US Taxation v Other Countries! - WE ARE THE HIGHEST

[Dan_77]

You didn't understand a thing I said.

Quote by: Rortykiller Few points: 26 U.S.C. section 1 is new. So are you saying prior to 2007 taxes were unconstitutional?

It was recently revised - the rates. Those would be the famous "Bush tax cuts". But the text has been the same since '86 and prior to that there was a similar 26 USC 1.

Secondly, this defines the way taxes work, they also have clauses in the constitution saying congress can create a tax, yet no law saying the income tax was actually made into a law. I know how hard all the legal jumbo is to sort through, but understand you have yet to show me a LAW which requires US to PAY the INCOME tax.

Maybe you are unaware, but I have, like, you know, been to law school. For me, the "jumbo" is not hard to sort through. I'm trying to say it in layperson terms as much as possible for the benefit of the reader.

THAT IS THE LAW that says you have to pay the income tax. I'll quote it for you.

Each subsection of 26 USC 1 starts thusly:

"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every ..."

Followed by "married person", "single person", "head of household", etc, followed by the tax table for each type of filer.

That phrase, "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income" means that a TAX is imposed on your INCOME.

From Online Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus. Free access. :
IMPOSED: To establish or apply as compulsory; levy.

Is this sinking in?

Further, in 26 U.S.C. section 1 it defines income in that case only as gross income, which has been defined by the supreme court as applying to profits or gains not wages or salary.

No. 26 USC 1 says "taxable income".

"Taxable income" is defined in 26 USC 63:
"taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter ".

So, there is a mandatory tax levied in 26 USC 1 on all taxable income.

If you want to express it formulaicly, 26 USC 63 says
Taxable income = "gross income" - "deductions"

First the easy part. "Deductions" are all those things in the code you get to "write off" like business expenses and interest on your home mortgages.

So we know that there is a mandatory tax on your taxable income, which is your gross income, minus all the stuff you can "write off".

What is "gross income", then? Well, 26 USC 61 defines "gross income":

"gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(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. "

Most people's wages are covered under (1), "compensation for services".

But let's look at those Supreme Court cases you seem to be confused about.

The seminal cases in defining income under the code are Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920) and Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass, 348 U.S. 426 (1955), which is especially important because it was decided under our modern tax code (originally written in 1954).

Definition of "gross income" from Eisner:
"Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined"... There it is, income is, among other things, the gain you get by doing labor at your job.

Glenshaw Glass also defines "gross income":
"undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion."

Anything you get that improves your wealth - including, of course, your salary - is an "accession to wealth" that you have dominion - control - over, and is therefore income.

There have been many others. Point is, NO federal court has EVER said that wages are not income. Period.

There are IRS agents who talk about this, great movie on it is that one by Aaron Russo, I think its called Freedom to Fascism.

I have seen the movie. Everything in it is utter nonsense. It is most certainly not a good movie and frankly, I would think the creator would by now be prosecuted for promoting an abusive tax shelter if he wasn't dead.

If you want some REAL information (as well as a thorough debunking of Russo's idiotic theories), go here:
Quatloos! Anti-IRS Theories: Inane tax protestor theories which never, ever win as developed by the pro-wrestling crowd.

Also, tax evasion is a criminal case and therefor the 5th amendment does apply. As does the part I quoted regarding them not being allowed to force you to defend or justify yourself to the government unless you're under a court order.

See where I explained this above. They cannot use your tax filing documents (1040, for example) against you in court without you testifying that they are yours.

And here's the thing about the 1040 form: It is not a crime to have income. Therefore, filling out a 1040 form can be required, because telling the government truthfully how much income you make does not implicate you in a crime. That's the point explained in U.S. v. Brown, 600 F.2d 248.

It's like saying that giving a police officer your name is "self incrimination." It's not, because "your name" is not a crime. Telling a police officer "I killed a guy" IS self incrimination. Get it?

Likewise, telling the government how much income you made does not let them know you committed a crime, and is therefore not self-incriminating.

In the cases of all other taxes participation is voluntary, you can not own property and avoid the property tax for example. However, this is saying that everyone who works, who lives as an independent, has to fill this form out which can be then used to incriminate you.

You can avoid the income tax. Don't work. Frankly, I think the sales tax is harder to avoid.

And the form cannot be used to incriminate you. See above.

They have no legal authority to sequester this information,

They most certainly do.

which is why the tax code describes the income tax as voluntary as well. It says it in the tax code... voluntary compliance.

The voluntary code! One of my favorites!

Your quote is one of the most humorous fundamental misunderstandings of the tax code. The "voluntary" nutso argument derives from the fact that, in Flora v. U.S., the Supreme Court said "Our tax system is based upon voluntary assessment and payment". What they meant (if you don't take the quote out of context like tax kooks do) is that the initial reporting - filing a return, making payment or getting a refund - is done voluntarily.

The "tax is voluntary" argument has been brought up many times in the courts. This is what they have to say about it:

"Appellants’ claim that payment of federal income tax is voluntary clearly lacks substance." U.S. v. Gerards

"The payment of income taxes is not optional ... and the average citizen knows that payment of income taxes is legally required" Schiff v. U.S.

"As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (6) the income tax is voluntary..." Lonsdale v. U.S.

"Any assertion that the payment of income taxes is voluntary is without merit. It is without question that the payment of income taxes is not voluntary." U.S. v. Hartman.

The argument that taxes are "voluntary" is so ridiculous that making it now gets you a $5000 fine in federal court. It is deemed "frivolous".

[commonsense]

Hey...I've never claimed to be learned on this subject.
I think its by design that the whole thing is indeciferable.
But for a guy who puts "liberty" as his avatar, you sure seem to love taxes.

"Any assertion that the payment of income taxes is voluntary is without merit. It is without question that the payment of income taxes is not voluntary." U.S. v. Hartman. The argument that taxes are "voluntary" is so ridiculous that making it now gets you a $5000 fine in federal court. It is deemed "frivolous".

im not saying that the above quote is a good example, necessarily, but in principle, it sure seems to exemplify the concept of them "having built a better moustrap"

[Rortykiller]

"Therefore, filling out a 1040 form can be required, because telling the government truthfully how much income you make does not implicate you in a crime."

Yes, it does. Even if you are truthful but fail to pay it is illegal. Thats like saying testifying if your guilty or innocent doesn't implicate you because you can say innocent.

"(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;"
Thats the difference between a subcontractor and an employee. Still, no wages in the definition.

Similarly, the 16th Amendment used to justify taxes was decreed by the Supreme Court as not imposing any new taxes. If that interpretation was true then, why not now?

As for the voluntary, it says it in the Internal Revenue's own code. Of course court cases all over America are imprisoning people over this, but thats how the income tax was designed to evolve. Something designed to slowly creep up on you, growing, without realizing it. The definition and implementation of the income tax has been changed, but never once initially authorized or intended.

In addition, it IS a direct tax, that is a ridiculous assertion! You can chose not to work temporarily in America, yes, but seeing as pan-handling and loitering are illegal you'd only be committing yourself to a denigrated life devoid of your right to pursue happiness. Since no other means of making money would be legal, it is a direct tax, a tax on your person-hood. Your labor is, of course, your own. This is how the world is naturally, and the income tax is an impediment on that very nature.
Regardless of what tricks they've been using to justify taxation legally, they can't ever do it morally. Especially since the money goes to nothing.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: commonsense Hey...I've never claimed to be learned on this subject. I think its by design that the whole thing is indeciferable. But for a guy who puts "liberty" as his avatar, you sure seem to love taxes.

There's a difference between understanding and enjoying.

Burying your head in the sand and pretending that the tax code is somehow "illegal" or "voluntary" is not beneficial to everyone. Moreover, these tax denier nuts have gotten mixed up with liberty-minded folks like myself, and I have seen so many otherwise intelligent and sensible people become sucked in by these tax denier idiots.

I seek and advocate to change the tax code (drastically). In order to do so, it benefits me to know the Code as much as humanly possible, all due deference to Sun Tzu.

Quote by: Rortykiller "Therefore, filling out a 1040 form can be required, because telling the government truthfully how much income you make does not implicate you in a crime." Yes, it does. Even if you are truthful but fail to pay it is illegal. Thats like saying testifying if your guilty or innocent doesn't implicate you because you can say innocent.

No. I'm trying to explain this as simply as possible.

1) Merely "failing to pay" does not make you guilty of a crime. If the IRS chooses to only file a collection action against a person (i.e. not a criminal action), there is no criminal case and their tax forms can be used as evidence.
2) If there is a criminal case filling out the form does not mean it comes into court!!! It still needs to be brought in like any other piece of evidence. That requires the TAXPAYER to verify the document, which they can refuse to do under the 5th Amendment.
3) If you fail to file a return, or file a fraudulent return, the government cannot compel you to testify or provide information that could be used against you in the criminal tax case arising out of the failure to file or the fraudulent return. In other words, the 5th Amendment does not prevent the government from requiring you to file a return or from prosecuting you if you fail to file, but it does prevent the government from compelling you to provide information to help with your own conviction after you have failed to file.
4) If giving the government records of your income or assets would support a criminal case (in other words, if you think they're preparing one against you or if they already have), you can refuse to give information on 5th Amendment grounds.

The problem here is that you, and wherever you get your information from, do not understand the distinction between, among other things, civil and criminal cases. Furthermore, you do not understand that merely giving information to law enforcement does not equal "self-incrimination".

"(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;" Thats the difference between a subcontractor and an employee. Still, no wages in the definition.

No. An employee is paid for services - their labor. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has stated that money earned doing labor is income in Eisner v. Macomber. Wages are compensation for services.

Dictionary.com:
wage
–noun 1. Often, wages. money that is paid or received for work or services, as by the hour, day, or week.

Webster's Dictionary
wage
-noun 1a. 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

How many other dictionaries do I need to access before you believe that wages are compensation for services?

It's funny, tax deniers claim that the tax code makes up definitions of words and is trying to be tricky. As soon as you show them that the plain, ordinary, dictionary meaning of the words makes them liable for taxes, though, all of a sudden they insist on using made up definitions.

Similarly, the 16th Amendment used to justify taxes was decreed by the Supreme Court as not imposing any new taxes. If that interpretation was true then, why not now?

sigh... this is another one of the most ridiculous and twisted arguments tax deniers make.

See, the problem with this argument of yours is not that the statement isn't true - it is. You're just grossly misunderstanding what it means.

Tax deniers believe that, before the adoption of the 16th Amendment, a tax on incomes was unconstitutional and therefore outside the power of Congress. This is not correct because it was clear even before the 16th Amendment that Congress could tax wages and earnings from employment, as well as income from business operations. By incorrectly asserting that a tax on incomes was unconstitutional before the 16th Amendment, and then asserting that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax, tax deniers reach the incorrect conclusion that a tax on incomes must be unconstitutional even after the adoption of the 16th Amendment, which is ridiculous.

The statement is usually taken from the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916). But let's look at what they actually said. "By the previous ruling [in Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation [there's your statement], but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation....”

Therefore, the power to tax incomes without apportionment is not a new kind of power, but just a different classification of the “previous complete and plenary power of income taxation,” taking it out of the category of direct taxation and placing it back in the category of indirect taxation “to which it inherently belonged.” By saying that the 16th Amendment created “no new power,” you completely disregard the rest of what the Supreme Court said in the same sentence.

As for the voluntary, it says it in the Internal Revenue's own code.

No. Show me where it does.

And I explained this previously: Initial reporting (by your employer of your income) is voluntary, in that your employer takes the first steps. However, the IRS can and does force compliance.

And if you're not going to respond to what I'm actually saying instead of just spouting the same tax denier response, let me know and I'll stop writing these posts.

Of course court cases all over America are imprisoning people over this, but thats how the income tax was designed to evolve. Something designed to slowly creep up on you, growing, without realizing it. The definition and implementation of the income tax has been changed, but never once initially authorized or intended.

Statutes change over time. The Code has been completely overhauled three times, with thousands of minor changes in between. Each and every change was the result of statutes passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.

So what? Are you saying that changing laws is somehow unconstitutional?

In addition, it IS a direct tax, that is a ridiculous assertion! You can chose not to work temporarily in America, yes, but seeing as pan-handling and loitering are illegal you'd only be committing yourself to a denigrated life devoid of your right to pursue happiness. Since no other means of making money would be legal, it is a direct tax, a tax on your person-hood. Your labor is, of course, your own. This is how the world is naturally, and the income tax is an impediment on that very nature.

This has nothing to do with what a direct tax is. There is absolutely no support in the Constitution for the assertion that a "direct tax" is one which cannot be avoided. None. Zero. Nothing.

The best explanation of the definition of a direct tax comes in Hylton v. U.S., 3 U.S. 171 (1796). What makes this case the best? Well, the fact that not only were the Framers themselves, people from the Constitution Convention, arguing and deciding the case in many cases, but they examined and used each others' words to arrive at a definition of "direct tax."

Writing about the Hylton case, Alexander Hamilton gave us probably the closest we'll ever get to the Framers' intended definition of direct taxes: That they are "only capitation or poll taxes, and taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes."

His words, not mine. Direct taxes have little to do with "shifting". What they are is a "head tax", or a tax on your entire estate or the "whole" of your being. This is a definition that has been repeated in the Court time and time again with consistency.

However, the discussion is academic. The 16th Amendment unquestionably gave Congress the power to tax incomes, without apportionment, regardless of what kind of tax they are.

Regardless of what tricks they've been using to justify taxation legally, they can't ever do it morally. Especially since the money goes to nothing.

This is a separate argument. As explained, I agree that the income tax is largely unfair, regressive, and should be drastically overhauled if not done away with. However, arguing that it is somehow illegal or fraudulent or voluntary is just stupid. It's plainly valid, legal, and mandatory.

[commonsense]

All I can conclude from the above is, "we're screwed".

I blame Women's Suffrage. Big Mistake.

[Plus Ultra]

Everyone hates taxes, ranting about taxes is silly and simple-minded. Societies have collective needs their governments are best able to address by taxing and spending in the collective interest, this is why they have these systems.

I'm more interested in considering how taxation could be improved. Should the wealthy be taxed more or expenditures focus on different needs? Should the impact of taxation on spending or investment be given more consideration, or can tax expenditures be reduced through taxation? For example, could tax expenditures in law enforcement be reduced if drug consumption were taxed? Can society pursue social policy by taxation as is done with "sin" taxes, should it?

[Rortykiller]

well argued plus, hard to defend my position without as much resources at my finger tip and admittedly i'd have to just quote mine the hell out of someone's else's argument to go on.

[ironeagle]

Aproximatey 37-40 cents per us dollar is tax. That's nearly 50% on average, with only payroll and sales tax. If you add in other misc taxes which are not based on earnings or spending percentages that's raised to about 60 cents per dollar.

[commonsense]

ironeagle...whats Ncp ?