyone see it?

I watched this program a while ago. It's pretty interesting in that people have successfully defended themselves against the IRS. Apparently there is no law that's actually in the books that says you have to pay taxes but there are laws that say that if you do file taxes you can't lie and fill you tax return with false information.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

If that's the case why not do away with taxes all together? Or maybe give people the choice as far as where their tax money is spent (i.e. you specify where your tax money goes when filing your tax return)?

Personally, I would love to have input as to where my tax money is spent.

An idea that wouldn't work.

I expect our government to do nothing right and I am never disappointed and I expect there still to be many people who take money when they could work for it.

A great example that I think shines my point about people's attitude toward government entitlements.

My wife belongs to a board about kids. There are many of the homewife types who talk about bargain hunting and finances and such. There are constantly arguments about people who use WIC. The example my wife always loves to tell is the woman who posted her monthly budget. Part of the budget includes money from WIC. Now WIC is a pretty good program I think. It provides essential foods for kids and struggling moms. So this woman has this worked out budget on a spreadsheet with variables items like food and fixed items like rent. Sounds like a put together woman right? Except one of her fixed expenses is for her out of work husband's, who hasn't been able to find a job, monthly marijuana. $250 a month.

Now I am no put everyone in jail who smokes weed type but here they are on WIC with a dead beat husband who smokes weed and it's a f*cking fixed item on their monthly budget!

An extreme example for sure but it highlights people's attitude. Her quote when people pointed out that she was basically using the $200 in WIC she gets a month on weed was 'I never thought about it that way'. There are way too many people who 'think' they have no opportunity or 'think' that they need help when all they need is someone to kick them in the ass and tell them to figure it out for themselves.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Sometimes people don't have much of a choice. The world is about opportunity my friend and not everyone has the same opportunities. I know first hand what it is like to be filthy rich, dirt poor, and in between. Some f'up their lives but there is no reason for their kids to have to suffer the same fate.

I know exactly where you are coming from though because I use to be like that. I use to say to myself I worked hard to get where I am, why can't everyone else do the same. As I have gotten older, however, I realized that if I hadn't had the some of the opportunities I had, I probably would have suffered the safe fate as those who are just getting by.

I believe the government can help and I would at least like to see all children under certain age (18 or 22 yo?) have free health care and education.

They do have free health care and you have not heard of public schools but school is only what you make of it.To give people the out to say I did not have the opportunity you had so thats why I'm poor is giving them an excuse to do so. There is tons of help in this country for anyone that wants to make the most of their lives. I'm not saying that all will become rich but they can make a good life if they choose to. You say you had oppertunities many of which you probably made for your self and they did not just fall out of the sky. If your sitting at home donig nothing opportunity is not going to come to your house and find you.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Has anyone ever heard the argument that the federal income tax is illegal and unconstitutional? I don't know the logic, but there was a movie about it called "America: Freedom to Facism". Did anyone see it?

I know a guy who goes by this and does not pay any federal income tax. Evertime I see him I ask if hes has heard form the goverment and he says no. Its only a matter time before he does get caught and it will be pay up or go to jail. They had a guy on the news fighting his case out taxes and he got something like 20 years in jail.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

I watched this program a while ago. It's pretty interesting in that people have successfully defended themselves against the IRS. Apparently there is no law that's actually in the books that says you have to pay taxes but there are laws that say that if you do file taxes you can't lie and fill you tax return with false information.

This argument is a sham and no one has ever successfuly used it to not pay taxes. In fact this guy went to jail because of this argument.The 861 argument has been found to be a frivolous argument many times. Essentially his argument is that the term 'sources derived" must be defined explicitly. Section 861 appears to do this but courts have found 100% that the section that initially references "sources derived" is general enough and explanatory enough as to not require an explicit dictionary thus rendering the rest of his argument moot. Basically he argues that the government is supposed to be taxing income based on WHERE it comes from and the courts have held that where income comes from is not even part of the equation.

The better argument is that our federal government clearly has no right to actually tax our incomes. No where in the constitution does it explicitly or even indirectly offer that power to the legislature. Good luck though.

[724Skinsfan]

I think there's a guy in New Hampshire who is holed-up in his fortress-like home who is currently refusing to pay his income taxes. He said he's prepared to die if the federal agents try to come in. That was a couple of days ago. Not sure what's going on with that now.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

I think there's a guy in New Hampshire who is holed-up in his fortress-like home who is currently refusing to pay his income taxes. He said he's prepared to die if the federal agents try to come in. That was a couple of days ago. Not sure what's going on with that now.

I can understand, and I empathize. If I could do such a thing, I probably would.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

This argument is a sham and no one has ever successfuly used it to not pay taxes. In fact this guy went to jail because of this argument.The 861 argument has been found to be a frivolous argument many times. Essentially his argument is that the term 'sources derived" must be defined explicitly. Section 861 appears to do this but courts have found 100% that the section that initially references "sources derived" is general enough and explanatory enough as to not require an explicit dictionary thus rendering the rest of his argument moot. Basically he argues that the government is supposed to be taxing income based on WHERE it comes from and the courts have held that where income comes from is not even part of the equation.

The better argument is that our federal government clearly has no right to actually tax our incomes. No where in the constitution does it explicitly or even indirectly offer that power to the legislature. Good luck though.

The second argument that the federal Gov. has no right to tax our incomes is what I have heard them say and is what this friend says and does not pay federal income tax. I guess one day I will vist him in jail.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

The better argument is that our federal government clearly has no right to actually tax our incomes. No where in the constitution does it explicitly or even indirectly offer that power to the legislature. Good luck though.

The 16th Amendment explicitly allows Congress to levy incomes taxes.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

The 16th Amendment explicitly allows Congress to levy incomes taxes.

Yes, it does say that. However, I think the argument is that it contradicts previous articles of the original Constitution. I believe it is illegal/unconstitutional to make an amendment to the Constitution which negates something in the original. I'm not sure though.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

An interesting site on taxation:
TAX-FREEDOM.COM

"EVERY JUDGE THAT ALLEGES THE 16TH AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES A DIRECT TAX, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT ACTUALLY SAY THAT, AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT ARTICLE I PROVISIONS PROHIBIT THAT, COMMITTS TREASON OF THE HIGHEST ORDER BY IGNORING AND NOT UPHOLDING THE ACTUAL WRITTEN PROVISIONS IN ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND ATTEMPTING TO REPLACE THEM WITH HIS OR HER OWN PERSONAL OPINION, NOT WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION." (sorry for the caps)

[dmek25]

the bottom line is, that the U.S. govt is that big, that they WILL do whatever they want, to achieve the results that they want. it might take them awhile, but they always win. its almost like the 500lbs. gorilla

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by dmek25

the bottom line is, that the U.S. govt is that big, that they WILL do whatever they want, to achieve the results that they want. it might take them awhile, but they always win. its almost like the 500lbs. gorilla

You are exactly right. It's kinda sad though. This is the type of thing our founding fathers gave their lives to get away from (i.e.: the king).

It reminds me of a quote from Ben Franklin. After leaving one of the sessions held for writing one of the important draft documents (articles of confederation, the constitution, or some other), he was asked, "what have you created?" He responded, "a republic, if you can keep it." I guess we have failed.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

Yes, it does say that. However, I think the argument is that it contradicts previous articles of the original Constitution. I believe it is illegal/unconstitutional to make an amendment to the Constitution which negates something in the original. I'm not sure though.

For better or worse, it is not unconstitutional to pass an amendment to the Constitution that negates something in the original constitution. Subsequently enacted laws or amendments supercede prior laws. Moreover, amendments are not considered "minor additions" to the constitution, they have the same force and effect as the original provisions of the constitution.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

For better or worse, it is not unconstitutional to pass an amendment to the Constitution that negates something in the original constitution. The "later in time rule" holds that subsequently enacted laws or amendments supercede prior laws. Moreover, amendments are not considered "minor additions" to the constitution, they have the same force and effect as the original provisions of the constitution.

Yes, but this is the Constitution we are talking about -- not basic laws. Also, isn't an amendment just that -- an amendment? We're talking about a revision here. There is a big difference.