Supremes docket income tax challenge

WorldNetDaily ^ | Sept 26, 2012 | Bob Unruh

[wesagain]

"Colorado man's challenge to IRS says wages don't count"

The government calls those who argue the income tax has no legal foundation “tax protesters” and labels their arguments “frivolous.” And usually judges toss their arguments out of court, assess them court costs on top of taxes, interest and penalties, and sometimes even threaten them if they file further cases.

But now the U.S. Supreme Court – the nine judges who sit on the bench in Washington by virtue of their selection by presidents and confirmation by the U.S. Senate – has docketed exactly that type of case.

The results? Who knows, considering the radical arguments offered by the pro se plaintiff, Jeffrey Thomas Maehr, a Colorado chiropractor who has been involved in a number of business ventures, including PureHealthSystems.com.

Among Maehr’s contentions is that while the government has the legal authority to tax, the Internal Revenue Service has used “unlawful, unconstitutional, unfair and biased” manipulations to assess income taxes on that which is not income – essentially salaries and wages.

Basing his argument on 10 years’ worth of research into tax law, he concludes that salaries and wages are the result of the mutual agreement among participants to exchange labor for money – and that’s not income.

Income, he said, is the increased value of an asset, such as interest on money in a bank account, which can be subjected ........

[Tublecane]

You just named two different rules for different ranges of income. That right there is inequality. You say you haven’t thought through different rates fir different classes of people, as in singles versus marrieds. I’ll fill you in: it’s the same. Different rules, not equal. You find the same thing within the single class. Different rules for different individual incomes. Once again, inequality.

I don’t know how plainer I can make it. Would it help if instead of above and below $17400 dollars we said 10%for whites and 15% for blacks?

[central_va]

Repeal the 16th amendment and fund the Govt. by tariffs and levies.

[DaveInDallas]

That right there is inequality.

No it's not. Everyone is subject to the same rates for the same income. All married couples pay the same rate for income in each bracket, so there is no equal protection violation. It's been that way since 1913.

[Tublecane]

“The rules are the same for everyone”

Wrong. Different rates for different incomes means different rules for different people.

“The outcome of the application of the rules”

I don’t know where you’re coming from with this formulation. It’s not that the rates are different outcomes for the same rule. That doesn’t make any sense. The income class comes first. It determines which rule applies. If you make so-and-so one rule applies. If something else, you get another rule. This notion you have that there’s one rule makes no sense.

[Tublecane]

“everyone is subject to the same rates for the same income”

Yes. That’s the point. People with the same income have the same rules applied to them. People with other incomes get other rules. Different rules fir different classes. That is legal inequality.

“All married couples pay the same rate for income in each bracket”

Yes, but different brackets pay different rates. Different rules for different types of people. What are you not getting? Even SCOTUS didn’t deny it. All they said was it’s okay because the want if revenue trumps it.

[DaveInDallas]

Different rates for different incomes means different rules for different people.

I don't think you understand how the tax brackets work. All married couples filing jointly pay 10% of taxable income up to $17400, all married couples filing jointly pay 15% of taxable income between $17400 and $70400, etc. There is no different handling of taxable income below $17400, no different handling of taxable income between $17400 and $70400, etc.

[AntiScumbag]

Always good to see someone other than those with the tax-protester type mentality show up on these threads.

TP-types always spout the usual gibberish. They are never, ever discouraged by simple facts. Sort of like the guy in the article.

Invincible ignorance is a sad thing to watch, yet it’s on every one on these types of threads.

[tnlibertarian]

and everyone 53% writes one big, painful check on that day.

[Tublecane]

“using your reasoning it would be ok...because all black people and all white people are taxed equally.”

Bingo.

[Tublecane]

“There is no different handling of taxable income below $17400, no different handling of taxable income between $17400 and $70400”

Okay, but there would be between $17400 and below and from $17400 to $70400. That is to say there are different rules for those different groups. Why you can’t sen to admit there are different rules based on what bracket you are classed in is beyond me.

[fabian]

criminal theft

[TruthInThoughtWordAndDeed]

Dave,

Both the IRS and the courts are populated with thieves and liars. My rights are birthrights. They are not granted by a government. They are granted from heaven above. They cannot be legitimately brushed away by corrupt legislators and judges.

Evil men do evil things. They break the law. They crush other men for their own personal gain.

Yes. I am well aware that judges ignore the law. I am well aware that judges use bad precedent to deny justice to innocent men. That does not change my position one iota. It just puts me at odds with evil men.

I stand for truth and justice.

Are you with me or against me?

[DaveInDallas]

Okay, but there would be between $17400 and below and from $17400 to $70400.

Of course there is, and it's why we have a progressive tax instead of a flat tax. It's been that way since 1913 when the first legal income tax only applied to income above $4000 (no doubt earned by those evil rich people). But you cannot argue that the rules are different for different people. It clearly would be if the rates on the same income were different for people of different colors.

[Tublecane]

“I don’t think you understand how the tax brackets work”

Freeze right there. So you admit brackets exist. Let’s work off that. You would also agree that different brackets are taxed at different rates. Which means different rules apply to different brackets. Which is to say the law operates unequally on people based on what bracket they fall into.

[DaveInDallas]

Are you with me or against me?

I think you just established that you fall into the camp AntiScumbag described above.

[Darth Reardon]

When I was a kid, I made minimum wage and paid little, if anything, in taxes. Over time, I worked up to making a decent amount and paying a lot more than my fair share. For most of this year, I chose not to work, so I will pay very little. I have moved freely throughout the various marginal tax rates, but at no time did the rules themselves change due to my actions.

At no time were the rules any different for me than they were for you. If you had made the same decisions as I did, we would have paid the same amount. If I had made the same decisions as you did, we would have paid the same amount. Same for everyone in the country.

I don’t think it is anywhere near fair (and we’ll never have fairness when it comes to taxation). But the rules are applied equally to everyone.

[TruthInThoughtWordAndDeed]

Dave,

I hope you like the world that you condone. It sounds like George Orwell’s “1984”. It is bad and it’s getting worse.

All it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.

Don’t bother to reply. You are deaf and blind.

[DaveInDallas]

Which is to say the law operates unequally on people based on what bracket they fall into.

For the last time, no it doesn't. All income earned in the lower bracket is taxed at the same rate, regardless of who you are. All income earned in the second bracket is taxed at the same rate, regardless of who you are. All income earned in the third bracket is taxed at the same rate, regardless of who you are. The fact that you may not earn enough to get into the second bracket or the third bracket doesn't matter.

[Tublecane]

“it’s why we have a progressive tax instead of a flat tax”

And progressive taxes are unequal taxes.

“It’s been that way since...”

So?

“You cannot argue the rules are different for different people.”

Yes I can. You just admitted it. To my pointing out there is different handling of different brackets you said “of course there is.” That’s why we have a progressive tax. Well, I hats to have to connect the dots so tediously for you, but different rates for different brackets is different rules for different people.

“It clearly would be if the rates on the same income were different for people of different copies”

Why? I mean, why would that be so clear and different rates for different incomes obscure? Because it’s the same principle, only different means of classification. The government had to choose to divide people along income lines. They didn’t find them that way. They had to take a pair of individuals and say, “You, come here; you, stay where you are.”

[DaveInDallas]

You are deaf and blind.

All my posts have been factual and 100% correct. You've jumped all over the place, insisting first there is no law requiring people to pay taxes or file returns (false), saying only corporations can be taxed (false), saying the 5th Amendment prevents you from being required to file returns (false), and finally devolving into a rant about freedom. No one here disagrees about taxes being too high, but you appear to be a typical tax protestor jumping from one topic to another as each point you try to make fails. Someone above called it invincible ignorance, and that's exactly what it is. Good day.