No Law for U.S. Income Tax (2/2) Videos

RetSquid Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - Read WILLIAM MOBLEY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE to find out more about the different courts. Tax courts are not Article III courts, but they are courts.

orlofskye Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - [...the 16th Amendment gave congress 'No New Taxing Powers'. They can not tax anything they could not tax before the 16th.]Amazingly, thats true, but irrelevant to prove your point eklypse. You misinterpret that statement by assuming that income was not taxable before the 16th amendment. All the 16th amendment did was relieve income of apportionment requirements, but it was already legal to tax income in 1913.

eklypse0 Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - You haven't given me your magic number of what no longer constitutes slavery or indebted servitude.That should be something seriously considered rather then just a flippant remark quoted by a judge.

eklypse0 Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - That would be protected under Article 9. There are many-many court cases that provide that private contracts, for your labor, are a right and not a taxable activity.

eklypse0 Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - [All the 16th amendment did was relieve income of apportionment requirements, but it was already legal to tax income in 1913.]I never said that the taxation of 'income' was not legal and constitutional before the 16th amendment was in place.But Income is not compensation for labor.How else would you account for the 'fact' that before 1945, only approximately 3.6%of the American population paid any income tax?My arguments support this fact. Your's doesn't take it into account.

eklypse0 Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - So, would you please explain to me how your theory, backed up by court decisions, that by 1913 and the time the 16th was entered into the books that 100% of the earnings of the entire American population was subject to an income tax. How the IRS's own statistical data by 1945 shows only 3.6% of the population paid income taxes.Now please, can you reconcile this fractured reality in your mind and come up with a plausible explanation?

orlofskye Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - [But Income is not compensation for labor]Laughable. Section 61 IRC defines gross income as "all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services..."Its the first one listed! Even so, I'd love you to show me just 1 court ruling that supports you. Here's 1 of MANY that supports me."[I]f anything in our tax law is clear, it is that: 'wages are income.' ... [A]ny contention to the contrary is patently frivolous..."

orlofskye Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - [please explain to me how your theory...that by 1913 and the time the 16th was entered into the books that 100% of the earnings of the entire American population was subject to an income tax.]Could you please explain to me why they weren't?? Don't even bother with Pollack, because the 16 amendment clearly overruled it.Regardless, the supreme court even stated in 1916 that taxing income was "an authority already possessed and never questioned."

eklypse0 Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - I have told you why they were not several times in this thread alone. The reason why 96.4% of the American population believed they didn't owe any income tax by 1945 is because income does 'not' mean everything you earn.Income is specifically based on making money from 'federally controlled or owned' properties and earnings. These items are not rights. They are privileges that may be taxed as a fee of use, and there for also qualifies as the 'voluntary' aspect that keeps being mentioned.

eklypse0 Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - [Read WILLIAM MOBLEY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE to find out more about the different courts. Tax courts are not Article III courts, but they are courts.]There is the trap I set for you. If 'Includes' is as powerful as you believe it is, Tax Court _would_ have, no questions asked, been covered in the definition of 'courts' by the ruling. No one disputes it is a court, but the _term_ 'court' as defined, did not include it in its embrace. Includes didn't include courts, then add to it.

eklypse0 Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - ["[I]f anything in our tax law is clear, it is that: 'wages are income.' ... [A]ny contention to the contrary is patently frivolous..."]'Wages' are paid to 'employees'.Law Construction rules require that the meanings of words in a list take the meaning of the company they are with.Every item in the list defining 'employee' is based on a government worker or corporate officer. Corporations are government licensed entities. Notice they included Officers of a corporation, but not the workers.

orlofskye Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - You have provided zero proof congress did not have the power to tax income prior to the 16th amendment. You just keep saying things with no evidence. The fact that 96% of people didnt pay before 1945 proves nothing.

orlofskye Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - [Law Construction rules require that the meanings of words in a list take the meaning of the company they are with.]Wow, you're absolutely nuts. Courts have continuously ruled income to take its everyday meaning in context of tax laws. Do you even have any evidence (yet again) to support your claims?

eklypse0 Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - I have hard mathematical statistics to back up my 'claim'. You merely have the opinions of men in power.You have yet to give a good explanation of how, after 33 years after the 16th amendment was in place, 96.4% of the American people did not pay an income tax. A bare minimum, giving every consideration to 'your' side, would be no lower then 20% more likely 35%.In fact, you keep avoiding hard data and repeating the words of men rather then using your own judgment, morals and common sense.

eklypse0 Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - [The fact that 96% of people didnt pay before 1945 proves nothing.]It proves that Income Tax did not apply to the great, nearly unilateral, majority of the American population, only a tiny fraction, despite your continual ranting that it must have because 'other' people said so.You, on the other hand, carry opinions as your 'hard' evidence. They are the opinions of powerful men, but only opinions none the less. They do not face the reality of the statistics they would like to bury.

RetSquid Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - Sorry, Bud, there is no 'Article 9' in the Constitution.

RetSquid Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - "That should be something seriously considered rather then just a flippant remark quoted by a judge."Well, however he said it, it is the Court's interpretation of the Law.

eklypse0 Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - [Sorry, Bud, there is no 'Article 9' in the Constitution.]Try reading the Bill of Rights. It and the Constitution are meant to go hand in hand.

eklypse0 Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - [Sorry, Bud, there is no 'Article 9' in the Constitution.]Doesn't make it the correct decision, despite the black robes and hammer.So, again, would you please answer, at what percentage of taxation is the magic number from slavery and free?

RetSquid Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - I'm not quite sure what your thinking is on this, but:Tax courts are not "included" in Article III courts (Title 28) because they have been specifically defined in in Title 26.

RetSquid Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - There is no "Article 9" in the Bill of Rights either!If you are refering to the 9th Amendment:"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."Are you reading this to be a 'right' to NOT be taxed??? Is that supposed to supersede "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..."

RetSquid Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - "Doesn't make it the correct decision, despite the black robes and hammer."RIGHT! But it does make it LAW!"So, again, would you please answer, at what percentage of taxation is the magic number from slavery and free?"I have no idea! But, since slaves don't get paid they don't have to pay ANY income tax!

RetSquid Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - As defined by I.R.C. section 7701(c), the use of "includes" does not exclude anything otherwise within the meaning of "employee," so "employee" includes what you would normally think of as employees, as well as some things you might not ordinarily think of as employees, such as elected officials of state and local governments.Daniel B. Evans Tax protestor FAQ

RetSquid Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - Can you give a reference to you '96%" stat?Maybe 96% of people didn't make enough money to qualify for income tax.Personally, I've NEVER PAID INCOME TAX and the IRS has never come after me!!Probably because I get more back than I put in. :)Thank you for that 6 grand I got 'back' this year!

eklypse0 Says:

Sep 8, 2008 - [you are refering to the 9th Amendment:]If it is part of the original constitution, it is one of the Articles (I though X), not an amendments. An amendment (XI+) are what happened after the original document.I absolutely have a right to make a living in common occupations and not be taxed on them.Income Taxes are Voluntary and Indirect Taxes. You may work in situations that are taxable, but to make a normal living, you don't have to place yourself in those situations.