Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Taxes: Does one have to pay

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Sorry, forgot the winky-smiley thing. It was supposed to be a humorous ribbing. :worry:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be noted, several people of the anti-tax persuation have solid legal arguments that will stand up in court. The proof is in the pudding: the IRS refuses to take them to court, and they openly (and loudly) do not pay their income taxes.

The existence of the IRS, if one does a bit of research, is really just de facto. If challanged in court, they will not be able to stand up to it. Thus, they don't take people to court who know that and are prepared to fight them.

Link to post
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.

Good question, the only thing I could think of is that taxes are collected "for the common Defence and general welfare of the united states." that is to say that once the military costs and vitals (education, postal service, police, fire and the like) are covered there is no need to collect taxes.

Therefore, you could argue that the collection of an income tax is unnecessary on the grounds that once other taxes are collected the government should have enough to pay for the essential elements of government. The remaining capital collected through income tax is usurped from the higher income bracket and spent not on the general welfare of the united states (that is to say, ALL OF US in the United States) but on specific individuals who have not earned it.

The first essential element of balancing any budget is getting rid of any non-essential spending, THEN you find a more efficient means of aquisition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Good question, the only thing I could think of is that taxes are collected "for the common Defence and general welfare of the united states." that is to say that once the military costs and vitals (education, postal service, police, fire and the like) are covered there is no need to collect taxes.

Why is education vital? If we include education in vital, then we can also include welfare, roads etc. and there is no limit to what the government can tax for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not care whether taxes are legal. I care that they are immoral. Morality creates law, not the other way around. When morality is taken from the law, moral men become outlaws. It is said that any Moral goverment would be free to take over a goverment that commits atrocities upon it's people. Is THIS a Moral Country?

Ayn Rand said that in it's founding principles that America was a moral country. If taxation isn't moral and was a part of the founding principles then how can this be true?

Link to post
Share on other sites
It should be noted, several people of the anti-tax persuation have solid legal arguments that will stand up in court. The proof is in the pudding: the IRS refuses to take them to court, and they openly (and loudly) do not pay their income taxes.

The existence of the IRS, if one does a bit of research, is really just de facto. If challanged in court, they will not be able to stand up to it. Thus, they don't take people to court who know that and are prepared to fight them.

Since the Income Tax is clearly an excise tax (indirect tax) my question to any de facto government "official" is what activities are subject to that tax and what law makes citizens liable?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Good question, the only thing I could think of is that taxes are collected "for the common Defence and general welfare of the united states." that is to say that once the military costs and vitals (education, postal service, police, fire and the like) are covered there is no need to collect taxes.
Education, postal service, roads, fire departments, groceries and the like are not a vital aspect of government. The only correct function of government is to control the use of force, thus a government only requires money for police, military and courts; and furthermore, that money should not (and does not need to) derive from coersion. The first thing to do is elimate taxation entirely. It will follow from that act that the only aspects of government that will persist are the proper areas of government, those pertaining to protection of individual rights.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Education, postal service, roads, fire departments, groceries and the like are not a vital aspect of government. The only correct function of government is to control the use of force, thus a government only requires money for police, military and courts; and furthermore, that money should not (and does not need to) derive from coersion. The first thing to do is elimate taxation entirely. It will follow from that act that the only aspects of government that will persist are the proper areas of government, those pertaining to protection of individual rights.

I agree with you completely, but the government does not. The only way around the "general welfare of the people" loophole would be to accept that there will be some services which (while I believe as you do that they would be better served by those in the private sector) which would be allowed to continue on the grounds that they don't benefit any specific individual more so than any other.

We agree, it's just that i'm talking about an arguement that would be constitutionally sound and you're talking about the way it ought to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How is income tax indirect? The Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional (prior to the 16th amendment) for being a direct tax.

The question of whether an individual income tax was a "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution did not arise until the Union enacted an income tax during the Civil War. The Supreme Court followed the opinions from the Hylton decision and ruled unanimously that an income tax was an "excise," and not a "direct tax," and did not need to be apportioned among the states. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880).

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Supreme Court followed the opinions from the Hylton decision and ruled unanimously that an income tax was an "excise," and not a "direct tax," and did not need to be apportioned among the states. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880).

And even later cases reversed that decision, declaring it a direct tax. Which was among the reasons the 16th Amendment was passed.

In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal income tax. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the income tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html#Am16

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The contention that the[16th] Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

This statement was confirmed and explained by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), in which the court stated that "by the previous ruling [in Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation...."

Let's move on to my original question that I make only to explore that avenue. "What activities are subject to the excise tax called the Income Tax?" Please site the law in which those activities are noted, and also the law which makes US citizens liable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...)

IMO14th Amendment created the 2nd class citizen you are referring to. All Citizens of the united States became US citizens. People are now viewed by corporate government as "legal fictions" or "corporate entities". Sam Jones has become SAM JONES. (Check your birth certificate and all government issued cards). This allowed de facto corporate government to legislate their opinions (in the form of statutes) and force citizens to obey the "will of legislators". The final aspect of the fraud was enforcement of fraudulent statutes by a corrupt judicial system. When you hear a judge say "this is my court" that's literally what he means. Trials are administrative in nature where the plaintiff (the state) and defendant (a citizen) are both legally corporate entities having no rights, only privileges.

After reading the 861 evidence it fits right in with what I suspected all along, that the Income Tax is an excise (indirect) tax which does not apply to domestic income. I'm still waiting for anyone (in or our of government) to cite the law which identifies the activities subject to Income Tax.

A person's income can not be taxed directly, therefore, there must be an activity or activities subject to taxation, with income only being used to determine the amount of tax due.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 years later...

*** Mod's note: Merged with an existing topic. -sN ***

To start off with, I must give credit where credit is due. All of this comes from http://www.anti-irs.com/, but it's very long winded. so i'll make it short and sweet. I would like to start off that evading paying your taxes (to start off with) will cause a ton of problems, and will make your life a living hell.

so, let's begin. First, a crash course on the income tax and the income tax-return. In order for the income tax to work it requires the income tax return. whenever the IRS thinks you short-changed them on your taxes, they will use your return as evidence against you in a tax fraud or evasion case. this means that the income tax return can be used as evidence in a court of law, meaning that, if it were mandatory, it would be in direct violation of the 5th amendment to the constitution (You have the right to incriminate yourself) and as such, the income tax is considered voluntary (which it obviously isn't, due to the massive fines you can be issued against you if you don't as well as tax evasion cases).

Second point, in order for a case of criminal tax evasion to be brought against you, you must be found to have willfully and evilly(I find that part ironic) evading paying taxes.

lastly, if you're confused, don't worry, this last part will make sense of it all. If you don't ever want to pay taxes again, it's as simple as this. Your weapon is the fifth amendment. Step one, you must go to legal counsel (a lawyer, etc...) and ask them if there is a way to file your tax return without voluntarily waiving your fifth amendment rights (there is not, so this step is easy). ask them to write an opinion letter stating that they know of no way to file your tax return without waiving your fifth amendment rights. Next, and this is most important, make sure that throughout the year you keep up on your taxes (that way they can't nail you with criminal tax evasion) but don't worry, you'll get it all back. on April 15th you mail in photocopies of the legal counsel opinion letters (you can only not file a tax return under the advise of counsel) with a cover letter stating that you have found no method of filing a tax return without waiving your fifth amendment rights (cite the attached opinion letters) and that you will not file until the IRS can advise on how to file without waiving your rights. it would also be wise to point out that your taxes cannot be used until you have filed your return. Then, at the end of the letter, state that you wish for you letter to be an informal claim-of-refund.

Then, you sit back and wait. You see, there is no way to file without waiving your fifth amendment rights, therefore, the IRS will either sit around and do nothing or they will give you your refund (in order to avoid court, which is the next step)

When 6 months roll around(legal amount of time for the IRS to handle claims of refund) and they have not replied back and have also not given you your refund, then you sue them for the full amount of your refund. the court proceedings will be easy and quick, because, in order to win the IRS Reps have to prove that there is a way to file a return without waiving your fifth amendment rights (which, there is not).

there you have it, you have all your taxes, no criminal cases can be sought against you (you are neither willful or evil, just a conscientious citizen) and you can't be charged with tax evasion (you tried to pay your taxes, but you couldn't file a return).

if you need further clarification, go to the link above.

And why did I put this in activism? Because I think going Galt should be ( and is) possible, but not as hard as some people try and make it out to be.

Edited by softwareNerd
Added 'Merged ' note
Link to post
Share on other sites

By the time you've asked if not filing a return would violate your 5th Amendment rights, you have already acknowledged implicitly that not paying your income taxes would be illegal. Awareness of a crime before its willful commission itself provides the evidence necessary to prosecute.

This guy's 6 wins against the IRS in 30 years seems extremely fishy to me. He's either not effective (too few wins in a long time frame) or the wins represent cases not connected with this scheme. That's fraud either way you cut it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-IRS.com loses all credibility in claiming that the IRS cannot legally require the filing of tax returns. This is a well-known falsehood. That nutter Ron Paul actually advocated the "Taxes are illegal" line during the last election. These guys are apparently unaware of the difference between the moral and the legal, and between fact and fantasy.

Edited by DavidOdden
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would first like to point out that this method requires you pay your taxes (as in, they will be withholding all of you tax money until they either refund it or you win it the suit) and the only reason that you can ask for it back is that they can't use it if you have not filed a return, but plan to (which is what you are doing).

and yes, his 6 cases are unrelated (I read his entire "book" searching for info), but they pointed out that the IRS cannot "force" you to file, you must do it voluntarily(naturally, if you don't file, they can hit you with pretty nasty fines, but it's still your "choice") nad he brought this point up to the tenth court twice, and both times the judges said his point was mute (he can't be forced to waive his fifth amendment rights) explicitly because the filing is considered voluntary.

I agree with you, the income tax is very legal and very enforced. what isn't, however, is the filing of your tax return. if you pay taxes and never file a return, you would be, technically, in the realm of the law. but they still hit you with nasty fines so that you file the next year.

And while I do agree that his front page makes him seem like a nutter, the actual method has sound logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anti-IRS.com loses all credibility in claiming that the IRS cannot legally require the filing of tax returns. This is a well-known falsehood. That nutter Ron Paul actually advocated the "Taxes are illegal" line during the last election. These guys are apparently unaware of the difference between the moral and the legal, and between fact and fantasy.

Do you think it's not against the fifth amendment for the IRS to legally require a filing of tax returns?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think it's not against the fifth amendment for the IRS to legally require a filing of tax returns?
Let's look at what the 5th amendment says:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on 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 offense 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.

The possibly applicable clause is "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". Filing a tax return is not a criminal case against the taxpayer. This is totally open and shut.

Link to post
Share on other sites

David, the one problem with that is that a return can be used as evidence in a criminal tax evasion or fraud case. since it can be used as evidence, it could be said that by filing one you are potentially bearing witness against yourself. as well, the return says this itself (in the fine print).

so yes, in order to file your return, you must waive your fifth amendment rights.

Link to post
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...