Posted on 08/09/2007 6:55:18 AM PDT by Vigilanteman
The Sixteenth Amendment DID NOT authorize the federal government to tax your PERSONALLY earned wages, but only that part of your wages that is PROFIT, or GAIN above and beyond what you gave up in order to receive them. Can you say what part of your wages are above and beyond your personal investment in earning them? Neither can the government. So it LIES to you by saying in PUBLICATIONS, like its Form 1040 Instructions, (WHICH ARE NOT LAW) that you must report and pay taxes on ALL of your wages . . . even that part that is not profit.
The Supreme Court has, over and over, told the government that it cannot impose an income tax on anything but the profits and gains. Although the law does not tax your wages, the government PUBLICATIONS claim that the "basis" or "cost" you give up to receive your wages is worthless, ZERO!
(Excerpt) Read more at gcstation.net ...
Not really. He's still firmly in Reynolds territory.
No--the head of the IRS will say, "By golly--you're right," and no one will ever have to pay income taxes again.
A government "form" is part of the law. Has been the case since the publication of the Constitution itself ~ which is why it's signed.
And "profit"? If the amendment meant "profit" it would have said "profit" and not "income from whatever source derived".
You gotta' go after the word "income" and get it deleted from the Constitution. Otherwise, you're just blowing light smoke.
Here's a thought--maybe we should call someone's tinfoil musings a "Reynolds Rap."
I don't think so. But that still will not save him from a fed gov bullet.
Yep. Sounds to me like another verse in the Reynolds Rap.
The income tax is a huge morally wrong concept.
First it punishes based on what you contribute to the society/economy.
Second, in order to enforce it, the gov’t requires you forfeit your 5th amendment rights to be “secure in your persons and papers” by requiring disclosure of your income.
The taxing of labor is inherently repugnant. If the fruit of your labor is not yours, any portion of it, you are a slave.
I do not consent to this form of government. I want my free republic back.
Yup ~ so pay. In the meantime see if you get a different amendment. I’d propose this one ~ when you die your assets will be distributed to your 500 closest relatives equally, with the government receiving a stipend for enforcing the arrangement.
In a word, or a website:
www.fairtax.org
The way to beat the 16th amendment is not by interpreting new meaning into the constitution as the liberals do, but to restore our Federalist Republic. Take the 10th amendment seriously, limit congressional terms, and repeal the 21st amendment. Then either severely limit the 16th amendment or move to a national sales tax.
google < karl frank kleinpaste >
It’s a fascinating tale. He did a whole lot of “legal research” on income tax, that sure looked good on the internet.
He’s in prison.
Federal judges, who are appointed for LIFE, have great salaries, benefits, and retirement paid for by taxes are going to agree, too.
And then we’re all going to ride unicorns to work, live in mansions, and date supermodels.
AMEN!!!!
I agree and have a strong suggestion for a beginning.
Let's throw the communist inspired, class warfare inducing, income tax onto the ash heap of history, where it properly belongs, and go to something more in keeping with what the founders intended!
“Take the 10th amendment seriously, limit congressional terms, and repeal the 21st amendment.”
You had me up until that last part. Aside from my personal preference for a cool beverage from time to time, repealing the 21st Amendment (thereby reenacting the 18th) would limit the states’ rights. If my neighboring state want’s to be dry, that’s up to them.
I’m not suggesting that these folks have a legal case.
However, in financial terms, income = profit.
The “income” of a business is its profit after deducting expenses. When one looks at the financial data of a company whose stock one is considering, one may look for, among other things, the net income of the business, which is its after-tax profit.
Indeed, I own a small business, and the "income" on which I'm taxed are not my gross receipts, but rather my revenues minus my legally-allowed expenses, which is to say, my profit.
However, tax law, or the IRS, or someone with the authority to throw me in jail says that things like my home mortgage, my non-business car expenses, my groceries, are not expenses tied to the production of my revenues, and thus are not legitimate costs to be subtracted from my revenue to calculate my income. That, in spite of the fact that I would die of exposure without shelter, I would die of starvation (after a very long period of time, LOL) without food, I couldn't conduct business without my clothing, etc.
sitetest
if you cannot be double taxed... then why do i pay tax on items i buy, with money that was taxed originally when i earned it??
I think we can accomplish much of what we need by merely scrapping withholding. And doing that won’t require a constitutional amendment.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n3-1.html
EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING: THE MACHINERY OF INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
Charlotte Twight
Taxes are the backbone of any politico-economic regime. Constraints on a government’s power to tax are constraints on its power to act. Focusing on the legalization of mandatory federal income tax withholding through the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, this article examines forces that have eroded constraints on the U.S. government’s power to tax.
The central questions this article seeks to answer are how, why, and to what effect—despite preponderant public opposition to universal income tax withholding between 1914 and 1942—mandatory withholding was established in 1943, and sustained thereafter. It is an important question, for withholding is the paramount administrative mechanism enabling the federal government to collect, without significant protest, sufficient private resources to fund a vastly expanded welfare state.
snip
If this is true, then we should be able to deduct travel expenses to and from work, meal allowance for lunch, work clothes, etc. Makes sense to me and I wonder why this has not been allowed before.
Does this mean the Fed gov’t owes me for all the income tax I paid for thirty-five yrs?
Yes, it says “income.” But the word is a term of art. It is defined in the law as profit.
Good point. Another thing that makes no sense is that you get taxed on your social security “contributions” immediately but genuine contributions to a 401(k) or IRA are exempt until withdrawn.
Search the entire internal revenue code and see if you can find a definition of the word “income”. Get back to me with your results.....I won’t be holding my breath.
I was quoting 11th Commandment and was commenting on the suggestion to repeal the 21st amendment. If it was a typo, then my response was pointless. I agreed with the other ideas.
Creative lawyering has never amused the IRS. Good luck, pal.
The government will take their pound of flesh from you one way or another, like a 25% flat tax on all goods.
I wouldn't be opposed to a flat tax, as long as there are exemtions for certain things, like housing.
Then of course the state would want their share as well, probably another 25%...
He's also a scammer, since he's now trying to solicit donations based on BS, and will probably be disbarred.
Since the 16th conferred no new taxing power, why would you care?
That "someone" who granted the authority to throw you in jail is Congress. Deductions are a matter of legislative grace.
The reason that there is no deduction for personal living expenses is that you would have to expend those sums to live, regardless.
Some ignorant "tax protesters" think that their personal living expenses are deductible. They aren't.
If you don't like current law or the current state of legislative grace, talk to your representatives.
It's a matter of legislative grace. Call you Congressman or Senator.
Are you delusional?
Gross income has nothing to do with profit.
You're a moron.
Anyone other than a TP can easily find the defintion of gross income in 26 USC 61.
1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
Anyone other than a moron such as yourself can also find the defintion of net (taxable) income in the IRC. Try 26 USC 63.
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).
“Deductions are a matter of legislative grace.”
That’s hardly a conservative perspective. The legislature should serve the people; it should not properly deign to grace us.
That aside, the legislative particulars governing business expenses and costs are based on underlying financial definitions and realities. Congress didn’t just invent ideas like the cost of goods sold out of thin air.
I acknowledge that the legal definition of income comes from positive legislation. Nonetheless, the underlying definition of income is that income = profit.
“The reason that there is no deduction for personal living expenses is that you would have to expend those sums to live, regardless.”
Yeah. You could call that overhead. Businesses have overhead, too. Some of the overhead that businesses incur get incurred whether or not the business does any business at all. As an example, if I don’t pay the taxing authorities in my state the annual fee to keep my business entities incorporated, well, my business will literally expire.
“Some ignorant ‘tax protesters’ think that their personal living expenses are deductible. They aren’t.”
I have no idea why you’re addressing this to me. I’m not one who thinks that they are deductible. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a respectable argument to be made that they should perhaps be deductible, all or in part.
sitetest
DOH! 17th amemdment
At one time many states had "gross income" taxes. They were frequently at very low rates. They've moved to "net income" taxes, just like the federales, and the rates are higher.
The word "profit" definitely means something that falls within the meaning of the word "income". On the other hand, the fact that you have an "income" doesn't mean you have a "profit" ~ you could, for example, have extensive losses (on paper) becauses of the fall in value of an asset.
Before the income tax was added as an amendment everybody in the country pretty well knew what an income tax was about. It was sold to the public on the basis that it would apply only to the very rich, e.g. the Warren Buffets and Bill Gates of this world ~ and would bring those guys down to a more human scale.
Turned out the guys peddling the income tax figured out how to make more money out of the poor. Bill Gates' crowd, of course, figured out how to slither out of the tax.
You lose.
I said, find anywhere in the IRC where it defines the WORD “income”; not “gross income”, not “net income”. You will not find it.
I know, your argument is that everybody knows what “income” is. Uh-huh, peruse the tax code and you will find painstaking examples of defining terms even more basic and simple than the word “income”. Why not the same attention to detail for “income”??
Your trivializing of his arguement shows ignorance - either you did not read the details of his arguement, or you did not understand it.
For example, your interpretation that ‘income from whatever source derived” means ‘any receipt of cash’ has been explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court.
The Income Tax Law recognizes that some receipts are not taxable income, and do not have to be declared - and the income tax law only imposes tax on “taxable income”.
The Supreme Court has held (many many times) that where there is ambiguity in the tax code, the Court must give the benefit of any doubt to the taxpayer, that any tax liability must be plainly and clearly expressed. The Tax code does not explicitly say that 100% of the money given to a person in exchange for their labor consitutes “income”.
So ... his arguement is that the tax law must be strictly construed, and there is no explicit declaration that money in exchange for labor consitutes income.
For more, take the time to read his arguement at http://www.truthattack.org/cryer_MEMORANDUM.pdf
A summary of his trial appears in:
Tom Cryer’s Trial Summary (IRS loses!)
TrialLogs.com ^ | July 13, 2007 | By Gary Thomason
Posted on 07/26/2007 9:33:01 AM PDT by ovrtaxt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.