America Freedom to Fascism

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But doesn't that imply that you are indeed afraid of the government finding out?

No it means like an ex wife I have no use for them and would rather they treated me likewise until the constitution is restored.

hen you can easily go to court against the IRS and win, so you should have nothing to fear at all right?

Except the tyranny of the courts.

[TevashSzat]

But how will the constitution be restored unless you try to show everyone paying taxes that they actually don't need to?

[Ice]

But how will the constitution be restored unless you try to show everyone paying taxes that they actually don't need to?

It won't work. Check the Federal Reserve thread. I posted about 10 failed lawsuits on the subject.

[TevashSzat]

If all these lawsuits have failed, doesn't that imply that the notion of the IRS being illegal is quite baseless unless the whole judicial system is corrupted of course... (that was sarcasm just to let you know)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

doesn't that imply that the notion of the IRS being illegal is quite baseless unless the whole judicial system is corrupted of course...

Lets just say most.

Did you see that link where the Jury found the guy innocent because the Judge couldnt show them the law and tried to tell the he will tell them what the law is or says? Or should I show you how these courts call SCOTUS decisions irrelevant?

[Ironside]

Lets just say most.

Did you see that link where the Jury found the guy innocent because the Judge couldnt show them the law and tried to tell the he will tell them what the law is or says? Or should I show you how these courts call SCOTUS decisions irrelevant?

Gawain you're aware that if what you say is true, then unless you'll see the fastest ammendment going through in history (with a nice retroactive part stretching to 1913), you'll end up paying much more in taxes (through VAT for example), as the state has to gain an income from somewhere or get an economical collapse (as income taxes are about 60% of the budget).

Would be hillarious to see people's faces when they see the the new prices after that VAT though.

What, you seriously expected to keep the money you gained through no income taxes?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Gawain you're aware that if what you say is true, then unless you'll see the fastest ammendment going through in history (with a nice retroactive part stretching to 1913), you'll end up paying much more in taxes (through VAT for example), as the state has to gain an income from somewhere or get an economical collapse (as income taxes are about 60% of the budget).

Why? None of this money goes to running the government. It all goes to the Fed. You people dont realise youve been duped it seems.

[Tribesman]

No he must first ask the IRS to be a wiithholding agent

Errrr...he does that when he registers as a business and employer and is not covered under any of the tax exemptions for his business .

[Xiahou]

I actually watched part of the "theft by deception" video. After over 20mins of beating around the bush he finally makes his erroneous argument before moving onto the well-debunked Constitutional argument against income taxes.

Here we can put his argument to rest:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I've omitted a lot of detail here, but, as you can see, the "operative sections" all involve situations with some connection to foreign activities. From this, Rose concludes that the income a United States citizen gets from performing services within the United States is not taxable.

Nonsense. As noted earlier, because a United States citizen is taxed on all his or her income, from whatever source derived (see section 61), for most purposes it doesn't matter whether a citizen's income is from sources within or without the United States. But sometimes it does matter. The "operative sections" of regulation 1.861-8(f) are just a list of those situations in which it does matter (for more on when it does matter, see the basic 861 page). That's all this regulation does: it lists the code sections as to which it matters whether income is from sources within or without the United States. Section 61 is not listed, because, for the purpose of determining what constitutes a U.S. citizen's gross income, it doesn't matter whether the income is from sources within or without the United States.

In the end, that's what it all comes down to. The 861 argument, as articulated by Larken Rose, contains much, much buildup, but in the end it's all based on a misunderstanding of this regulation. The regulation just provides a list of the situations in which it matters whether income is from foreign sources or not. The regulation does not show that domestic income is not taxable. The above references, and particularly code section 61's definition of gross income as "all income from whatever source derived" (as opposed to section 871's limitation to "the amount received from sources within the United States"), shows that the domestic income of a U.S. citizen is subject to the income tax.

By the way, the notion that the whole thing turns on a regulation is somewhat ironic: most tax protestors are particularly insistent that they want the government to rely on laws (which have to be passed by Congress), not just regulations (which come from a government agency such as the IRS).

link

I can't believe I actually wasted almost half an hour of my life listening to his droning nonsense- I want it back.

In case anyone still believes Rose's nonsense, it's worth pointing out that he tried his argument in court and was found guilty, and sentenced to 15mos in prison for failure to file a tax return.

Rose, a former co-owner of a medical transcription business, was convicted by a jury in August 2005 of five counts of willfully failing to file federal income tax returns. The evidence at trial established that Rose did not file returns for 1998-2002 despite earning $500,000 in income during those years. Rose claimed that he did not file returns for those five years because he believed that income he earned in the U.S. was not taxable according to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 861. The evidence, however, showed that Rose received more than a dozen notices from the IRS rejecting his Section 861 argument and that he received more than ten letters from members of Congress notifying him that his Section 861 argument was invalid. In addition, Rose admitted that he was aware of two court cases rejecting his Section 861 argument.

[The Wizard]

You know, you don't even need to drag all these laws and constitutions into all of this. Even down here on the European continent I can argue, based on idealist law theory and just plain and simple political philosophy that the state has no right whatsoever to steal my income for it to use to further its own power-mongering ends. It's my money. Why should I submit to organized, legalized theft on a massive scale? Why should I fund state repression?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Give this a try

Zeitgeist - The Movie: Federal Reserve (Part 1 of 5)

[Tribesman]

Give this a try

Errrrr...right , so the twin towers was a controlled explosion done by a bunch of satanists who run the world in the name of Christianity and control the worlds banks .....did I miss anything out Gawain ?

[Furious Mental]

"It's my money. Why should I submit to organized, legalized theft on a massive scale? Why should I fund state repression?"

Your money is printed by the government. It means something only because the government promises to redeem it and protects it integrity, just as your bank account (which is nothing than a debt owed by your bank) means something only because a bank can generally be trusted to pay on demand. To use money is to implicitly submit to the rule of the government whose laws give it more than just intrinsic value, and to submit to the obligation to support said government. You can take the position you do only because you know everyone else won't. If everyone did then the government would collapse and, although it would stop taking your money, your "money" would then be completely worthless.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Your money is printed by the government

No its not its printed by the Fed. Those are Federal Reserve Notes. Besides even the US government is not allowed to print paper money. At least according to the constitution.

[Furious Mental]

For all intents and purposes it makes no difference. The integrity of American currency depends on the American government.