THE EVIL GENIUS OF WITHHOLDING

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."

, 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"

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.

Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. "tax protesters" have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, the the Sixteenth amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.

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.

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:

"The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"

James Madison, Federalist #45:

"The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] Congress will have to require them of individual citizens;

Constitution for the United States of America:

Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "

Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

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

"The question presented is whether a Federal District Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1346 (a) (1) of a suit by a taxpayer for the refund of income tax payments which did not discharge the entire amount of his assessment."

"the Government can collect the tax from a District Court suitor by exercising its power of distraint - if he does not split his cause of action - but we cannot believe that compelling resort to this extraordinary procedure is either wise or in accord with congressional intent. Our system of taxation is based upon voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint. A full-payment requirement will promote the smooth functioning of this system; a part-payment rule would work at cross-purposes with it.

In sum, if we were to accept petitioner's argument, we would sacrifice the harmony of our carefully structured twentieth century system of tax litigation, and all that [362 U.S. 145, 177] would be achieved would be a supposed harmony of 1346 (a) (1) with what might have been the nineteenth century law had the issue ever been raised. Reargument has but fortified our view that 1346 (a) (1), correctly construed, requires full payment of the assessment before an income tax refund suit can be maintained in a Federal District Court."

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

" A serious and difficult issue is raised by the claim that the same receipt has been made the basis of both income and estate tax, although the item cannot in the circumstances be both income and corpus; and that the alternative prayer of the petition required the court to render a judgment which would redress the illegality and injustice resulting from the erroneous inclusion of the sum in the gross estate for estate tax. The respondent presents two arguments in opposition, one addressed to the merits and the other to the bar of the statute of limitations."
", the usual procedure for the recovery of debts is reversed in the field of taxation. Payment precedes defense, and the burden of proof, normally on the claimant, is shifted to the taxpayer. The assessment supersedes the pleading, proof, and judgment necessary in an action at law, and has the force of such a judgment. The ordinary defendant stands in judgment only after a hearing. The taxpayer often is afforded his hearing after judgment and after payment, and his only redress for unjust administrative action is the right to claim restitution. But these reversals of the normal process of collecting a claim cannot obscure the fact that after all what is being accomplished is the recovery of a just debt owed the sovereign."

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.