See how much your tax cut would be from Obama...

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

Title 26 is the code/law that dictates who pays and who does not pay... btw...

 

[mindseye]

For the benefit of those joining lately: I'm in the middle of rebutting Peaceful-Kancer's assertion that the law "doesn't say you have to" pay taxes.

For an admin, you are being a tad rude don't you think?

I'm being direct.You are ill-informed -- if you want to take that personally instead of as a shot at the tinfoil-hat website that mis-informed you, go right ahead.

September 17, 1787:
The Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 (Limits on Congress), states that, “No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

I've already pointed out AND YOU HAVE ACCEPTED that this section has been repealed. It's not relevant to the law today.

1895:
Furthermore, Supreme Court ruled that the Bureau of Internal Revenue was unconstitutional.

Yes, and a Constitutional Amendment was enacted in 1913 to address this. It's not relevant to the law today.

1909:
The 16th Amendment stated that Congress has the power to tax incomes,

So what's your argument here? You're making my case for me. How does this statement jibe with your previous assertion that the Sixteenth Amendment didn't offer any "new taxation powers"

March 13, 1911:
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 US 107 (1911) case, where the US Supreme court ruled, “The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i. e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U. S. supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of [220 U.S. 107, 152] privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.”

I believe you do not understand what the phrase "the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking" means.

The ruling in Flint was clear: If you're a corporation, you have to pay corporate income taxes; if you don't want to pay corporate income taxes, don't incorporate your business. The "element of absolute and unavoidable demand" was a reference to the plaintiff's (erroneous) assertion that the 1909 Corporation Tax Act applied to all businesses; the court ruled that it applied only to corporations. The demand was in fact avoidable (i.e., "unavoidable demand is lacking") by simply not incorporating one's business: "If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable".

The ruling cannot be construed to mean that paying taxes per se is optional.

February 3, 1913:
16th Amendment is ratified, although plagued with controversy on how it was ratified.

Plagued with controversy? Do you have a source for this? Thirty-five of the thirty-six states needed for ratification, ratified the proposed amendment on their very first ballot. One state -- hardly a "plague" -- rejected, and then ratified the amendment upon reconsideration. Even if that state had not reconsidered, the amendment would have become law later that same day, as a thirty-seventh and a thirty-eighty state ratified the amendment on February 3 as well.

This Amendment ... allowed the Congress to levy an income tax without regard to the States or the Census.

Again, if you're acknowledging that this amendment allows the Congress to levy an income tax, what is the point you're trying to make?

January 21, 1916:
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US 1, 21-22 (1916) case, where the US Supreme court ruled ...

You've boldfaced a lot of information, but you failed to boldface something that is crucial here, which I have highlighted in red:

, “We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows: (a) The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment, it is outside of the Amendment, and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned. (b) As the Amendment authorizes a tax only upon incomes 'from whatever source derived,' the exclusion from taxation of some income of designated persons and classes is not authorized, and hence the constitutionality of the law must be tested by the general provisions of the Constitution as to taxation, and thus again the tax is void for want of apportionment. (c) As the right to tax 'incomes from whatever source derived' for which the Amendment provides must be considered as exacting intrinsic uniformity, therefore no tax comes under the authority of the Amendment not conforming to such standard, and hence all the provisions of the assailed statute must once more be tested solely under the general and pre-existing provisions of the Constitution, causing the statute again to be void in the absence of apportionment. (d) As the power conferred by the Amendment is new and prospective, the attempt in the statute to make its provisions retroactively apply is void because, so far as the retroactive period is concerned, it is governed by the pre-existing constitutional requirement as to apportionment.”

You've highlighted a "contention" in support of an "erroneous assumption". D'oh!

February 21, 1916:
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 103 (1916) case, where the US Supreme court ruled, “by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation 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…”

So...now we're back to my point: that the power to tax was conferred by Article I, Section 8, and that the 16th Amendment simply removed the apportionment requirement. This ruling simply says that the power to tax isn't "new".

You've boldfaced the words "prohibited" and "income taxation", as if boldfacing them somehow links them gramatically, but this paragraph doesn't prohibit income taxation.

March 21, 1916:
Treasury Decision 2313 states “Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co., decided January 21, 1916, it is hereby held that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913.”

Um, so? Nonresident aliens have to pay taxes on income earned in the United States, too. How does that exempt you?

May 20, 1918:
United States Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 case, where the US Supreme court ruled, “The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects...”

I've already responded to this in a previous post. Saying it again in boldface doesn't make it any more applicable.

I'll respond to your excerpts from Title 26 in a separate post.

 

[mindseye]

By looking at 26 USC, Subtitle C, Chapter 24, § 3401, we will read the following definition of “wages.”

Further down in 26 USC, Subtitle C, Chapter 24, § 3401, we will read the following definition of “employee.”

I've snipped the actual definitions to save space.

It should be noted that Subtitle A is entitled “Employment Taxes” and is where we are given instructions on who is taxable and how much those people are to be taxed on our employment. Furthermore, Chapter 24 is labeled, “Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages.”

You meant "Subtitle C" here, not "Subtitle A". Subtitle C relates to the obligations of businesses; Subtitle A relates to the obligations of individuals. Subtitle A is entitled "Income Taxes", not "Employment Taxes". The very first section of Subtitle A specifies who is individually liable for income taxes, specifying rates for "every married individual"; "every surviving spouse"; "every head of a household"; and "every individual [other than one of the above]"; "every estate"; "every trust".

Each of those definitions you've quoted from Subtitle C begins with the words, "For purposes of this chapter": meaning they can't be manipulated to reach a conclusion about the obligations stated in Subtitle A.

Again, you've quoted material which isn't relevant to your original argument.

 

[D_Chocho_Lippz]

I've already responded to this in a previous post. Saying it again in boldface doesn't make it any more applicable.

I'll respond to your excerpts from Title 26 in a separate post.

Look, I've already stated my piece. If you wish to disagree, then that is fine. That is your prerogative. The bold was just because that is how I originally typed it and didn't feel like retyping it. Furthermore, the piece I wrote was a history of the IRS and is not complete. SORRY!)

I didn't prove anything by the 16th saying that it can tax incomes. I didn't prove your point. With law, everything has its own meaning. If you wish to define your money earned as income, then yeah, you are taxable. However, if you wish to define your money earned by what Title 26 says it is, then you are not taxable.

But anyways, if you respond, I won't be here. So go ahead and write what you want. You already have it set that you are a tax-payer. So be it. Pay taxes. No skin off my back. Each to their own...

 

[mindseye]

I didn't prove your point.

Nor your own.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Look, I've already stated my piece. If you wish to disagree, then that is fine. That is your prerogative. The bold was just because that is how I originally typed it and didn't feel like retyping it. Furthermore, the piece I wrote was a history of the IRS and is not complete. SORRY!)

I didn't prove anything by the 16th saying that it can tax incomes. I didn't prove your point. With law, everything has its own meaning. If you wish to define your money earned as income, then yeah, you are taxable. However, if you wish to define your money earned by what Title 26 says it is, then you are not taxable.

But anyways, if you respond, I won't be here. So go ahead and write what you want. You already have it set that you are a tax-payer. So be it. Pay taxes. No skin off my back. Each to their own...

Think what you must.
But unless you've received every single payment for your work (if you work at all) under the rug, and not as a check payment that the person(s) you work for report to the IRS, it's only so long before the government come knocking on your door for taxes.

You can quote whatever clause or loophole you want. I'm just telling you the reality of the situation. Those who avoid paying taxes eventually get caught. They ALWAYS do.

 

[faceking]

First this is clearly and inaccurate and biased calculator. But I gave it a spin...

$4,526 with Obama, $4,771 under McCain.

There is a better link on that page, that allows you to enter mortgage interest, and capital gain/loss... those two are paramount for true tax payers vs some "how much do you make, dependents, and filing status"... that's more basic than the 1040EZ.

 

[mindseye]

I resent the suggestion that for having chosen a career in public service instead of something more financially lucrative, I'm not a "true" taxpayer.

 

[uniqueusername]

I resent the suggestion that for having chosen a career in public service instead of something more financially lucrative, I'm not a "true" taxpayer.

I'd say it depends on what you're doing. Would Fannie Mae executives claim they had careers in public service?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Honestly, did you really "come to your senses," and think "ahh, it's okay"? I know whenever I have to write a check to the IRS at the end of the year, I think of all those bullshit programs and people feeding off the tit. I pay someone to mow my lawn... why can't I go down to the welfare office and pick up somebody to come over and do it for free? They are getting paid "by the people," so maybe they should work "for the people."

Yes I did. I live my life day to day not once a year when the IRS is supposed to be refunding me taxes. I don't need to explain (again) how liberating it was to be able to do what I please and take care of all my financial obligations with no problems. IT WAS WELL WORTH THE EXTRA $800 CHECK I HAD TO WRITE IN APRIL. Compared to now where I make less than half of what I did before.

Whenever I have to write a check to the IRS, I don't "come to my senses," I look at the tax tables and think "This is total and utter bullshit."

Of course people are going to be pissed if they have to part with their hard earned cash. But looking back at that year versus the year I'm about to finish, I'd rather be back in that situation again. The tradeoff? About an extra $30K+ a year. And all I had to do is pay an extra $800 in taxes in April? Gee, what a bargain! Besides, I kinda knew it would happen anyhow. If I didn't declare any exemptions (including myself) and wrote in a zero, the government takes out more taxes per check and in turn makes it more certain for a refund of some sort in April. But I chose to claim myself so I would get more money in every paycheck.

People need to stop flipping out on the word "taxes". If you're not so gung-ho to milk the system for every dime you can, then you'll have nothing to worry about. Kinda. :biggrin1:

Cue Rick Ross "Everyday I'm Hustling" and fade to black...:

 

[B_starinvestor]

So please don't characterize the Social programs as 'redistribution of wealth"


Halliburton Got 20 billion re-distributed to them.
And every government contract is Corporate Welfare.

Please help me understand how the Halliburton employees are hanging out on every streetcorner in Cincinnati at 9:00 a.m. with a brand new pair of shoes, something looking like a bottle of booze in a paper bag, nineteen kids running through the streets, and Halliburton only allows 6 weeks vacation-per year even for the top level employees. They must all love hanging here in Cincinnati for vacation...

 

[SpeedoGuy]

My tax cut?

I don't want or need a friggin' tax cut. There's been too much of that talk in the last decade. What I need is for my government to pay off its debts and live within its means.