Posted on 04/12/2007 7:28:36 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
I bet we have an IRS employee here.
I read his article in its entirety, thank you. His whole argument was based on the assumption that all the courts including the tax courts, district courts and appeals courts are all in cahoots to violate the Constitution in order to ensure adequate income to the government. That is simply bogus, as a reading of any of the tax court rulings would conclude. Many go against the government. Almost none of the tax protester arguments go against the government because most are simply frivolous on their face.
Saying the courts ruled against the 5th amendment argument means nothing, as I said, he covered that argument in the article.
The distinction is that they explained their position; he didn't. Their position is that yes, one cannot be compelled to state where their illegal gains came from, but they can be compelled to file a return. If that return is incomplete or otherwise fraudulent, the IRS then has the power to investigate. But at no time does a filer have a requirement to self incrimination if that self incrimination would bring out their criminal activities. So there is no conflict.
IOW, if one sells illegal drugs, the tax code requires that the income be shown as a taxable item, but the 5th Amendment would protect the filer from having to state where the income came from if that would incriminate him.
Then we have to also state that the original constitution didn't allow for an income tax, there was a good reason for that, it is invasive and, as far as I am concerned, unconstitutional. We need to repeal the 16th and do away with the income tax.
Of course it's not unconstitutional because of the 16th Amendment. Will it be repealed? Hardly. I'd try and get used to it. You may not like the income tax, but the fact remains that the US is one of the lowest taxed 1st world nations. I think there are better options such as a consumption tax, but the bottom line is I will likely pay a somewhat similar amount of taxes, no matter how it is collected.
Agree that the National Retail Sales Tax is a logical waypoint en route back to a fully Constitutional system.
Before this nation can return to that FULLY CONSTITUTIONAL system, we’ll have to get rid of the current government school — er — INDOCTRINATION system where every spring they distribute booklet provided by the IRS (”free,” of course) teaching the high school kiddies how to COMPLY with the present Marxist system.
We should embrace the laudable concepts of federalism and free market competition. The taxes needed to run the federal government should be collected directly from state governments, with each state’s percentage based on how many members it has in the House of Representatives. Failure to pay would mean loss of the representatives votes. Leave it up to states to figure out how they want to generate the money to pay.
Two big benefits to this are:
1) Productive people and businesses would quickly migrate to states with non-onerous taxation systems, forcing all states to develop a non-onerous system.
2) There would be a much more direct relationship between the will of the people of the level of federal spending. If the tab is too high, people will vote for state government reps who will vote not to pay some or all of the tab, and to forgo having some or all of the state’s votes in Congress. Salary and expenses (including staff salaries) for Congressional Representatives should be determined by and paid by the Representative’s state (and presumably the amount citizens of a state would be willing to pay for a non-voting Representative would be quite low). This would force Congress to slash the federal budget to the level which the citizens are willing to pay. A Representative’s failure to vote for measures that would slash the federal budget would mean voting him/herself out of a job.
While that is true, Alan Keyes has never made a single one of their arguments.
I think there are better options such as a consumption tax, but the bottom line is I will likely pay a somewhat similar amount of taxes, no matter how it is collected.
When it comes to taxes, the "how" is even more important than the "how much," if you care about liberty.
You are missing the definition of income, which does include accessions to wealth. With your definition, nothing could ever be taxable. The value of any transaction is considered equal from a value to value comparison. Gains on transactions, however are how income is defined. Your labor may well be worth exactly what you received, but the cost of that labor was 0 plus any additional expenses the IRS would recognize as deductions from that gain.
It is pathetic to have this argument today, quibbling over what is constitutional income. It wouldn't even be discussed except the communists have won and established power in this land.
Pathetic perhaps, but it is quite logical. As long as the income tax remains the main source of revenue for the government, your argument above is not a valid determination of income.
New tagline...
Interesting concepts.
Totally agree. Both the income tax and government schools are failed experiments in socialism.
And, on a purely practical level, they are as outdated as buggy whips.
Baaa....Baaaaa....... < /mindless drone >
Jason,
A bit on the chip today huh? : )
I was actually going to send you the link to your original post on this thread since I thought it was a view point you would share (before I saw who posted it) and low and behold, you are the author.
a
I don't need to defend the tax code. Every time it is "simplified", it tends to get more complex. But since most returns are based on W-2 income, and the standard deduction has been increased substantially, it is difficult to see how many of them are incorrect. When one gets into hedging and most trades, yes, there are many ways of making a mistake.
But the code certainly recognizes the distinction between civil and criminal activities. One must have the intention of committing fraud to be handed over to the criminal statutes. Purposely omitting substantial income, or fraudulently reporting income or other items are criminal offenses.
interesting article
Well, I'll give you points for brains for admitting that you can't. But, in practice, aren't you doing so anyway?
False, misleading or otherwise fraudulent statements, or knowingly withholding the payment of taxes on income, if substantial, constitutes criminal activity.
Almost all mistakes on a tax return are civil matters and are handled by interest and civil penalties. So whether you like the IRS or not, and most don't, one cannot simply "fall" into a criminal trap.
Doesn’t this piece deserve a place in the Editorial sidebar?
Sure, just as if I filed a fraudulent property tax form. If you refuse to file a return, you do face criminal sanctions for your refusal to file, but again, you do cannot be compelled to state the nature of your illegal income. By your logic, only criminals would be free from filing a return.
That's similar to the requirement to apply for a social security card in order to work if I am an illegal alien, because to do so would incriminate me. And yes, the BOR does apply to illegals.
It’s all a charade.
Feeding at the trough for sure.
There isn't enough gold to back our money supply. Do you favor massive deflation? Is deflation a good thing?
Currently, all money ultimately terminates in a debt contract somewhere.
Wow, a debt contract! Sounds scary. So now you'll tell me that the FR notes in my wallet are debt. Do I owe interest to someone on these notes, or does someone owe me?
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.