DescentBB

Guns, bombs and booby traps but eventually they just invited in the wrong people and got walked out to jail.
Of course it is easier to win the game if you play with a full deck.

Cut off from the rest of the world, the Browns turned to their long-held beliefs in conspiracy theories for help. The couple's ordeal would likely be over by spring, according to Ed Brown, when he said a \"warrior class\" will rise up against the \"Zionist Freemasons\" who he thinks have infiltrated the echelons of power and control the world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

Yes, a full deck might have helped.

*sigh* So much of their time/potential/etc. wasted because of their choices.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archiv ... 11-27.html

AMENDMENT XVI

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Obviously, there are many who object to this.

I applaud the agents who successfully arrested (without incident) people who were willfully breaking the laws of the land.

If you don't like the laws of the land ... breaking those laws isn't the right way to object to them.

What you get paid from work is not income. You are using the wrong dictionary.

Testiculese wrote:What you get paid from work is not income. You are using the wrong dictionary.

I guess we should use whatever dictionary the folks who wrote the 16th amendment used? Not that I know what it was.

Income - (n) 1. the monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, as rents or investments.

Maybe we should quibble about the definition of work while we're at it

perhaps these will be helpful

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheek_v._United_States

http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski79.html

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/ ... /wages.htm

here's a question: the taxes are on my income, why should my employer be obligated to deduct that from the pay he gives me?

The employer isn't obligated. You don't have to have taxes taken out of your pay. You don't even have to fill out a 1040. The employer has no obligation to even submit the 1040 to the government. You could just pay one lump sum every April.

I'm no expert on American law but I think you will find that your employer is obligated to deduct income tax from wages. Not by the constitution of course but by government regulations. Otherwise few people would have saved the needed funds to pay their taxes and the government would be a giant bad debt collection agency. You might be able to make different arrangements on certain types of income but for straight wages it would be very tough to get past the regulations.

If you look at the IRS handbook for employers, it says what I just said. The employer is under no obligation to take taxes out of your pay. It also has no obligation to submit the 1040, because there is no obligation to fill it out in the first place. The whole thing is voluntary, that's why it's called \"Voluntary Compliance\" Signing up for the draft is Mandatory Compliance backed up by Federal law. If you look at the signature panel of the 1040 and the draft forms, you'll see that you have to fill it out truthfully \"under penalty of perjury\" for the 1040 and \"under penalty of law\" for the draft form. If it isn't law, then it isn't mandatory, and your 5th amendment protects you from being forced to fill out a 1040. Companies don't understand it (well some do) and they say you have to fill one out or no job. That's just them being naive. If they read their own handbook they would know better. The IRS can't fine them or anything if the employee doesn't submit voluntary documents.

Also, if you look at the definition of income in Webster's, then check the law library, you'll find the definitions differ. The IRS uses the Webster's definition when explaining why you 'must pay' and the law library's definition when drafting it's documents. That's why only the tax code says \"if you are liable\" not \"you are liable\" and \"You may be liable\" instead of \"You are liable\". There's a reason for the wording. You're only liable if you produce income. No one I know produces income except my friend who owns a tree service.

Heh. Kinda reminds me of Kent Hovind.

WarAdvocat wrote:Income - (n) 1. the monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, as rents or investments.

Testiculese wrote:You're only liable if you produce income. No one I know produces income except my friend who owns a tree service.

Hmmm... When I go to work, I provide a service, and what I do is a product, goods, or services used by my employer. My employer in turn pays me for the services I rendered as part of my "employment agreement", and is considered an investment in me by my employer.

To me, it would appear that what I'm paid for the job would be my income.

I think Testi is being picky about the term \"produce\" as most people have an \"income\" of money. And an \"outgo\" as well.

It is not I who is picky, but the government. They don't define words the same as we do. They use a separate dictionary.

Maybe so ... but if it meant jail time or no jail time ... I'd lean towards using their dictionary, if only just to avoid needless trouble.

(well, I already posted one of these links, but since apparently noone read it ....)

I'm no lawyer, but Jonathan R. Siegel IS! This link to his taxes myths page has the link I posted earlier. There are also helpful links to The IRS and a Tax Protester FAQ at the bottom of this page. All of this \"voluntary\" silliness is addressed there. Click away, pilgrims.

Skyalmian wrote:Like I'd let you get away with no opposition to your the-income-tax-is-legal declaration...

Don't think he's got any worries there. What he pointed out is pretty plain and to the point.

Skyalmian wrote:So, "the income tax is illegal":

• How the 1040 Form was Checkmated
• Lost Horizons (Tons o' Info)
• What Is Taxed: Data-Mining the Tax Code (Oh wow, I just discovered this site for the first time, and whoa...)
• World Nut Daily: "IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability."
• "Theft by Deception" (The creator of that video was visited by the IRS when they found out he made the video; they confiscated his computer and every copy of the tape they could find but thankfully he had already distributed copies so he got the video back.)
• "Tax Stuff". Cool.

Wow! Sure a lot of misleading legal phrasing loaded in those links.

Skyalmian wrote:Funny how there's this war between the people and the ones wanting the people to pay. For good reason. One side is completely and utterly lying. So which side is? The last I checked it isn't the people who are the ones who have set world records for being deliberately misleading, being secretive, and telling outright lies.

Your opinion. You're entitled to it.

I no longer have any desire to discuss it further with you. Plain evidence just isn't acceptable to you.

Skyalmian wrote:[*]What Is Taxed: Data-Mining the Tax Code

Ah, crap.

Taxable Income:

A "a foreign taxpayer... gross income (whether domestic or foreign source)"
[e.g. "all income from whatever source"]

Firewheel wrote:Heh. Kinda reminds me of Kent Hovind.

yeah. me too.

Skyalmian wrote:Like I'd let you get away with no opposition to your the-income-tax-is-legal declaration...

So, "the income tax is illegal":

• How the 1040 Form was Checkmated …

I’ll take the first one on and let folks come to their own reasoned conclusions. Discussion of the Robert Lawrence case can be found on lots of tax protester pages, where there is plentiful regurgitation of the givemeliberty dot org spin. Then there’s this page -

http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/002282.php
The link provided to 'the real story' on this page was broken, but the decision is also found here:

http://www.fraudsandscams.com/OscarStilley/Order.pdf
on this web page:
http://www.fraudsandscams.com/OscarStilley/Stilley.htm

Funny how there's this war between the people and the ones wanting the people to pay. For good reason. One side is completely and utterly lying. So which side is? The last I checked it isn't the people who are the ones who have set world records for being deliberately misleading, being secretive, and telling outright lies.

Actually, I think top honors in recent times would be a runoff between Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao.

Best of luck to ya, Sky.

Quote from Mr. Siegel

Of course, there’s a lot more to know if you want to achieve a full understanding of the tax system. For example, other statutes besides the ones quoted above create the extensive system of tax “withholding,” whereby you actually pay your taxes on your wages in advance, each time you receive a paycheck, so that on the day your return is due the government usually ends up owing you a refund.

As I said.

funny, I thought that what I made at work was called 'wages'.

Ferno wrote:funny, I thought that what I made at work was called 'wages'.

It is.

Webster definition of "wage"

• 1 a: a payment usually of money for labor or services usually according to contract and on an hourly, daily, or piecework basis —often used in plural b plural : the share of the national product attributable to labor as a factor in production
  2: recompense, reward —usually used in plural but singular or plural in construction <the wages of sin is death — Romans 6:23 (Revised Standard Version)>

right.

so what i want to know is when they equated wages with income.

Sheesh.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#wagesincome

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,i ... c153765508

read my question again.

I never said 'income is not wages'. I asked 'when did they equate income with wages?'

read my posted links again.

there are dates listed with the case law citations.

so much for getting a straight answewr. *shrug*

How about asking a straight question: since when did wages and income mean two different things? Wages are the monies you are paid and income is the result.

Ferno wrote:so much for getting a straight answewr. *shrug*

Sorry, Ferno, I don't know how to make this any easier. This is the law, after all, and, as I've said before, I am not a lawyer.

Different things in different dictionaries. The government doesn't use Webster's, it goes by law definitions and precedent. Wages are not income, it's cited in numerous cases that the two are different under the eyes of law. (I've read them, but I don't know where to reference them offhand, Sky probably has links)

Testiculese wrote:Different things in different dictionaries. The government doesn't use Webster's, it goes by law definitions and precedent. Wages are not income, it's cited in numerous cases that the two are different under the eyes of law. (I've read them, but I don't know where to reference them offhand, Sky probably has links)

I do; I've already posted the links. Have you read them?

(oh, ps - apparently, wages are income)