Let's see how far this tax protestor/ evader goes with arguments

[dude58677]

Show me where he said that.

And I'm not an agent of the government, calling me that won't change that. I don't know what the State law means, so I ask. I won't believe him without doubts, but I want to hear it first.

It was in the "The Revolution: A Manifesto". He talked about the underground economy being the real economy a number of times on LewRockwell.com

If you were a real Ron Paul supporter, you would know this. You would know about TenthAmendmentCenter.com which tracks all of the State Nullification legislation. You would also know that the Constitution is not a living document and is to only be understood by it's original intention and that includes the original intention of the 16th amendment. So as mentioned before, drop the act.

 

[onlyrp]

It was in the "The Revolution: A Manifesto". He talked about the underground economy being the real economy a number of times on LewRockwell.com

If you were a real Ron Paul supporter, you would know this. You would know about TenthAmendmentCenter.com which tracks all of the State Nullification legislation. You would also know that the Constitution is not a living document and is to only be understood by it's original intention and that includes the original intention of the 16th amendment. So as mentioned before, drop the act.

Ok, maybe you're right. I don't accuse you of advocating crime or civil disobedience, but if I'm going to be called an agent or a fake supporter just because I didnt read Ron Paul's book, I'm done arguing with you. I'm not offended by being called an IRS agent, its just not true and doesnt further the discussion (maybe that was your point).

 

[Steven Douglas]

so legal tender just means "forced to accept as debt settlement", but not "forced to accept as payment for other goods"?

Yes, federal legal tender laws force you accept whatever is declared legal tender as payment of debts. If no debt is established, you are free to reject anything as payment, including Federal Reserve notes.

but it's not illegal to use gold coins or any other barter in place of circulating currency. so what has this law done?

You missed the parts I wrote about a) not taxing it, b) not treating it as a commodity, c) officially recognizing it as "legal tender" a form of lawful money in the state? Those are substantial in and of themselves. The state of Utah has also, by that one act:

Made people more aware of gold and silver coin as being something VERY different from Federal Reserve currency. Most of the sheeple in our country don't have the foggiest idea what the Federal Reserve OR the dollar is, or the history behind it. Now people are talking about it, and I consider that a very good step in the right direction.

The Act also encourages people in Utah to save and circulate in gold and silver coin, if that is what they choose, and to even establish means - which would be protected by the State - for storage and seamless electronic transfers between "legal tender" media. In other words, you can eventually save in gold and silver and use debit cards to spend it, as well as receive the same on account, or in your "holding" if it's not an account. Straight across, seamless exchange - no differently than if I am in a country buying something in Euros or Pesos, but paying in Dollars. Only I would be doing that here, in my own country, buying something that is priced in dollars, but paying for it in RIGHT NOW equivalent silver or gold. That is NOT the same as that inefficient, impractical, and practically worthless "barter" that anyone can do now. If it isn't generally circulating, it won't compete. If it is, it will.

Also, calling it "legal tender" prevents detractors and utter morons from trying to poo-poo it by saying, "Yeah, but it's not legal tender."

Moreover, as systems are put in place, and more coinage circulates, Utah will be the ONE STATE with infrastructure in place should the Fed's dollar start taking a major shit all over the place. Utah's infrastructure could provide a badly needed channel for that wonderful thing called CAPITAL FLIGHT.

Meanwhile, my "holdings" are valued quite differently than straight USD Fed Notes. That's fun for both of us, because those who have lots of faith in Fed Notes, which are GUARANTEED to lose value over time, can still have them. Meanwhile I can prefer to transfer all the Fed Notes forced on me as payment of debts, and immediately convert them to gold and silver coin, to stop the hemorrhaging of value.

There's more to it than that, including legal ramifications that I don't want to be bothered with talking about, but to me that's a pretty good start.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

if I'm going to be called an agent or a fake supporter just because I didnt read Ron Paul's book, I'm done arguing with you.

Yes, good idea: stop pointless argument, start reading Ron Paul's book. Win-win-win.

 

[onlyrp]

Also, calling it "legal tender" prevents detractors and utter morons from trying to poo-poo it by saying, "Yeah, but it's not legal tender."

that's nice, but I don't think you or any legislator was suggesting that the law was made so that one smartass can say to another smart alec "It's legal tender, har har"

 

[dude58677]

that's nice, but I don't think you or any legislator was suggesting that the law was made so that one smartass can say to another smart alec "It's legal tender, har har"

The author of the legislation was a Ron Paul supporter.

 

[seraphson]

It was in the "The Revolution: A Manifesto". He talked about the underground economy being the real economy a number of times on LewRockwell.com

If you were a real Ron Paul supporter, you would know this. You would know about TenthAmendmentCenter.com which tracks all of the State Nullification legislation. You would also know that the Constitution is not a living document and is to only be understood by it's original intention and that includes the original intention of the 16th amendment. So as mentioned before, drop the act.

It was also mentioned in "End the Fed" by Paul. What's the point of this thread? To argue whether or not we should/should not have an income tax? I thought Paul noted the Income Tax was unconstitutional?

 

[onlyrp]

It was also mentioned in "End the Fed" by Paul. What's the point of this thread? To argue whether or not we should/should not have an income tax? I thought Paul noted the Income Tax was unconstitutional?

the point of this thread is, there's a difference between not paying your taxes because you disagree with the law on moral grounds, vs believing you know the law and are above it.

 

[dude58677]

the point of this thread is, there's a difference between not paying your taxes because you disagree with the law on moral grounds, vs believing you know the law and are above it.

Such an intellectually dishonest comment. You as an IRS agent think YOU are above the law.

 

[Enforcer]

Such an intellectually dishonest comment. You as an IRS agent think YOU are above the law.

I agree. If you want a bottom line: Tax protestors have taken this matter to court as both plaintiff and defendant, believing with all their heart and all their soul that not only is the 16th Amendment unconstitutional, but that there is NO law that requires and individual to pay taxes on the fruit of their labors. A lot of people KNOW the law and the IRS cannot show them where they are required, by law, to pay an income tax.

The IRS and the courts think THEY are above the law. They have the POWER to enforce unconstitutional laws, but they lack the AUTHORITY. Unfortunately, silence is acceptance and I have no intention of accepting tyranny and oppression no matter how "legal" our in house fed wants to argue it.

 

[onlyrp]

Such an intellectually dishonest comment. You as an IRS agent think YOU are above the law.

calling me an IRS agent just because I don't agree with your arguments, or in some cases, know less than you, isn't either nice or honest, so I don't care what you call me at this point.

 

[onlyrp]

I agree. If you want a bottom line: Tax protestors have taken this matter to court as both plaintiff and defendant, believing with all their heart and all their soul that not only is the 16th Amendment unconstitutional, but that there is NO law that requires and individual to pay taxes on the fruit of their labors. A lot of people KNOW the law and the IRS cannot show them where they are required, by law, to pay an income tax.

The IRS and the courts think THEY are above the law. They have the POWER to enforce unconstitutional laws, but they lack the AUTHORITY. Unfortunately, silence is acceptance and I have no intention of accepting tyranny and oppression no matter how "legal" our in house fed wants to argue it.

let's just say I care about who has power, not permission or authority. I dont doubt people believe what they say, but i know they dont get far.

I asked for Marc Steven's case, no details, I asked for Banister's case, no details. People who want to give examples dont even know their best one.

By the way, the law is here, whether you want to obey it or whether you think it applies to you, go explain it in court, I'm not the one with power.
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IRSrefuses.htm

 

[dude58677]

calling me an IRS agent just because I don't agree with your arguments, or in some cases, know less than you, isn't either nice or honest, so I don't care what you call me at this point.

Hey don't even try to take the moral ground. Don't even try! You are making it easy for me to think you are an IRS agent. I have been a libertarian for 10 years and I know how to spot a fake. You have not demonstrated in anyway that you have a sincere interest to understand libertarianism.

Even when everyone shows where you are wrong, you try to get the last word in. This is so typical of statists when they debate online. They don't care about the facts and instead try to wear the other person down. They ignore everything else the other person is saying, take everything they say out of context, repeat the argument as though it has never been adressed, and pretend to be stupid.

 

[dude58677]

let's just say I care about who has power, not permission or authority. I dont doubt people believe what they say, but i know they dont get far.

I asked for Marc Steven's case, no details, I asked for Banister's case, no details. People who want to give examples dont even know their best one.

By the way, the law is here, whether you want to obey it or whether you think it applies to you, go explain it in court, I'm not the one with power.
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IRSrefuses.htm

Might makes right and the rule of law doesn't matter. Well if that is how we are going to play the game, then there is an underground economy in every country around the world and therefore it is right to evade. You WANT the IRS to be above the law because you are part of the IRS.


You will go on to the next victim and outright lie to them.

 

[kuckfeynes]

The 16th amendment contradicts and nullifies Article 1. Thus it is unconstitutional. Plus, it was never ratified anyway. The courts say, well it's 100 years precedent now, as if that addresses the problem at all. No, naturally it is in their best interest of power to maintain this very strong precedent. But that does not change the fact that there is a big glaring contradiction in the law they are "interpreting." And by ignoring this contradiction, that means the courts are above the law, which therefore means the courts ARE the law. And you had better learn to submit, lest they use their self-appointed right to engage in violence with you. So while for practical purposes refusing to submit could be considered putting oneself above the law, one can hardly say that the government does not set the ultimate example.

Also, I hope anyone making the accusation of another being "above the law" never exceeds the speed limit...

 

[Exiled_LFOD]

So someone hit me up and asked me why I haven't come back and posted under a new name and fight the good intellectual fight. Despite that Josh and Bryan can kiss my a@@ for the perma-ban I am going to respond to this OP.

Go be a slave and may your chains be worn lightly.

I will not. I will continue to resist. I will continue to endure unwelcome, unjust persecution. I do not do it for you or anyone else, nor do I expect you or anyone else to give a rat's ass about people who take personal risk resisting tyranny. I exercise the gift of free will resisting tyranny for my own self satisfaction and I expect you to live your life pursuing your own self satisfaction.

But you will not claim ignorance of your bondage. The sword of truth shall strike at the heart of your ignorance. Your happiness or misery shall be measured by your actions. May you serve a just master who cares about your well being and may you serve your master well.

On a side note since this is the only thread I have read around here, I am not impressed. For a group of people that claims to support and understand the Constitution how can the subject of taxation not have a wide spread common understanding? I mean seriously.... after all this time... The historical record is available. Every act of Congress can be researched along with every Supreme Court decision. I mean if you are going to make a minarchist appeal to authority why don't you people pull your head out of your butts and become the most educated people on the subject of taxation?

There, I posted... don't plan on doing it again because arguing with you people doesn't make me happy and it's pointless. Of the ways to effect change I have often repeated:

1. Kill the majority
2. Convince a majority
3. Geographically organize a majority
4. Breed a majority

... only one of those is strategically viable in my lifetime based on present poll numbers and it's not number one, two, or four. So until a viable effort for number three spontaneously occurs I will likely remain apolitical, isolated, and unengaged.

Truth Warrior, old friend... I miss your company... live well dude...

 

[Danke]

So someone hit me up and asked me why I haven't come back and posted under a new name and fight the good intellectual fight. Despite that Josh and Bryan can kiss my a@@ for the perma-ban I am going to respond to this OP.

Go be a slave and may your chains be worn lightly.

I will not. I will continue to resist. I will continue to endure unwelcome, unjust persecution. I do not do it for you or anyone else, nor do I expect you or anyone else to give a rat's ass about people who take personal risk resisting tyranny. I exercise the gift of free will resisting tyranny for my own self satisfaction and I expect you to live your life pursuing your own self satisfaction.

But you will not claim ignorance of your bondage. The sword of truth shall strike at the heart of your ignorance. Your happiness or misery shall be measured by your actions. May you serve a just master who cares about your well being and may you serve your master well.

On a side note since this is the only thread I have read around here, I am not impressed. For a group of people that claims to support and understand the Constitution how can the subject of taxation not have a wide spread common understanding? I mean seriously.... after all this time... The historical record is available. Every act of Congress can be researched along with every Supreme Court decision. I mean if you are going to make a minarchist appeal to authority why don't you people pull your head out of your butts and become the most educated people on the subject of taxation?

There, I posted... don't plan on doing it again because arguing with you people doesn't make me happy and it's pointless. Of the ways to effect change I have often repeated:

1. Kill the majority
2. Convince a majority
3. Geographically organize a majority
4. Breed a majority

... only one of those is strategically viable in my lifetime based on present poll numbers and it's not number one, two, or four. So until a viable effort for number three spontaneously occurs I will likely remain apolitical, isolated, and unengaged.

Truth Warrior, old friend... I miss your company... live well dude...

Too bad about the perma-ban. You should post more often now with a new username, though I see your point why you don't plan on it.

 

[Enforcer]

let's just say I care about who has power, not permission or authority. I dont doubt people believe what they say, but i know they dont get far.

I asked for Marc Steven's case, no details, I asked for Banister's case, no details. People who want to give examples dont even know their best one.

By the way, the law is here, whether you want to obey it or whether you think it applies to you, go explain it in court, I'm not the one with power.
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IRSrefuses.htm

First off, you want to provide a site where you spend hours looking for that elusive law that does not exist. How childish! Read the law and define the terms using legally accepted terminology. No law exists... just references to references that don't address this issue.

Secondly, I was in the fight against the income tax for years. NOTHING happens over-night, but before the conservatives came along with this hysteria over so - called "illegal immigration," we pretty much had the fight won. How?

I had revoked my Socialist Surveillance Number.... ooops "Social Security Number" Since paying the income tax was "voluntary," I had to figure out what I did that had me volunteering to pay it. It was that silly SSN.

The "conservatives" came along with that National ID crap and forced everyone to use a Socialist Surveillance Number as the basis for their new National ID Cards that are a part of the REAL ID Act.

We might have to start the fight over, but I'm inspired by the liberals. You see, while I am not a liberal and cannot support their agenda, I admire their willingness to fight. For example, in 1948 the liberals tried to get the Genocide Treaty through the Senate. It got 11 votes. Every year they fought and every year they lost... sometimes it was major loss type of losing. In 1986 the Genocide Treaty became law. By contrast, onlyrp comes along and says that everybody goes to jail over the issue and so we should just comply. He offers no hope and sees no future.

Our forefathers left us with both the means to resist tyranny and oppression and the responsibility. They even warned us that it would be necessary to use all the avenues of redress at our disposal. We are to exhaust all of our nonviolent political / legal remedies; however, at no time are we required to submit to a yoke of slavery if it comes down to it.

In the upcoming election, the Federal Reserve is under severe scrutiny. Soon, the IRS and the 16th Amendment will be on the front burner of American politics... provided we do not become influenced by our in house IRS agent, onlyrp. In the final analysis, those who are throwing up the legal assaults on the unconstitutional income tax are paving the way to victory.

 

[onlyrp]

First off, you want to provide a site where you spend hours looking for that elusive law that does not exist. How childish! Read the law and define the terms using legally accepted terminology. No law exists... just references to references that don't address this issue.

Secondly, I was in the fight against the income tax for years. NOTHING happens over-night, but before the conservatives came along with this hysteria over so - called "illegal immigration," we pretty much had the fight won. How?

I had revoked my Socialist Surveillance Number.... ooops "Social Security Number" Since paying the income tax was "voluntary," I had to figure out what I did that had me volunteering to pay it. It was that silly SSN.

The "conservatives" came along with that National ID crap and forced everyone to use a Socialist Surveillance Number as the basis for their new National ID Cards that are a part of the REAL ID Act.

We might have to start the fight over, but I'm inspired by the liberals. You see, while I am not a liberal and cannot support their agenda, I admire their willingness to fight. For example, in 1948 the liberals tried to get the Genocide Treaty through the Senate. It got 11 votes. Every year they fought and every year they lost... sometimes it was major loss type of losing. In 1986 the Genocide Treaty became law. By contrast, onlyrp comes along and says that everybody goes to jail over the issue and so we should just comply. He offers no hope and sees no future.

Our forefathers left us with both the means to resist tyranny and oppression and the responsibility. They even warned us that it would be necessary to use all the avenues of redress at our disposal. We are to exhaust all of our nonviolent political / legal remedies; however, at no time are we required to submit to a yoke of slavery if it comes down to it.

In the upcoming election, the Federal Reserve is under severe scrutiny. Soon, the IRS and the 16th Amendment will be on the front burner of American politics... provided we do not become influenced by our in house IRS agent, onlyrp. In the final analysis, those who are throwing up the legal assaults on the unconstitutional income tax are paving the way to victory.

The law is right here, you either didn't look or don't recognize it. Very typical for somebody who believes he is above it.
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

 

[Deborah K]

Have you looked at the actual 22 categories of income that are taxable if you do not just send in a cheque or get refunded for previously confiscated funds owed by proxy or error? Most here don't owe a dime in income tax according to the IRS. There is a recent book called Cracking The Code that gives step by step walk through of the actual law on the IRS books and how to get refunded for what you have paid if you do not fall under the 22 categories. It works, BTW, as Ike Hall, the Georgia RP campaign head used this book to obtain full refunds for him and his wife for the previous three years and file 0.00USD for that year.

HTH
Rev9

This. And read "Constitutional Income: Do you have any? by Phil Hart
http://www.constitutionalincome.com/

The issue of direct v. indirect taxes has been debated in Congress beginning not long after the constitutional ink had dried. From page 1898 of The Annals of Congress (the 4th Congress, 1797) Representative Williams from New York was recorded as reminding Congress of the Roman example of direct v. indirect taxation.

"History, Mr. W. said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon the luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Roman Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."

By the late 1800s and up until the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913 the people of this country demanded their legislators levy an income tax on accumulated wealth. This was because families such as the Camegies and the Morgans were virtually untaxed and controlling national politics with their vast and ever-increasing fortunes. By reading the Congressional Record, House and Senate documents, newspapers, magazines, law journal articles of the time and the writings of the people who were intimately involved in the development of the 16th Amendment, we will find that the intent was to tax the annual profit from unincorporated businesses and the net annual income from personal property. Wages and salaries from labor were not considered income within the original meaning and intent of the 16th Amendment.

Taxes on labor, as currently collected by the IRS as an "income" tax, cannot be described as anything other than a direct tax.

Senator Norris Brown from Nebraska, the man who wrote the 16th Amendment, defined clearly what income was and what the income tax was intended to accomplish. Not once did Sen. Brown mention that Congress intended to pass an amendment that would grant the federal government a new power to directly tax the wages or salaries of working people.

These comments are from the forward to the book, Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?

Read this book to discover how our civil leaders have defrauded you and the rest of the hard working people of this great nation of their hard-earned wages. They have squandered the money on social programs that have fostered laziness and bred criminals -- all for the sake of political power. You need to read the rest of the story -- Order your copy of the book today!

Notice:

Much of the information presented in this work is taken directly from Congressional Record, court case opinions and court files. The information has been provided in this format to give the reader a new perspective on the income tax, based upon the intent of those who debated the issue at the time the 16th Amendment was offered for ratification. The author sees himself as only a messenger bringing forward information from established legal authorities.

The reader should realize that defending one's rights is risky, especially against big government. The right to pursue happiness has been denied to many Americans who have found themselves destitute after entanglements with the tax collector. How the reader uses the information in this book, either directly or indirectly, is not the responsibility of the author.

"There is no art which one government sooner learns of another, than that of draining money from the pockets of the people." Adam Smith (1776), Wealth of Nations, pg. 532 (Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York 1991)