Tax Fasting, Blogging and bad web sites

World Net Daily ^ | May 20, 2003 | Phil

[mawebgeek]

Reading a story from WND, following a link to a blogger and tax activist and finally another link to the activists congressional representative I realized something very interesting.

This virtual"nobody" Gene Chapman seems better thought out and better able to atriculate his thoughts and positions then a wealthy, goverment sponsored, feeding at my tax trough hack can on his fancy-schmancy web site.

On the opening page of Rep. Michael Burgess's congressional website is the following line. "He is committed to cutting wasteful spending, and advocating for tax relief while reforming the tax code into a more simpler, fairer system." - Did that actually say "more simpler"???

If you weren't moved to write to this rep to try to save the tax guys's life, try writing to his web editor to smarten up.

[Dilly]

So what does this tax-fast guy want? To prove his assertion that Americans don't have to pay income tax? What will that accomplish? Everyone stops paying taxes so the government has no money to pay for our military, no money to pay for airport security, no money to build and maintain the roads that enable commerce, no money to protect our borders. Great idea, tax-fast man. I, for one, will be eating a big dinner tonight.

[Sparta]

While I agree with the goals of this tax protestor, he's going about it the wrong way. The IRS socialists won't give a straight answer to this man, and all that will happen is he will die.

[Sparta]

I think all he wants is for the IRS to prove the legality of the income tax. There are other, legal ways for the government to raise money. They could sell bonds, charge tarriffs, impose a consumption tax, etc. Besides, why should I fork 50% of my income to the government so they can waste at least 25% of it.

[babyface00]

Everyone stops paying taxes so the government has no money to pay for our military, no money to pay for airport security, no money to build and maintain the roads that enable commerce, no money to protect our borders.

You do realize that the 16th amendment was not ratified until 1913? There was no permanent income tax before then. There are actually people alive who were born before we had a federal income tax! Seems the country did OK for 150 years or so without an income tax.

[ikka]

The income tax as it currently stands IS un-Constitutional, but not for the "standard" reasons. Here are my reasons:

1. You are being forced to testify against yourself when you file a return. Any claim that IRS lawsuits are "civil" in nature sure goes out the window when they threaten jail time.

2. Not properly ratified.

3. Cannot be understood (the tax code is over 8 million words long). A law that can not be comprehended is not one that can be followed.

[TBP]

There are many blogs that have better information than even some of the new media websites.

Here's one I'll humbly recommend. :)

http://webnewsroom.blogspot.com

[sdk7x7]

While this guy may, indeed, attract quite a bit of media coverage, most people (regardless of political orientation) agree that the government has to get money via taxes to pay for the military, Congress, etc. The real question is how much. In fact, I'm almost positive that several Presidents passed laws specifically allowing the fed. government to collect taxes... this was on of the weaknesses of the US gov't. under the Articles of Confederation. Nonetheless, if tax collecting IS unconstitutional, I think we need an amendment allowing it (again, the real debate is HOW MUCH and WHO we tax).

It'll be a real tragedy if this guy dies... especially because he's not going to accomplish much, and he certainly won't get 50% of his gross income back if he's 6ft. under.

-sdk

[NYDave]

<<"several Presidents passed laws specifically allowing the fed. government to collect taxes...">>

First of all, Presidents don't pass laws, the Congress does. Secondly, there is serious debate as to whether or not two thirds of the existing states, at that time, ratified the 16th Amendment to the Constitution which only gives the authority to the government to collect income taxes. The IRS has been challenged several times to cite the exact statute or statutes allowing them to entact the provisions of the 16th Amendment. They have, thusfar, been unable to do so. This guy who is fasting is taking extreme measures to make his point, but he's not a wacko.

[WFTR]

Whether the 16th Amendment actually passed is academic at this point. The fact is that we don't have the power to stop the income tax unless there is a large change of opinion regarding taxes. Most people claim that they don't like income taxes, but they really just don't like it for themselves. They love the idea of imposing it on others, and therefore they end up supporting politicians who will impose the tax on everyone. Eighty years ago, we could argue that people really didn't want the income tax. Today, we must admit that it has been ratified many times over by the election of candidates who support it in some form.

Personally, I would love to see us move away from the income tax to a small or large extent. I like the Founding Fathers' plan of using tariffs because raising revenue through tariffs relegates the power of the tax man to the end of the dock. Once goods are moved into the country, the government was no longer investigating either our income or our buying and selling habits. We can likely never go back completely to that system, but I think some move in that direction is a good idea.

Finally, I think we need to focus our attention primarily on reduction in government spending. In most cases, federal spending to solve a problem only makes the problem worse. The worst part about the "War on Poverty" was not the loss of money from the middle and upper classes. That loss was bad and wrong, but it wasn't as tragic as the destruction of the family in the lower socioeconomic classes. The worst part of federal spending on the Department of Education is not the dollars that are taken from hard-working Americans to provide jobs for people whose PhD's in education have no market value. The worst part is that these people end up forcing stupid ideas on our schools and degrading the quality of education that America's children receive.

Saving a Few Jobs
Bill

[Poohbah]

I think all he wants is for the IRS to prove the legality of the income tax.

United States Code Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part I, Sec. 1.

[Poohbah]

1. You are being forced to testify against yourself when you file a return.

If you file a complete and honest accounting of your income, and honestly claim all deductions you are entitled to, you are not testifying against yourself when you file.

Any claim that IRS lawsuits are "civil" in nature sure goes out the window when they threaten jail time.

Jail time is only threatened in cases involving willful fraud (i.e., falsely stating one's income or deductions), or in cases involving willful failure to file--i.e., one KNEW that one had to file, and did not do so.

Such cases are rare.

False official statement has always been a crime; and willful failure to file returns is a crime under United States Code Title 26, Subtitle F, Chapter 75, Subchapter A, Part I, Section 7203.

2. Not properly ratified.

The courts have consistently held that the question of whether an amendment to the Constitution has been ratified is a purely political one that is not justicable. Said question is an issue to be dealt with by Congress and the legislatures of the several states.

3. Cannot be understood (the tax code is over 8 million words long). A law that can not be comprehended is not one that can be followed.

A very weak argument, not supported in any case law. YOUR inability to understand the law does not relieve you of your obligation to obey it. If you are involved in activities that touch on the ENTIRE tax code, then your activites should, by the standard you propose, be illegal, as you would be incapable of knowing whether or not you were able to obey the law or not.

[sdk7x7]

As you probably could have determined, I meant that Presidents had endorsed and advocated legistlation allowing the collection of the income tax. Secondly, I do think this guy is a wacko... while he may certainly have a legitimate claim, I think he's crazy to kill himself over it. I was a HUGE supporter of the war against Iraq, for instance, but I certainly wouldn't have starved myself to death just to get media attention about the fact that I supported the war. If this guy dies, at most it'll be picked up by the mainstream media for a few days and will then fade into oblivion. And read my lips: income taxes will continue.

[Copernicus]

If you file a complete and honest accounting of your income, and honestly claim all deductions you are entitled to, you are not testifying against yourself when you file.

Right. So I assume the audit(s) of the IRS which uncovered millions of dollars of missing funds will allow them to be honest adjucators of deductions.

The Fifth Amendment is quite clear. You can not be compelled to engage in self testimony pro or con.

Best regards,

[Poohbah]

The Fifth Amendment is quite clear. You can not be compelled to engage in self testimony pro or con.

The exact wording is: ...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...

Your interpretation of the Fifth Amendment is quite clear. To be precise, it is clearly wrong.

[ikka]

The exact wording is: ...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...

Help me out here... there are criminal penalties involved in doing something the IRS does not agree with. You say "jail time is rarely threatened" but that is not the issue at hand. The question is whether the charges CAN be criminal, not whether they usually are.

[candeee]

Have you ever heard of "void for vagueness?

[candeee]

Actually the Court has held that the 5th Amendment applies to non-criminal cases. A Circuit Court (I think the 5th) held that filing income taxes is voluntary, thus once someone files under oath, they have waived their 5th Amendment right.

[Poohbah]

Help me out here... there are criminal penalties involved in doing something the IRS does not agree with.

Jail time only enters into the equation if there is actual criminal activity. It's not a matter of whether or not the IRS likes your actions or not; it's matter of whether or not you willfully broke the law.

You say "jail time is rarely threatened" but that is not the issue at hand.

No, I said it's rarely the case that criminal charges are filed.

The IRS would have to file criminal charges and try you in front of a jury. It's actually quite difficult to get charged with criminal offenses under Title 26. You have to work *REALLY* hard at it. The usual reason for criminal charges is willful failure to file.

The question is whether the charges CAN be criminal, not whether they usually are.

Are you in the habit of engaging in fraud or willful failure to file?

[Poohbah]

Have you ever heard of "void for vagueness?

The reason why the Internal Revenue Code is 8 million words long is because it is anything BUT vague.