![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-49078-100x100.png\")
Trust Funds is the way to go!
Trust Funds is the way to go!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6173-100x100.png\")
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
We've been fighting the same think in Canada, based on income tax being a short-term, and voluntary, war measure from back in WW1. Lots of people fight that here but the problem is the verdicts seem to avoid publication. Kudos to this guy because income tax is legalized extortion.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-65015-100x100.png\")
now that's progress.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-81147-100x100.png\")
Yeaaaaaaaah, I'm gonna go ahead and keep paying my taxes, ya know, just to be on the safe side.
Way to stick it to em.
This only works if you have a lot of money to afford those court fees.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1713-100x100.png\")
What a scumbag. But it just proves that rich white lawyers can get away with not paying taxes, if they're clever enough.
@B:
Yeah, I can just see the courts record. It's like an Eddie Murphy skit...
Judge: Mr. Brown, you owe the Federal Government 15 years in back taxes, either pay up or go to jail! Case closed.
Judge: He, he, Silly negro... So Mr. White. Well, you've obviously broken the law, but tell you what, since you're a clever rich white guy... get out of here and don't come back you rascal. Case dismissed!
It seems that his case had nothing to do with income tax, as we all know it. His situation deals with a trust that he was paid interest and dividends from. He failed to pay taxes on that income. His battle was over whether the IRS could tax his income from the trust. That in no way applies to the millions of Americans who get their income the old fashion way, by working for it.
But my guess is that the swindlers trying to convince you to sign up for their seminar on how to avoid the IRS, will try and hold this up as proof that you don't have to pay income tax. This case only applies to trusts.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-98237-100x100.png\")
Actually, it's true. The tax laws have this loophole. The IRS has been asked about it plenty of times and won't give a straight answer. They even fired one of their own armed investigators just for asking about it.
Now that this fellow has prevailed in a court case, they'll be all in a hurry to close the loophole anyway. All they have to do is pass a law.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-82296-100x100.png\")
@B: What a scumbag. But it just proves that rich white lawyers can get away with not paying taxes, if they're clever enough.
I agree! This case had everything to do with him being a clever white man and NOTHING to do with the law!
This is an interesting story, but for the various reasons already stated here, I can't imagine a flood of tax evasion resulting.
What I don't get from tax-deniers (and those who cheer them) generally, however, is how they can justify not paying taxes even while they enjoy the benefits of the tax dollars paid by others. People can disagree on what services the gov't should perform, sure, but can't we all agree that the gov't needs money to operate at even the most basic level of governance? Where's that money supposed to come from? And I don't mean that rhetorically, I'm curious to hear the argument.
@nequam:
Well being both a tax resister (like that use of terminoligy, \"denier.\" So are we going to be anti Semitic in the near future, like \"climate deniers?) and one who cheers them on, what I don't get from statists is just how they think the government managed to fund these things before we had an income tax. You do realize the income tax didn't come about until 1913, and that it was a paltry sum until after WWII right?
To answer your concern though, we have local schools paid mostly by property taxes, we have roads (the only \"benefit\" of government I ever use through license fees, tolls and gas taxes, and so on and so on. In the 80s, Reagan commissioned a study to see just how much of the feds budget is funded by Federal Income Tax. The finding was NOT ONE CENT. It all goes to pay the PRIVATE Federal Reserve interest on the national debt.
There's just something about a rich lawyer dodging the law to ripoff a few poor Medicare-dependent senior citizens that just brightens my day.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-55114-100x100.png\")
@ ENM4R and B
Yeah, sure. The fact that he is white has everything to do with it. Are you saying there no clever minority lawyers?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-90026-100x100.png\")
You know what would have more impact and help out a lot more people? Getting rid of the payroll tax (FICA). If big corporations can get away with all kinds of tax cuts and loopholes it would be nice if regular working citizens could get back more of their hard-earned money too.
This comment doesn't have much to do with this post, except that some taxes make sense, and others do not.
Absolutely had everything to do with his race. Raceraceraceraceraceracerace. ENM4R, life must be so easy, being able to make every little thing about whitey.
@ ENM4R and B
I'm not saying I agree with it, but check out Aaron Russo's documentary \"America: Freedom to Fascism\", it's all about how there is NO law that requires taxes be paid on personal income. Our laws only cover corporate income.
@Murph1908: no, I'm saying this guy is a rich white scumbag lawyer, and white people have an easier time getting away with stuff than minorities.
Hey, I'm a clever asian man! What, you don't think I can rip off people too?
Give me five minutes with your Coke...
@Murph1908: @Greeper: @snwbrder0721: I thought the use of exclamation points, bold, and capitalized letters would set off the sarcasm siren...
The fact that he was white has nothing to do with it. The fact that it was brought that the clever white man scammed the people once again was amusing.
@asvetic: No, he was working for the IRS as an armed investigator (read enforcer). He carried a gun for the government. He started asking uncomfortable questions, and they canned him.
@speedwell: Yes, I agree. This is not vindication for people who refuse to pay any income tax, nor is the loophole going to last for long.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-55242-100x100.png\")
@B: Yeah cause theres a secret handshake and express line at the bank and the courthouse for whites. IF there is I have never seen it. I am sooooo sick and tired of ppl crying oh the white man is keeping me down, the white man is doing this or that. I grew up dirt poor in the Mountains of Va, with only what we grew and caught to eat. We substituted some of our diet with awesome govt. food so we wouldn't starve. Funny thing is I couldn't get any grants or scholorships even though we were poor. But I am sure if I was non-white I would have gotten them. Actually I know it becuase some of my friends who wererent white got them and thier parents made triple what mine did.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-108163-100x100.png\")
You know what would be neat: everyone, individuals and corporations alike pay their fair share of taxes on the income and earnings they realize. You get income or earnings, you pay taxes.
Then the governments builds and maintains roads, invests in research, hires our police and firefighters, funds our schools, keeps our environment clean, passes and enforces laws, maintains a system of courts to allow people to settle disputes, and prosecutes those who commit crimes like not paying their taxes (so I have to pay more because weasels don't want to pay their fair share because they're \"special\").
Crazy idea. I know.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-15402-100x100.png\")
@stardeo:
I agree. Poor people do not pay their fair share.
As a matter of fact they pay nothing at all.
@stardeo: Yeah, crazy all right. You know what would be neat? If government employees came to work with the same can-do, cost-conscious work ethic that private sector employees do. If we could trust any government to do anything on time and under budget. If government employees did their jobs with a smile and a feeling that they were doing important work. If the police respected the taxpayers instead of playing cop-versus-civilian games like a bunch of nerds in an elves-versus-orcs role playing game. If postal clerks picked up their feet and walked like they had mail to deliver. If social workers were interested in saving families instead of stealing children. If public schools were respected and effective academies of knowledge instead of prison warehouses for the most hated segment of the population. If politicians were honest, and everyone loved their fellow man, and shit didn't stink.
If anyone would like to learn more about how Income Tax is actually unconstitutional, there is an approximately two hour long documentary posted on Google Video.
Here is the link:
Freedom to Fascism
[video.google.com]
It is really long, but also very interesting.
I really wouldn't mind doing away with 25% of my income going to the Federal Reserve. Watch the video and you'll understand that comment.
Cheers,
-Mark
Oh, this video most likely will make you even more disgruntled towards the US government.
Pay a tax on what you consume, not on what you earn. That way savings is encouraged. The more expensive house, car, watch, clothes, etc. you buy the more you pay in taxes. It's a nice linear system that would work and be fair.
P.S. Corporations don't pay taxes. They write a check for something called 'taxes' but then they raise the prices on what they sell to make up for it. So corporate taxes are paid by the people who buy the product.
i think we have a pretty fair system now. i feel the bracket system we have for the most part is ok. the poor should not have to shoulder as much as the rich. think about it, if there was a flat 20% tax rate for everyone, it would totally screw them over. if some poor family makes $10,000 a year, this family can not afford to lose $2000 to the government. while a person who makes $1,000,000 a year can afford to pay $200,000 to the gov't.
this cheapskate lawyer is just trying to screw the next generation over. gg tom cryer, you found some obscure loophole to be more greedy. the previous generation has paid for my education, my welfare, and my protection. i will continue to do the same.
Amen!
To add to that and to preempt the naysayers that will tell us that government can't be funded by a consumption tax, remember that consumption is a more stable economic force than income.
To all those basically saying, \"wouldn't it be nice if everyone just paid their taxes.\".
I am in complete agreement if the tax is constitutional. For clarification a constitutional tax is a tax that is either DIRECT or INDIRECT. The Federal Income Tax is neither a Direct or Indirect tax.
But, if you feel fine dishing out your hard earned money to the Federal Reserver (which is run by the top bankers in the U.S. and is not a government agency) then by all means you can do it on your own. I'm pretty sure the rest of us would rather keep that nice chunk of cash.
@Tonguetied: But if we pay tax on what we consume then how are we going to keep this huge difference between the rich and poor?
This is a great idea, but sadly one that I never see coming to fruition.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-61755-100x100.png\")
I don't think he should be allowed to go to Federal Parks, use Federally Funded Highways/Interstates, or use any form of technology that was federally subsidized....since, you know, he doesn't believe in paying for any of that.
@B: actually, his ethnicity is a rainbow of colors. asian, african, european, and even native american!
just goes to show you that asian, african, european, and even native american LAWYERS can get away with anything!!
@Tonguetied: I agree with your first point. Your second point, however, does not follow. Higher prices translate to higher profits which, in turn, translate to higher taxes. In other words, you cannot offset taxes solely by raising prices.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16563-100x100.png\")
Regards the \"gov't slackers vs super-efficient, low-cost, high-quality, ethical private sector\" guys:
Enron. Boeing. Comcast. Haliburton. KBR. ANY insurance company. Or managed care facility. AT&T. Those guys that pushed Oxycotyn on the market knowing it's as addictive and harmful as heroin.
vs.
Your fire department. Paramedics. Air Traffic Control. Medicare. Social Security. Cops (sometimes). Water & Power (pre-Enron - whoops: free market reforms WORK!!)
Life isn't as simple as a bumper sticker. Stop being foolish.
@trai_dep:
Medicare? Social Security? Cops?? This is the best you can come up with?
You have GOT to be kidding.
If I was to argue your side, I'd use public libraries, the offices of public records, and the people who try to make sure the food supply is safe to eat.
(shakes head) I can't BELIEVE you used those three notorious cases of government waste and fraud as your BEST examples. Christ.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-79903-100x100.png\")
@speedwell: Gimme a break.
I have worked at many levels of government (federal and local) as well as for private industry and you know what? The one constant is that everyone who worked for all of those organizations were people. A vast majority worked very hard, a vast majority were very ethical, some were slackers, most actually gave a crap about how much money was spent, but what didn't matter is whether they worked for the government or for private industry. It's called a \"work ethic\" and it is something you have no matter who signs your paycheck. If you are different, then by all means, please remain in the private sector where you might actually do some good.
@speedwell: Gimme a break, man.
I have worked at many levels of the government as well as private industry and you know what the common factor has been no matter what? PEOPLE. In the positions I have held (in govt and PI) a vast majority of the people have been hard working, ethical and cost conscious. Some were slackers. Some had stinky breath. It doesn't matter if someone works for the government or for private industry, if they are a slacker, they will do so, if the are a hard worker, they will do so (heck, an argument can be made that govt. employees are more dedicated because they typically are paid less). It's a little thing called a work ethic. If your level or quality of work is directly related to where you work or how much you are paid, then might I suggest you stick to the private sector where you might do some good.
I curse the comment gods!
Sorry for the double post.
@THE BIG O: Can I take this a step further? If we are keeping people who don't pay taxes out of federal parks/highways/etc can we also apply this restriction to lower income families that don't pay taxes? Since, you know, they didn't pay for any of that.
You should check out Aaron Russo's documentary called \"America: Freedom to Fascism\" it's all about the legality of taxes and has some great interviews with former armed (as in guns) IRS agents, lawyers, professors, etc. on how there actually is NOT a law that requires payment of taxes on personal income. Only corporate income, as defined by the supreme court, is taxable. And to address some of the other comments on here, our government doesn't run on tax dollars, the tax dollars go to pay the interest (or part of it) on the money the government borrows from the federal reserve. That money, from the federal reserve, actually pays for everything the government does. Russo's documentary also goes into the (conspiracy) theory that the federal reserve is actually a private entity set up by the likes of JP Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc. that the government began using to finance itself using the income tax act of 1917 (I think that's the year).
This also isn't the first case decided like this, as shown in the documentary a working class women won a similar ruling (I'd love to cite a source other than the movie on all this, but it's been a few months since I watched it and I can't remember enough details to google an article to back it up, you can however check the movie's site for more details: www.freedomtofascism.com ).
Note: I'm not saying I agree with all this, and I'm certainly not qualified to argue on their behalf, so watch the movie / do your own research. I'm just presenting information as best as I can recall it.
One of the things I have found over time, is that everyone agrees withpaying the fair share in principle, but no one agrees in practise.
What I might think is my fair share of paying, someone else might are argue is to much or to little.
Then there is the question of how fair, the poor use more governmentprograms and services and cost more, it would be impossible to make thempay their \"fair share\" (since they are poor, and need those programs at agreater rate).
Now the rich, might use government programs far less (but never the less,do use them), if they paid based on use, they might pay significantly less.
Nobody wants a real fair system. Keep in mind, I am just referring toincome tax, not any of the other taxes, this guy might feel he is payingalot of taxes based on other factors.
It's a little thing called a work ethic. If your level or quality of work is directly related to where you work or how much you are paid, then might I suggest you stick to the private sector where you might do some good.
You have it exactly backwards. The quality of the job opportunities I am offered and the rate at which I am paid and promoted depend, and have depended, on my level and quality of work. That's how and why I went from a temporary receptionist position making eight dollars an hour, through an office manger position making a salary of 36K in a lawyer's office, to a third-level tech support position making 60K, in ten years.
If I worked in the public sector, I'd... oh, hell, I'd never work in the public sector. I'm not impressed by your idea of what passes for a work ethic.
Heh. I almost think you and I must attend the same church. The good ol' Church of the Painful Truth.
@trai_dep:
Were you being sarcastic?
I'm not sure if your doing a parody, or being serious, or just live in one hell of an area.
Also Peeved guy,
I think the line about slackers in government has to do with the factthat they get canned/fired alot faster in the private sector then they doin the government sector.
I had friends who could never hold a job until they got government jobs,and I am not even sure how they hell they keep those jobs.
They define slacker, nice guys, but lazy as hell, no company would tolerate them, but government pays them.
Yes, I know I spelled it \"manger\" instead of \"manager\" in my last post. Although I bet you wouldn't have noticed it if I didn't call your attention to it.
@segfault: OK, the FDA isn't so hot... I was really hard up for a third good example, though... lol
@B:
Rich white lawyers? What does his race have to do with it? Secondly good for him for sticking it to the IRS, who have been ripping off customers who overpay for years.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-70468-100x100.png\")
@speedwell: You know what would be neat? If government employees came to work with the same can-do, cost-conscious work ethic that private sector employees do.
Yeah, like the RIAA and the airlines and...wait, what website is this again? (Cost-conscious I'll give you; but can-do?)
@Sonnymooks and @speedwell:
So you both know for a fact that every single government employee is a lazy, good for nothing slacker? Really? Can you tell me the winning Powerball numbers for this Saturday?
If you've never worked in the government or worked closely with government agencies, then I suggest you get a baseline before making such sweeping statements. And if you are basing you opinion on your slacker friends not having been fired, well, maybe you need new friends? The federal government has a ranking system too, so people get promoted much like in the private sector, so I suspect your slacker friends will not get promoted very quickly, if at all.
@Peeved Guy
I do not know for a fact every single government employee is lazy, butthey are nowhere near as accountable as many in the private sector are.
And, I have often, and still do often, have to work with various governmentagencies at times to resolve various issues. In fact, some of my slackerbuddies have come in useful (did I mention government agencies tend to becorrupt?)
My guys got their jobs, I even helped a couple of them get their jobs (including one guy who got fired 6 times in 6 months).
As for the ranking systems, its bad comedy, I got one of my friends promotedby pulling a few strings, simply because he could help me out (who they passedover, I have no idea). He doesn't work hard, but he's loyal, and he is gettingpaid good taxpayer money.
If this was a private business, most of them would be (as they were before) fired.
If you've never worked in the government or worked closely with government agencies
Oh, I have. For many months, as a temp. Got tired of being angry all the time because I couldn't do my job because I couldn't depend on people to do what they were supposed to do when they promised it woulod get done. Got tired of being frustrated all the time because of the half-day's paperwork I had to do to document the real work I was attempting to get done the rest of the day. Got sick of the entitlement mentality of the career slackers who thought they deserved the job because they \"needed\" it.
Welfare reform is all well and good, so long as it starts with the welfare cheats we call government agencies.
@Sonnymooks: @speedwell:
Can I argue that the government is a well oiled machine? No. Clearly there is a reason that the slackers in our society are drawn to the government jobs.
The only reason I'm debating this is because I have a problem when I see folks start painting things with broad brush. It's not fair to the people out there that are busting their ass trying to do a good job for the money they are paid. You each cite experiences you have had working with/for government agencies, surely you ran across some folks that were worth their salt, is it fair to them to lump them in with the slugs?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-37923-100x100.png\")
The crap about people in government not working hard doesn't make any goddam sense. Everyone's got performance pressure no matter where they work. Gov't departments have to meet quotas and budgets just like private sector ones do. Individuals are all concerned about both keeping their jobs and moving up the ladder; I know I work hard at my government job so I can get the promotion I've been lobbying my boss about (actually, she's lobbying her boss for me at this point).
Long story short: Conservatives love to tell you that government is a worthless money pit. I'd say that sure it is, sometimes, but no more so than all the worthless corporations out there that have tanked and brought millions in VC funds down with them.
surely you ran across some folks that were worth their salt, is it fair to them to lump them in with the slugs?
In all fairness, not really. It's more a case of slackers being friendly and sweet people, say, or someone doing something well and thoroughly but far too late to be useful. I did meet nice people, and smart people, and hard-working people, but never anyone who was all three of those things at the same time.
but no more so than all the worthless corporations out there that have tanked and brought millions in VC funds down with them.
Might I remind you that capital is invested voluntarily? It's not a federal crime to refuse to buy stock. It's not optional to pay your taxes (unless you are a moneyed lawyer who got lucky in the courtroom) and if you try to opt out, you might eventually see a man with a gun at your door.
@speedwell: but never anyone who was all three of those things at the same time.
I honestly find that hard to believe. Not one person...? What agency is this?
@speedwell: They even fired one of their own armed investigators just for asking about it.
I'd love to see the citation on this happening. I don't doubt it, but I'd like to see the details of the story.
@transuranic: Here's the actual letter he sent to his supervisors while he was still on the job.
So, where *did* you work? DC proper, or a branch office someplace? Are we talking G-4 mailroom people you got this stereotype from, or G-14 policy wonks?
Is tax evasion now considered pro-consumer? As an American taxpayer whose tax dollars were wasted prosecuting someone who knew very well that he owed taxes, I find tax evasion decidedly anti-consumer.
Also: try posting this stuff over at Wonkette and see how quickly you get ripped a new one. Really.
For those that are more interested in learning about this watch this movie.
It contains a lot of information about the Federal Reserve and the 16th Amendment (ability of the Federal .gov to tax individual citizens?).
While anything you watch/read/hear should be taken with a grain of salt... and researched on your own, it makes for some interesting viewing.
As the opening screen says...
In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary idea. - George Orwell
@speedwell: Watch the video Freedom to Fascism (google video) by Aaron Russo. It contains several (at least 3) IRS agents who have done their own research and come to the conclusion that the 16th Amendment does not allow the Federal .gov to tax an individual's income.
As to all of you who are saying that he only \"got away with it\" because he was a rich white clever lawyer. I think all of those adjectives have nothing to do with him \"getting away with it\".
Watch the above video and see an African American woman (former IRS agent) \"get away with it\".
Do your own research after you watch the video.
@all and @speedwell
I think a lot of people are taking speedwell's comment out of true context. My original comment wasn't a \"it'd only be neat if people paid,\" even if speedwell didn't read it that way. It also requires the government to work FOR the people and not simply to exist. The government isn't perfect, and quite often isn't doing its job right.
Speedwell is very skeptical of the government's actions, rightly so. But I hope that just as the many people who visit the Consumerist work to hold corporations responsible for their violations of customer service (and reward and praise the corporations responsible for their good acts and customer service), those people hold the elected government officials (and those that make appointments) to the same high standard (no higher or lower).
We can have a government that we pay to render us effective service.
@peevedguy and transuranic:
I appreciate that you are curious about the agencies I worked for. As I see it, the only legitimate reason you might want to know is so you can protest that your agency, or the people you know, are different from the ones I worked with. I don't imagine you would be so crass as to question my credibility simply because I don't wish to share information that doesn't have any bearing on the truth or falsity of my experiences.
Part of my work ethic involves adhering to the provisions of my contract with the temporary agency that I not disclose specifics about the assignments I was sent on. If your work ethic leads you to believe that I should violate that, then you basically prove my point about the integrity of government employees, eh?
To satisfy your curiosity, I was assigned to assist managers in several agencies for a period of several weeks in each assignment. I had the opportunity to compare conditions at different places and to see the problems they shared. Therefore, when I was offered a permanent position replacing someone who decided not to return from maternity leave, I gave the matter a good hard think and decided I'd never be that desperate.
@stardeo:
Thanks for explaining. You're right; I did see your comment as if you meant to scold people who are in favor of tax reform. Please accept my apology for flying off the handle like that.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-112550-100x100.png\")
while i hate paying taxes from my meager income, i use the roads, the fire departments, the police; i know that the kids in public school today will be taking care of me when i'm a senior citizen. connecticut highways have been tax-free for as long as i've had my driver's license. for these reasons, i don't look for ways to get out of my taxes: nothing's free.
this attorney ought to be ashamed of himself. tonight, in the bar, his buddies are slapping him on the back - but when his house gets mysteriously burned or his tires get mysteriously slashed, i hope that the proper department demands payment up front.
Or check out these websites, for extensive documentation on why tax protestors (a) have no viable argument, and (b) keep ending up going to jail:
It appears that Cryer was exonerated from the willful failure to file charges because the jury decided that he truly believed he didn't owe income tax (i.e. a mens rea issue). It's unclear from the news story, but there's no indication that he's actually not liable for the tax itself.
@rebekahsue:
No highways are tax free. And you don't seriously mean to argue that the fire and police department's refusal to investigate dangerous and violent crimes, paid or unpaid, somehow benefits you or anyone else?
I had an aquaintance lose his house because he felt that he didn't have to pay taxes. Went to a seminar and everything.
Government? Efficient? Have you been to the DMV lately? It's REAL efficient all right......seriously go to the local DMV...does it run like the local Citibank or the IRS?
There's your answer.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-58523-100x100.png\")
THERE IS NO LAW! The IRS is illegally extorting money from U.S. citizens. PLEASE Watch Aaron Russo's documentary \"America: Freedom to Fascism\". He spells it all out to show what a sham the IRS is.. Bunch of thugs.
Oh, and as for all of the public services we all enjoy? PAID FOR by sales tax, city, county, and state taxes, as well as Corporate taxes.
100% of Federal income taxes they steal from us are used to pay the INTEREST on the debt the US govt. owes to the \"Federal\" Reserve, which is actually a private bank.
Abolish the IRS! Now THERE's a concept, eh?
@Imhotep:
There is a law. Period. The fact that the law (passed by Congress) is _called_ a code doesn't change the fact that it is a law.
Hello all,
I see a lot of arguments saying that we 'need' the income tax to maintain roads, education, et al.
this is a blatant lie.
road maintenance is paid for by the large taxes on gasoline you pay every time you fill up. property taxes cover the other items usually mentioned as justification for an income tax. however, the U.S. Treasury plainly says: \"The revenue from property taxes usually goes towards financing public services, such as public schools, police protection, and sanitation.\"
People are not asking the important questions. it's not as important to ask \"is income tax legal?\" as it is to ask \"is income tax necessary?\"
the scary truth of the matter is that, with minimal research, it is easy to establish that income tax does NOT pay for the things we think it does - in fact, not one red cent goes towards any type of government service.
\"So, where does it go?!\" - you may be asking.
the income tax we pay goes solely, and exclusively, towards paying the interest on the national debt - the money the government 'borrows' from the Federal Reserve [a PRIVATE bank, not a governmental agency - look it up). essentially how the system works is that the government needs money, they go to the Fed who gives them a 'blank check', the Fed than makes this money out of thin-air by printing it [hello, inflation], the government then has an IOU to the fed [just like one of us would have to a bank for a personal loan], the government has to pay interest on this loan - and THAT'S where income tax comes in. it's circular reasoning - a system perpetuating debt. ever wonder why the dollar has been losing value at breakneck speed? The Fed just prints more money whenever the government needs it, financing the government is their gravy train with biscuit wheels.
income tax was originally meant solely for corporations which makes perfect sense. however, legal or not - it's now passed off to the private citizen who it hurts the most. heck, we still pay for all those OTHER taxes that go towards the services we actually need.
Empirically, we can figure that all of this is based solely on keeping the American middle class down. the quality of life has been decreasing rapidly, instead of increasing, even though we see the stock market the HIGHEST it's ever been and other factors. the U.S. dollar is almost worthless. we have to work longer and harder to make the same amount of money that we used to. We, the middle class, are so busy keeping our heads down at our work that we don't have time to poke are head up and say \"this is rotten, it sucks and i want to make it better\". this is precisely the goal of the people in charge.
think about it, if you were rich - wouldn't you want to stay rich? wouldn't you do everything in your power to stay rich? if someone could take away that power, wouldn't you take action to prevent them? Yes. this is true of the people that ARE rich and powerful. They are scared of the American middle class because we have worked immensely hard for the little property and education we have and will not easily give it up. we are a big enough group that if we all wake up and say \"hey, we're sick of this nonsense\" and take action, we cannot be stopped.
it's almost too late, my fellow middle classers. we need to put an end to this subversive and oppressive policy of killing the middle class, the backbone of America. we're losing time though. government continues to get bigger, the rights of the average citizen are becoming less and less, the government has an insanely unbalanced budget and don't even care since they know they can always get free money from the Fed and have the middle class pay the interest on loans they never intend to pay back. WTF. how much longer is the middle class going to take this?! our founding fathers are on spin-cycle in their graves and weeping for what America has become. we've fought off one King George and then let another [the gov't] come to power.
it's not too late. 2008 elections will be the last time the middle class will have any say - mark my words.
thank you, I know that post was too long.
one more thing - I implore you to consider Ron Paul as the ONLY person who has the american citizen's best interests at heart. I know this may be an instant turnoff to a lot of you but PLEASE hear me out for a few more lines. just go to his site and pretend you have not heard a single word about him previously - ignore what you think you know or have read [you're smarter than that]. take an objective look at what he believes and listen to a couple videos - a lot of them sound the same. if you do, I'm POSITIVE you will find yourself to feel that maybe the both of you have a bit in common - that maybe your ideas on what the government should be are similar. forget the war, forget the income tax, forget abortion... don't lose sight of the crux of the problem. the fact that america needs dire help and it won't come from another politician who is only in the game to stay rich/powerful. Ron Paul is old, but he's been saying the same thing and voting the same way for 20 years. we need someone who doesn't talk out of both sides of their face. please please PLEASE - check him out OBJECTIVELY. you owe it to America as an AMERICAN. If after you do that objectively and I'm wrong, that you don't agree with him - then I'm sorry, but at least you learned something about a candidate - besides what the talking heads say on tv or websites or messageboards. If you do agree, and I'm confident you will....tell someone else and register Republican [relax Dems, it's a means to an end], so that you can vote in the Primary coming up soon.
Thank you all so much. Vive la middle-class!
ref:
[www.treas.gov]
These wackos never prevail. He won a couple of trivial cases, but he will either pay or go to jail, trust me on this.
@Imhotep: But I want to keep our government running! They give health care to the elderly and poor, and may expand it to everyone soon. They also subsidize the construction of power plants and other infrastructure. Plus, public education is probably the best way to advance society. A country with no public education will pay more for it in the end. Imagine if 30% of Americans were illiterate (This is a conservative, back of the envelope figure) because their parents could not afford school. Where would they work? Would they be as likely to obey the law? If they end up stealing because they can't get work, or Welfare/social security (As no one is paying for it), who will pay to keep them in prison?
I don't think I've ever heard of a taxless society that would really work with actual human beings.
Well that is nice and all, but public schools do a terrible job of providing an actual education. And when was a government agency ever better than the private sector company it replaced?
Uh, never.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-106897-100x100.png\")
@snwbrder0721: I've watched that Aaron Russo film. I laughed at section like IRS people quitting because there was no legal basis for why they even had a job. I think it would do alot of good for people to watch it and just stop blindly believing that whatever the government does it right.
It's the same issue with the 13th amendment. The current version is different from how it appeared in the early 1800's. We just blindly believe that what they tell us is the truth, but if you question it you find out it's not always as it seems.
I'd love to get in on this and not pay taxes too, unfortunately I'm not a wealthy attorney, so I'm not getting my hopes up at all.
\"There is a law. Period. The fact that the law (passed by Congress) is _called_ a code doesn't change the fact that it is a law.\"
I read your listed reference - which you basically copy / pasted above - and I respectfully disagree. I believe that the Constitution is not a work in progress... eg, One day Congress decides that they don't like all Free Speech, so they make a little change. Now if you are a blogger and you talk politics you could be fined.
Bull, I say!
Constitution says, Free Speech. Period.
And we were talking about the 16th Amendment, does that pertain to individuals and does that pertain to income. The more I read it (and research it) the more I think it does not pertain to either.
Will I pay my taxes, sure. Do I think the income tax is law? I am still reserving judgment. I am actually a fence sitter atm... still doing research. But I am leaning towards no income tax.
One question, possibly rhetorical... how did this country survive financially before the 16th Amendment passed? Before individual incomes started to be taxed? Don't answer me... find out the answer for yourself. What is income tax actually used for by our government?
Education? No.
Roads? No.
Jails? No.
What then? (and don't bother just rattling something off, cite it or it isn't true).
@Chicago7:
\"These wackos\"
People who try to discredit someone who spent countless hours doing research, study the Constitution as well as likely case law does not strike me as a \"wacko\".
\"trust me on this.\"
Why should anyone trust you on this? What makes you an expert? Have you even read the for vs against arguments of income tax?
People that argue coherently and present actual research / studies / case law against my stance, I respect that.
People who say, \"trust me\", I immediately think of a used car salesman and do anything but trust them.
Again, I am not saying there should be no income tax. I am saying that people need to start doing research on their own and quit swallowing whatever the main stream media, government, your family, your friends tell you.
If you are for income tax at least have some intelligent argument (including your own research) to back it up.
And if you are against the income tax please do your own research so you don't come off like an uneducated fool.
The 16th Amendment (as intended by its authors, and interpreted by the courts) pertains to individuals, and allows taxation of income from labor.
You're welcome to claim that it doesn't, but the fact remains that the organs charged with interpreting and implementing the amendment disagree with you, because your interpretation just isn't reasonable.
I could claim that the 15th Amendment allows for discrimination against light-skinned African-Americans, because the \"race\" prohibition refers to one's time in a 10k and the \"color\" classification doesn't apply because a light-skinned black person is about the same color as a heavily tanned caucasian. No reasonable person would agree with me, but I could claim it.
Listen, I can't stop you from believing what you want to believe - there's no basis in it, but go right ahead. Just be aware that Cryer's avoidance of criminal penalties is unusual, and he's still going to have to pay the taxes.
The Louisiana Supreme Court summed this up rather nicely, \"We do not believe these people that adopted the constitution understand that a tax on their wages, salaries, tips and commission is NOT an income tax\" City of New Orleans vs Scramuzza
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-46299-100x100.png\")
@Tonguetied writes: \"Pay a tax on what you consume, not on what you earn. That way savings is encouraged. The more expensive house, car, watch, clothes, etc. you buy the more you pay in taxes. It's a nice linear system that would work and be fair.\"
Actually, a pure consumption tax on all products unfairly burdens the less-wealthy, since there is a certain level of consumption spending below which one cannot go. That level is a much higher percentage of poor people's income than of rich people's, so the effective tax rate for poor folks is also much higher.
I heard someone speak the other day of a progressive consumption tax, where tax paid on essential purchases would be refunded if one's income were below a certain level. That might go some way toward making a consumption-based tax fairer. {ProfJonathan}
Just a note, and sorry if it has been mentioned already. Cryer was found not guilt of WILLFULLY failing to pay his income taxes. Basically that means he's just spared jail time. He still has to pay his passed due taxes plus penalties.
I am against income tax on my income, but I'm all for it on yours!
@speedwell: Medicare has admin costs of $0.03 per dollar administered, versus $0.30 for insurance companies. Social Security also has low overhead. Both get their jobs done at a fraction of what private alternatives do, with little waste, comparatively. Throwing a for-profit layer on top of our healthcare system is nuts. Structurally it's flawed. Single Payor is the only sane system.
The cops example was more playing to the Freeper mentality: they love hob-nailed booted, armed police. Gives them woodies. But yeah, they're wasteful and scary as f*ck if you're even slightly alternative in your choice of, well, anything. But you know, playing to the red-meat crowd. Not like they're going to say, \"No police. Anarchy, baybie!\"
Libraries are a good call, though.
@JustAGuy2: You obviously did not comprehend my posts.
Give me something to read other then YOUR opinion. Just because you say the Courts says X or the authors intended Y does not make it so.
Give me case law, give me URLs, give me books, give me at least the freaking section of the article of the freakin' Amendment where you think it says this. Give me the law.
As I said before, my mind is not totally made up. You obviously think it is, you obviously are ignorant since you are ignoring what I have said several times.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-131576-100x100.png\")
Oh yeah.. 10 years?? Here in India hundreds of people have been pulling this of for quite a long time!! ;)
Wanna bet this gets appealed?
Simple math.
What cost $1.00 in 1800 would cost $0.57 in 1913.
Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 1913 and 1800,
they would cost you $1.00 and $1.76 respectively.
After the bankers were given the power to create money (The Federal Reserve Notes) in 1913 with \"passage\" of the 16th amendment ( which added no new taxing powers) this is what we got and its called inflation.
What cost $1.00 in 1913 would cost $20.15 in 2006.
Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2006 and 1913,
they would cost you $1.00 and $0.05 respectively
[www.westegg.com]
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-39117-100x100.png\")
@TVarmy: Nobody (or almost nobody) is arguing in favor of a taxless society. Lots of people are arguing in favor of abolishing the income tax, specifically.
I agree with them, incidentally -- I support a national sales tax of around 30%, the elimination of both income and corporate taxes, and a flat (not percentage-based) rebate based on cost-of-living, which effectively makes this sales tax progressive. The platform as a whole is known as the FairTax, and has significant external support.
That said, while I very much support the abolition of the income tax, I'm not about to stop paying it in the mean time; that way lies trouble.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-132020-100x100.png\")
So easy to complain about gov't waste on this board. So hard to go out and do something about it. I think I'll go watch FCC compliant television programming. And eat a twinkie, you know, to support the private sector.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-107356-100x100.png\")
What a douche! Just pay your #%$&ing taxes like everyone else.
To the \"e-lawyers\" who want to be \"shown the law.\"
26 USC Sec. 1 imposes a tax on the taxable income of every person whose taxable income exceeds particular limits defined in the Code.
26 USC Sec. 61 defines gross income as all income from whatever source derived.
26 USA Sec. 63 defines taxable income as gross income less allowable deductions.
26 USC Sec. 6012(a) generally provides that returns with respect to income taxes under Subtitle A shall be made by every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount.
26 CFR Sec. 1.6012-1(a)(6) generally provides that provides that Form 1040 is prescribed for general use in making the return required under 26 USC Sec. 6012.
See, e.g., Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
Finally, it has evidently escaped the author's notice that there's a difference between the criminal case, in which Cryer prevailed, and the civil assessment of taxes, which he has not adjudicated. Were he to, he would invariably lose. (I haven't checked PACER to determine whether it's gotten past the IRS administrative proceedings.)
At any rate, this is just like Vernice Kuglin v. US. She was acquitted of tax crimes, but lost in Tax Court and IRS Collections has levied her bank accounts and has garnished her wages.
First of all , why in the hell did someone post Neal Bootz picture on this blog. Neal Bootz picture on this form is totally sending out the wrong message. I agree 1000 percent that we need to move towards a fair tax. For those of you that dont know pleae read your history on taxes in America.
The person that would get screw is the rich if we went to a consumption tax. HR-25 would give a prebate to people making under a certain income level.
I can't believe how many idiots keep their heads in the sand and still think schools, roads, and other such things are paid for with the income tax. Federal highways are paid for with the gas tax, local roads are paid for with your vehicle excise tax, schools are paid for by your property tax. The federal income tax only pays the interest to the Federal Reserve for printing money. Do your research before you attack those who are trying to reinstitute the constitution, which expressly prohibits anything like the Federal Reserve.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-105855-100x100.png\")
PRECEDENT!
k, all you good little sheep keep paying those taxes, just like master wants.
Hopefully before you die you'll realize that our current government leaders hate America. Our corporate execs hate America. Our financial execs hate America.
So by all means, keep paying taxes that will go to fund illegal wars, bailouts of PRIVATE companies, medicare fraud, immigrant support, disability fraud... all while we watch our schools fails, our roads fail, our sewers fail, our bridges fail, because investing in infrastructure doesn't yield exciting returns.
You guys are idiots to think our taxes are being handled correctly.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-53901-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6536-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-110882-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16798-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6170-100x100.png\")
a wha???????
seriously, I am ridonkulously confused and probably wont make my way back to this page any time soon