Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Taxes: Does one have to pay

Rate this topic


NIJamesHughes

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

As a moderator I deleted my own post, and yes, I did inform myself via PM of that action.  :thumbsup:

Why did you delete it?

Why did you delete it six days after posting it?

Knowing that three people had replied to that particular post, why didn't you leave some sort of note about the deletion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did you delete it?

Why did you delete it six days after posting it?

Knowing that three people had replied to that particular post, why didn't you leave some sort of note about the deletion?

That is between the poster and the moderator who deleted the post. Since the moderator is no long here, I guess all you can do is speculate.

Seriously though, I deleted it because it was inappropriate and hateful. I deleted six days after I posted it because thats how long it took me to get my attention back to it with the help of BL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I did a search in the threads for the question I am asking, but came up with nothing as similiar. If there are any threads with this information, please provide me with the link. Thank you.

Have there ever been any court cases against the government (local, state, or federal) for the use of taxes? In other words, has any one ever sued the government for the force of taxes?

or, are there any courts that have spoken out about the issue - ie. supreme court.

If so, can you please provide me with the case name(s) so I can look them up online.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have there ever been any court cases against the government (local, state, or federal) for the use of taxes? In other words, has any one ever sued the government for the force of taxes?

or, are there any courts that have spoken out about the issue - ie. supreme court.

If so, can you please provide me with the case name(s) so I can look them up online.

Here are some cases you may wish to read about:

Vivian Kellems

Oklahoma Ratification Challenge

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I must admit that I'm not too familiar with online chat rooms and forums; therefore, it might be that my question is out of place...

Yet I will appreciate a more serious answer.

Thanks!

Edited by Maty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet I will appreciate a more serious answer.
There is probably an agent of the government who, at some indirect level, processes some of what's posted here with some data-mining program, sniffing for terrorists. If you plan on posting classified secrets, I would think twice about that. But if you want to make nasty comments about the government (yours or ours), it will have no consequences for you unless you plan on running for public office. Oh, wait, Canadian law is somewhat less tolerant of politically incorrect speech. Be cautious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, the board is based in a country where the freedom of speech is deeply enshrined in the law. Every day, on almost every TV channel, people criticize the government and comedians poke fun of politicians. Across the country there are peaceful political meetings and political rallies, probably every week. Even as we speak, there is an "anti-war" group camping near the president's house. In summary: the U.S. government does not persecute people for political protest.

Secondly, we are not anarchists here. If you search the forum, you will find some discussions on the "Rule of Law". You will be hard-pressed to find a member advocating overthrow of the government outside the political process. Indeed, many members are so strongly supportive of a rule of law that they are willing to comply with laws that they themselves believe to be immoral, not just because they might get caught, but out of respect for the principle of having a rule of law. In summary: this is not an anarchist board.

If you want to discuss why some government action is right or wrong, or if you want to criticize some politician, then I do not see why you would worry. If you want to argue about the principle of why one should or should not comply with the law, then I do not see why you would worry. However, if you want to (say) plan a bank robbery or something like that, then you'd probably have more than a few members (myself included) criticizing you and -- if practical -- reporting it to the authorities.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just wandering if anyone knows how safe is this forum? In terms of posting information that might not be liked by the government...

(I guess you can never be too careful...)

Which government are you concerned about, in particular?

Yes, you are right to be careful, but I know of no reason for an objective person, applying Objectivism to all of his actions and following the Forum Rules for this forum, to worry about government retaliation.

As a general rule, however, I would suggest that any time anyone participates in an open discussion group like this one, the writer should assume that some government official somewhere is watching. The same caution goes for "private" crazies too.

Be careful? Yes. But I see no reason to not participate in Objectivism Online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the replays.

I can assure you that neither anarchism, nor bank robbery are of interest to me.

The reason I asked was because I have learned an issue on which, I hoped, I might find some more information...Yet; I believe that it is not to be discussed here.

Aside from that I will most definitely participate in the forum.

Thanks again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I asked was because I have learned an issue on which, I hoped, I might find some more information...Yet; I believe that it is not to be discussed here.
If you haven't seen the guidelines, take a look here. So for example promoting religion or communism is contrary to the purpose of this board (and is proscribed behavior). This does not mean that if you are genuinely confused about why Objectivism is incompatible with Christianity that you cannot ask such questions (though reading Rand's writings is the best way to learn the answer to that question, and I think most people would be rightly impatient with a person who cannot see the answer from some basic reading of Rand).

This part of the rules may be most useful (emphasis added): 'participants must not use the website to spread ideas contrary to or unrelated to Objectivism. Examples include religion, communism, "moral tolerationism," and libertarianism. Honest questions about such subjects are permitted. However, since the focus of this forum is the philosophy of Objectivism, such questions are not encouraged.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't worry about that, Dave.

I admire Ayn Rand's Achievement, and accept Objectivism throughout its whole structure. (Leaving aside a minor mistake as to the nature of perception)

If I wasn't following Objectivism, I would have no business being here.

(I'm not familiar with the forum well enough; but people here seem to be serious) I must admit that in most encounters I've had with people who were also familiar with Ayn Rand and her philosophy, I was disappointed; They were worst than all the rest! (Before, I thought that I was alone. After, I wished I was...)

As to the issue I referred to; it was not regarding the forum, but something I have learned about the status of income tax...Yet, as I said, I believe it would be unwise to discuss it here.

I hope that clarifies my intentions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the issue I referred to; it was not regarding the forum, but something I have learned about the status of income tax...Yet, as I said, I believe it would be unwise to discuss it here.
Every decent reader here howls mightily about the obscenity of paying taxes, so objecting to taxes would not be a special cause for concern. If it were, they would have hauled most of us off years ago. Arguing that there is some provision in The Constitution which makes income taxation illegal has been done here before, so there's nothing special. Now, if you said something like "Last year, I just added two zeros to my deductions and they never caught me!", they might be watching and taking notes. You've piqued my interest -- what in the world would be unwise to say about taxes here? -- but don't say anything that could be used against you in a court of law. The bottom line is that I think it's unlikely that the government would notice what you say here: maybe 1 chance in 100. or even 1 in a 1,000. Still, there's a risk -- one that is only slightly more than saying whatever in a coffee shop.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to the issue I referred to; it was not regarding the forum, but something I have learned about the status of income tax...Yet, as I said, I believe it would be unwise to discuss it here.

I am guessing that you are referring to Subchapter N, Section 861 of the U.S. Tax Code. If so, you don't need to worry about the subject being "too dangerous" to discuss here- it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the link and information, I guess it is not as unknown as I thought it was, although around here people don’t seem to know (or to care) about the issue...They seem to believe that they get a fair deal for their tax money. Well, I guess you can see why I was careful about it; although I know my rights, I know that (unfortunately) rights are not an immutable shield anymore…

I first learned about it on a visit to Mexico.

During a dinner I met two Canadians who, apparently, came there for a certain learning session. The first point is that this course was taught in Mexico, because it

was illegal within Canada (the reason of that will soon be obvious).

The course, as they explained, dealt with the issue of income tax.

Or, if to be more precise, with the fact that there shouldn't be an

income tax. Now, that in itself was no surprise to me, as it wouldn't

be for anyone who accepts the philosophy of Objectivism. What I

didn't know was that according to the constitution, which was

mentioned in the previous massage, the government has no right to

claim income tax. Or force a person to pay it. (It can even be

illegal to pay it...) The government, not (yet...) having the power to

erase the laws of the constitution, issued directives to bypass it.

(which, apart from making it a few times bigger then it's original

size, also enabled them to get around everything that stood in their

way...)

To solve their "income tax problem" for example, they issued all

government related cards such as driver's license, Health card, Social

Insurance, etc. with your name printed in capital letters. I don't know

how many people ever wondered about it, or even noticed it...

I know I didn't.

Now, this part is a little hard to follow, but what they created

using these cards is a virtual person which, thanks to their

directives, could be forced to do and accept anything... including

payment of income taxes. All that was left for them to do was to make

the real person except the virtual one as himself, which wasn't too

much trouble. (As I said, how many of us had the time to notice it...)

And thus, the U.S. and Canadian citizen was caught in their web! Yet,

as I understood, if a person knows how to "legally" claim that his

‘legal’ identity is not his true identity i.e. 'SAM JONES', is not

'Sam Jones, he is practically out of their reach. (Income taxes, or traffic tickets...)

The problem is that one has to know how to do it right (in the sense

of knowing to use the right information from the constitution in court.

Which is by now, as I said, a few times bigger then it's original size)

The other problem I thought of is that, as I believe, the (morally) right thing is to do is to let people know about it and exercise their rights (for a change). Yet that, in turn, brings an economical breakdown upon America. (Assuming most people stop paying income tax)

For as far as I know, and I'll admit that I possess less knowledge in that field, most of America's economy is built on the tax payer's money...

Anyway, I was wondering how many of you know about it and/or have further knowledge on the subject of the fraud...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
And I emphasize:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So who wants to be the one to take it before the Supreme Court?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good thinking, but unfortunately this is no good. The Supreme Court rejected this argument and upheld the constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

Edit:

Inspector, the mere presence of the Sixteenth Amendment doesn't mean this is a bad idea. I don't think you should give that kind of response to a person you don't know. You may just be turning them off unnecessarily. It's good thinking to try to challenge constitutional provisions as inconsistent with other provisions. Sadly, this argument has been flatly rejected, but the thinking is to be praised.

Edited by Groovenstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you propose getting around Article 1, Section 8 which states "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

Then there is the 16th Amendment which authorizes an income tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...