Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE EVIL GENIUS OF WITHHOLDING
Insight Magazine | December 9, 1996 | By Kenneth Smith

Posted on 01/18/2003 12:42:39 AM PST by Uncle Bill

THE EVIL GENIUS OF WITHHOLDING

Insight Magazine
By Kenneth Smith
December 9, 1996

Step aside, Steve Forbes. You too, Jack Kemp. Nice try, Bill Archer. It's time to make way for Washington's real tax reformer, whose contempt for the tax code is second to none. Of the World War II origins of the federal withholding tax, he writes:

If that sounds like the voice of another right-wing crazy, think again. For those are the words of the avuncular David Brinkley, whose storied career as a newsman includes his service as moderator of the top-rated Sunday talk show that carries his name.

Brinkley, who made his last appearance Nov. 10 as moderator of This Week With David Brinkley, made news when, while praising his colleagues at ABC for their creativity, he dismissed President Clinton as a "bore." In a day when reporters routinely describe Republicans as extremists and worse, Brinkley's tepid criticism hardly is worth discussing. Far more interesting, as the quote above suggests, is his memoir, David Brinkley, published last year, which contains the most trenchant but readable account yet of government-turned-ATM machine.

Once upon a time, he explains, this country managed to get by on government revenues derived from high tariffs, which enriched U.S. businesses by protecting them from foreign competition and gouging consumers with higher prices. But as the country and its needs (or wants) grew--to carry out world wars, for example, and to accomodate wounded veterans with hospitals and pensions--the country turned earlier this century to an income tax. The tax became law in part because few people thought it would affect them--Kansas Republican James Monroe Miller candidly admitted Western states would vote for the tax because "they will not have to pay it"--and because of a puritanical hatred of the rich. "Envy and resentment carried the day," says Brinkley.

Worse was to come. In an effort to make tax collections more efficient and faster, Ruml proposed the system now known as federal withholding, in which employers would deduct taxes from each paycheck and send them off to Washington. Once taxes were hidden in this fashion, once people learned to live on their net pay, rather than their gross, it was relatively easy to broaden the base of the income tax to include everyone, even the poor. Thus did "fantasies of soaking the rich," as Brinkley puts it, turn into the government's "brutal, bare-knuckled assault" on Americans cited above.

The genius of withholding, from the government's perspective, is that it effectively shuts taxpayers out of any debate on the size of government. The question is not what taxpayers want to spend on government; withholding has settled that. The question only is how the money collected at the government automated teller machine will be spent. (The relative invisibility of the gas tax obscures government extraction in a similar fashion; how else could Clinton get away with claiming that he only raised taxes on the rich when he raised the gas tax?).

If you doubt the significance of withholding with respect to the size of government, imagine what would happen if taxpayers actually received their full paychecks and then had to sit down every month and write checks to the feds for 30 to 40 percent of them or more. The guess here is that there would be another Boston Tea Party, one that would make the original look like breakfast at Tiffany's.

Brinkley isn't asking for abolition of withholding; he would settle for a flat tax. But in the space of 16-odd pages, he clearly has laid out the problem of government as ATM. So if it's not yet time to say "goodnight, David" after all these years, how about just "thank you."


Just Saying No to Uncle Sam - Are Income Taxes a Matter of Choice? - ABC NEWS - January 17, 2003


The Greedy Hand in a Velvet Glove


THE INJUSTICE OF INCOME TAX - By Alan Keyes




TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS: copernicus3; evil; income; socialism; tax; taxreform; withholding
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 last
To: Uncle Bill
pissing in the wind,
to be read later bump.
61 posted on 01/23/2003 4:23:15 PM PST by babaloo999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
Amazing that tax law is one of the few professions that a claim of no training, education or experience suffices as authority to tell others about their tax liability.
Then why are you doing just that? You are telling all who read your replies that they are liable aren't you? Yet, at the same time, you claim to have no "training, education or experience" yourself.
Seems like you're calling the kettle black when you, the pot, are just as black.
62 posted on 01/23/2003 4:48:32 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
The author left me hanging:

When and how much were tax rates increased after the 1943 enactment of withholding?

63 posted on 01/23/2003 4:56:38 PM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

, you claim to have no "training, education or experience" yourself.

How does:

"I have no stake in the tax system other than paying taxes!

One may claim anything for background or expertise, the the logic of the argument and the evidence to back it are the only authority."

Render into a claim of no training or knowlege?

A stake in the tax system means only that. I frankly would prefer to get rid of the income/payroll tax system. I have no stake in maintaining this tax system whatsoever, financial or otherwise. I'm retired living on tax paid capital and in fact support a system of taxation that would be of some disadvantage to me, a national retail sales tax.

As for the second statement, that is merely a truism regarding any anonymous statement on the internet. Any such statement must stand on its own, and the authority of the citations and references used in supporting the postition stated. The individual's claim of expertise is unverifiable; The position taken must stand on the authority of cited evidence provided to support the argument.

You are telling all who read your replies that they are liable aren't you?

As a matter of fact the Courts are telling you that. I assume people are capable of perceiving just what those court cases mean in terms of what they can expect when the chose to believe they are not liable when the documented cases, history and the constitution indicates quite the contrary.

I just point the evidence out for those that would like to pretend that such evidence does not exist:

 

United States v. Melton, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 1996)
ARGUED: Lowell Harrison Becraft, Jr.[one of Schulz & Co. legal beagles], Huntsville, Alabama, for Appellants.

The jury heard not only the United States's evidence against the Meltons, but also the brothers' defense that they believed they were not "persons liable" for federal income tax. The jury rejected the excuse, however, and convicted them on nearly all counts.

  • [Subtitle A] "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal tax on the taxable income of every individual.
    26 U.S.C. s 1."
  • [Subtitle A] "Section 63 defines "taxable income" as gross income minus allowable deductions."
    26 U.S.C. s 63.
  • [Subtitle A] Section 61 states that "gross income means all income from whatever source derived," including compensation for services.
    26 U.S.C. s 61.
  • [Subtitle F] Sections 6001 and 6011 provide that a person must keep records and file a tax return for any tax for which he is liable.
    26 U.S.C. ss 6001
    26 U.S.C. ss 6011.
  • Finally, section 6012 provides that every individual having gross income that equals or exceeds the exemption amount in a taxable year shall file an income tax return.
    26 U.S.C. s 6012.

The duty to pay federal income taxes therefore is "manifest on the face of the statutes, without any resort to IRS rules, forms or regulations." United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220, 222 (4th Cir.1990). The rarely recognized proposition that, "where the law is vague or highly debatable, a defendant--actually or imputedly--lacks the requisite intent to violate it," Mallas, 762 F.2d at 363 (quoting United States v. Critzer, 498 F.2d 1160, 1162 (4th Cir.1974)), simply does not apply here.

Each Melton brother had gross income in excess of the amount requiring the filing of a return in each of the years at issue. Therefore, each was a "person liable."

I just point out little facts out which anyone capable of mashing a hyperlink to the cited references can determine for themselves. Like:

26 USC 5761.

CIVIL PENALTIES
(b) FAILURE TO PAY TAX

Whoever fails to pay any tax imposed by this chapter at the time prescribed by law or regulations, shall, in addition to any other penalty provided in this title, be liable to a penalty of 5 percent of the tax due but unpaid.

26 USC 7203.

WILLFUL FAILURE TO FILE RETURN, SUPPLY INFORMATION, OR PAY TAX
Any person required under this title[26] to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution. In the case of any person with respect to whom there is a failure to pay any estimated tax, this section shall not apply to such person with respect to such failure if there is no addition to tax under section 6654 or 6655 with respect to such failure. In the case of a willful violation of any provision of section 6050I, the first sentence of this section shall be applied by substituting "felony" for "misdemeanor" and "5 years" for "1 year"


64 posted on 01/23/2003 5:25:15 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Oops, I spoke too soon.

You usually do.

Speaking too soon tends to be a habit for those who base their beliefs in self-serving conclusions without completing critical research of evidence counter to that which is advantagous to your own desires.

Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986)
Argued that wages are not income under the tax code.

United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income.

KANNE, Circuit Judge.

  • Like moths to a flame, some people find themselves irresistibly drawn to the tax protestor movement's illusory claim that there is no legal requirement to pay federal income tax. And, like the moths, these people sometimes get burned. Lorin G. Sloan believed these claims and because he acted upon them now faces four months in a federal prison; there can be little doubt that he has been burned.
  • The real tragedy of this case is the unconscionable waste of Mr. Sloan's time, resources, and emotion in continuing to pursue these wholly defective and unsuccessful arguments about the validity of the income tax laws of the United States. Despite our rejection of Mr. Sloan's legal analysis of the tax laws, we are not unmindful of the sincerity of his beliefs. On the other hand, we are less sure of the sincerity of the professional tax protestors who promote their views in literature and meetings to persons like Mr. Sloan, yet are unlikely ever to face the type of penalties incurred by him. It may be that our decision will not alter Mr. Sloan's views regarding the tax laws of this country, for he has stated that if we affirm his conviction without applying the law as he understands it, our decision will be "a sham to which I WILL NOT SUBMIT." It may also be that serving his sentence in prison will not alter Mr. Sloan's view. We hope this pessimistic assessment is incorrect.
  • We AFFIRM the conviction of Lorin G. Sloan on all counts.

 


 

Objective research is much to be desired before placing ones assets and liberty at risk of Congress' IRS-DOJ meatgrinder.

Might I recomend for your beginning reading list:

Patriot Beware!
by Thomas R. Eddlem

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no04/vo13no04_patriot.htm;

THE TAX PROTEST FAQ; and

Quatloo's Tax Protest Gallery.

It behooves one to know what they are up against before putting their tail in the ringer.

65 posted on 01/23/2003 6:03:22 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Biggo bump.
66 posted on 01/23/2003 6:05:18 PM PST by k2blader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Great post as usual.

Can you tell we how to find the archived list of your posts?

I had it bookmarked in one of my earlier computer's earlier lives ;^)

Thanks

67 posted on 01/23/2003 6:15:31 PM PST by one2many ( "Truth is the one worthy Grail; follow where she leads")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
BTTT
68 posted on 01/23/2003 6:18:09 PM PST by Republic of Texas (Tag line (optional, printed after your name on post):)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: randita
...and make it due in one lump sum on the day before national elections are held...
69 posted on 01/23/2003 6:24:15 PM PST by Constitutional Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
"The income tax system is voluntary in the sense that we can choose to fill out a form and send the money in, and avoid the tax collector coming out to our house. Voluntary does not mean that we can avoid the tax. It's a crazy claim. It's a goofy claim."

This explanation about what voluntary is sounds pretty goofy to me. So if a armed robber sticks a gun in my face and demands that I hand over my wallet, it is really voluntary on my part as to rather or not I actually hand over the wallet. Of course, if I don't hand over my wallet to the robber, he will probably shoot me. Voluntary isn't supposed to mean that if you don't do something, you are going to face serious legal consequences, or worse, as a result.

70 posted on 01/23/2003 6:30:14 PM PST by judgeandjury (The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: judgeandjury

So if a armed robber sticks a gun in my face and demands that I hand over my wallet, it is really voluntary on my part as to rather or not I actually hand over the wallet.

Slight difference, the armed robber is not acting within Constitutional or legal authority, the United States Congress is:

James Madison, Federalist #39:

James Madison, Federalist #45:

Constitution for the United States of America:

Voluntary isn't supposed to mean that if you don't do something, you are going to face serious legal consequences, or worse, as a result.

And just where in the tax law does it say anything about payment of taxes being Voluntary.

The Courts have made it very clear the payment of taxes is quite obligatory. The only choice you have is whether you do so on time under your own steam, or the courts order it in a distraint action. Either way the requirement for payment is obligatory with cash on the barrelhead.

In short the action of distraint, is requirement by court action to force payment. Our tax system relies on people meeting their financial obligations without compelling them to pay through perpetual civil suits the same as such is required to pay a debt for goods or service in a store. The payment is obligatatory in either case.

Suit and distraint in either case are only necessary when people evade their financial obligations to report and pay.

Flora vs U.S.(1960), 362. U.S. 145, and on pg. 176

BULL v. UNITED STATES(1935) 295 U.S. 247 :


71 posted on 01/23/2003 8:47:10 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: k2blader
SLAVERY TO THE STATE

THE NEW SHARE CROPPERS

72 posted on 01/24/2003 4:37:04 AM PST by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson