is it the same tax, just a different name from a different perspective? Or am I confusing that with payroll taxes?
Let's see how far this tax protestor/ evader goes with arguments
- Thread starter onlyrp
- Start date
is it the same tax, just a different name from a different perspective? Or am I confusing that with payroll taxes?
I believe you are what they call in computerspeak a troll. Here are the FACTS:
If you work for an employer for a living, he might be asked to get information on you as per the federal government. When you ask the employer, they will trot out something called an "I -9" form. If you look carefully on that form, the branch of government that "requires" you to submit the information, it is immigration officials. Well the real deal is, BICE has no jurisdiction in tax matters. The entire Department of Homeland (IN) Security is a cabinet department of the federal government. The IRS is a private corporation.
I used to have a letter that was sent to me by the Socialist Security Administration. It plainly stated that whether or not an employee ever gave the employer their SSN is a private matter between the employer and employee.
onlyrp has not answered my previous questions; we've been obliged to respond to his silliness. Outside of identifying this individual as a troll, there are some other names, but I digress. onlyrp, you need to answer questions when you're asked.
Last edited:
I am sorry, so many people respond to me at once, what questions did you ask me that you want answered?
The citizens of Utah are exempt from income taxes because they have a gold standard. There was never a gold standard in America before 1943 which was the year the tax witholding was enacted. It is also the first time a State used a different currency then the US government since the founding era.
Last edited:
Utah has a gold standard?
Steven Douglas
Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,956
To be clear, Utah - the only state in the union to comply with its federal Constitutional mandate - only declared gold and silver coin issued by the federal government as legal tender in that state, and therefore exempt from certain types of state tax liability. [Link to Utah H.B. 317]
The law "...does not compel a person to tender or accept gold and silver coin...", and "...provides that the exchange of gold and silver coins for another form of legal tender does not create any individual income or sales tax liability". It also provides for "...a nonrefundable credit established for any capital gains incurred from the exchange of gold and silver coin issued by the federal government for another form of legal tender."
It is not an exemption from income taxes, per se, but income derived as the result of an exchange between US minted gold and silver coin (not bullion, not foreign coin) to another form of legal tender. That, in itself, does not create any individual income or sales tax liability. At the state level only. That has nothing to do with federal tax liabilities, which no state can dictate.
EDIT: The bill, now passed into law, also provides that the legislature:
- study the possibility of establishing an alternative form of legal tender;
- recommend whether an alternative form of legal tender should be established; and
- prepare any recommended legislation for the 2012 General Session
2012 will be an interesting year for Utah. They're the only state that actually encourages its citizens to build life boats, which has fiat-lovers and defenders everywhere spitting their mocking venom.
Last edited:
sounds about right.
No, it isn't logically possible for the US government to be able to tax a differnent currency even though it doesn't specify that in the law. So the federal courts or IRS agents is going to try to interpret
Utah law? The other thing is that this is State Nullification so it wouldn't matter what the federal courts say as that is the whole point of it.
Last edited:
if you think you can avoid taxation by bartering, go ahead.
http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html
"state nullification" is useless unless you actually have state police, judges on your side, which doesn't happen when California marijuana dispensaries are raided.
It is legal for Utah to have a gold standard under Article 1 section 10. There is nothing the federal government can do about it.
I also don't think the IRS ever thought that Utah would have their own gold standard.
As far as the medical marijuana is concerned there are 14 States that have their own laws.
Finally, State Nullification is one of the cornerstones of our movement. We passed a law in Wyoming called the Firearms Freedom Act which nullifies federal gun laws and federal taxes on guns. Federal agents can go to prison in they violate the law. No one has violated the Wyoming law.
Last edited:
Okay, I will repeat the post with a cut and paste:
"You're voting for Ron Paul? Are you serious? Why? Why are you here? Ron Paul's campaign is one of revolution against the powers that be.
It doesn't make any sense for you to be here, onlyrp. It was meticulously explained to you. It is the argument of a simpleton to make this "I'll cherry pick the laws what laws apply to me." One has to hand it to you. You are shameless in subverting the information you have just been given.
So, let's try this:
According to onlyrp, we should obey every law without hesitation or reservation. If the United States Supreme Court says that you must turn in your weapons as they did in Great Britain, then you should comply. If the government forces you to accept Muslims into your home and accommodate them on private property, you should do so even though you listened to Sean Vanity and believe Muslims to be the devil incarnate.
You should never challenge unconstitutional laws. You should go along to get along. The only place you can protest is at the voting booth because America is a Democracy. In a Democracy, the majority rules and we get our rights via the government because God does not exist. Anyone that would dare challenge government / god is an enemy of the state and ought to be killed in the streets like you would do to a rabid dog... oh wait, can't shoot a dog, they have more rights than those conspiracy theorists.
Is there anything else I missed about your position, onlyrp?"
onlyrp, in trying to analyze your posts, you are acting like an agent for Homeland (IN) Security rather than someone that wants to exchange ideas for a better America. You don't look at the information you are provided. You appear to be consumed and in awe of the POWER that government exerts versus the AUTHORITY that they are given by the Constitution.
A man enters a bank and draws a gun, demanding the money of the bank and the customers. He obviously has the POWER. But, the act of robbing a bank is illegal, so the robber lacks the AUTHORITY. That is exactly where we are today with respect to government. Taking control of Congress, the Senate and the Presidency may be steps in the right direction to resolving the issues, but they may not always be the only answers. If you had your way, you would deprive the rest of America from using all the avenues of redress available to them.
Frederic Douglass, a former slave, knew what it was like to FIGHT for Liberty and Freedom. He said:
“If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
The facts are, the establishment types have illegally ratified both the 14th and 16th Amendments; they have subverted the Constitution; they have illegally changed our form of government from a constitutional Republic to a de facto (illegal) Federal / Legislative Democracy that is owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations. What you seem to expect is for us to sit on our collective asses and do nothing. We can vote for Ron Paul, but until we make sure that the unconstitutional laws and tyrants are given no peace over these unconscionable acts, we are whizzing in the wind.
To the rest of you, I say this:
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain
If onlyrp is "with" us in a quest for Liberty, someday, when we succeed, he can quit being timid and become a patriot. I fear that he is not a patriot for he is always openly attacking the fundamental principles of Liberty: The Right to speak out against injustices AND the Right to use passive resistance and civil disobedience to unconstitutional laws. If left in charge, onlyrp has made it abundantly clear that he / she would deprive you of many avenues of redress that exist for our benefit. He /she has shown nothing but disdain for those who would challenge tyranny. Furthermore, by trying to employ the same Big Lie techniques as Hitler observed and commented on many times, onlyrp hopes to bolster his case by the constant repetition of an error.
I have asked onlyrp some serious questions. He / she cannot and will not honestly answer them. I will leave you with same advice another person gave me relative to onlyrp:
Never argue with an idiot. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Last edited:
I thought we just established here that the federal government can and does violate their own law?
You are correct that the IRS never thought of that, what's your point? Like Steve said, it's not a gold standard, as it's not a new currency.
I don't care what is the "cornerstone" of your movement or belief, when was the last time State Nullification was exercised?
And you didn't even challenge my point, that medical marijuana raids have never been protected by state agencies.
I'm voting for Ron Paul because he's honest and consistent, and I want lower taxes. Among other things, but I vote to change laws, and don't challenge laws while they are in place, at least I try to. It's not so much that you should abide by all laws without hesitation, nor is it about whether a law is constitutional. In my view, it's about what price you're willing to pay, for myself, I prefer to abide if the consequences are cheaper, consequences for breaking a law can be a warning, a fine or some prison time, plus legal defense, not all laws are equally hard to break, and not all are equally harsh in punishment, so I choose what's best based on the outcome. Not all laws are enforced equally either, so I generally abide by whatever is most enforced and most punished.
Does that answer you?
No. You have not answered me - except like a typical politician would answer a tough set of questions. For those on the front lines, they do not want nor do they need someone hiding in the midst of people willing to fight for Liberty to be a back seat driver and criticize them for things he, himself lacks the courage to do.
Is challenging the law safe? No it is not. I took advantage of a holiday a few days ago, so let me repeat this for you:
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." (attributed to MLK)
I think the above is a paraphrasing of another quote:
"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good."
Samuel Johnson
In either event, you are showing that when you're being measured, you keep coming up short.
what kind of answer are you looking for and how better could I have answered you?
Which question did I dodge? I answered why I am voting for Ron Paul and I told you my position on abiding laws. What else did you ask that I didn't answer to your satisfaction?
paparazziparks
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 15
Banister's famous case, where he helped Walter Thompson, didn't go too well. Thompson lost and was sent to prison. Banister was disbarred and is currently under investigation. He was also convicted of not paying taxes in 2008 for 2002 returns. In the Thompson trial, Banister claimed he paid his own income taxes and that Thompson was a liar.
Tommy Cryer got acquitted because he said he had no criminal intent. He said that, at the time he didn't pay taxes, he didn't believe that he had to pay taxes. It would be like someone jaywalking and saying that he didn't know jaywalking was illegal. He still jaywalked, but believed that he wasn't breaking the law. He didn't use the "income tax is illegal" argument when he got acquitted. In fact, when he used that argument in previous cases, he lost. He's now on trial for tax evasion again.
donnay
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 42,534
But of course, because when you go up against a corrupted system the deck is usually stacked against you. I applaud these men for having the courage of their convictions and standing up to the tyranny.
Everyone has to draw their line in the sand and pick their fights carefully against the leviathan.
paparazziparks
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 15
How correct, moral, or brave each man has been is not what I was disputing. I was disputing your claim that they "won". onlyrp said that tax protesters have lost in their court battles. You used those two people as examples to the contrary. I was pointing out that your assertion was incorrect, as they did not win in court when they said that they didn't have to pay taxes.
paparazziparks
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 15
All I've seen him argue is that protesting taxes, from a pragmatic point of view, in light of how well people have fared in doing so, isn't a good idea. He doesn't see it as a bulletproof enough argument to win in court, and I think he's right, just from looking at who tried to do so and their success rate. This doesn't make him a troll or anti-Ron Paul. Have you refused to pay your taxes? Has Ron Paul?
Like it or not, people who protest taxes are seen as narcissistic, selfish, and dogmatic. Being seen this way by society makes it hard to win sympathy from anyone. Some see it as heroically standing up for your belief in individual liberty, while others see it as being a selfish free rider who thinks he's above the law.
I think the OP also takes issue with someone who claims the government has no authority over him, which is what the guys in the article said. Only anarchists believe what these guys believe, so to act like the OP's point of view is crazy is, well, silly. Ron Paul is not an anarchist.
Revolution9
Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2007
- Messages
- 9,323
I pay what I owe. You overpay and I guarantee you do. Yer a sucker on a troll whilst being trolled by those who suckered you into thinking you owed them more than you do by the actual law. And you think yer so frikkin' smart. You don't understand you are just pure clownage with yer bogus dangerous dog and rabid pony routine trying to put some kind of trepidation mech in everybody's boots..
Rev9.
Similar threads
