Private citizens not required to file Fed Income Tax??

the school does not have a machine ... they hand count :) twice... while i watch a good way to kill a morning. the count tax office has a machine that is why i added the coins to the mix :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by syslight

actually an income tax holiday would be great for both the economy and the government. we would all have our paycheck availible to buy goods and services form companies that pay the business tax and import duty on goods. think about it a a ONE TRILLION Dollar stimulus package that helps everybody, rich, poop, business owner, investor, government thug...


As for the highways... some 30 odd cents of everygallon of gas goes to the federal highway fund... higher mileage vehicles means less tax revenue for roads... Detriot needs to bring back the V16 engines that got 5 mpg!

---

I don't know if you did that on purpose, but I got a little chuckle out of it either way.

syslight for President!

"So, is that all hogwash???"

No. Not at all. I would encourage you not to pay any taxes, whether it be state or federal, and when the authorities place you under arrest for income tax evasion, just tell them you don't recognize their constitutional power to collect taxes. I'm sure they'll just drop the whole affair...:rofl2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

"So, is that all hogwash???"

No. Not at all. I would encourage you not to pay any taxes, whether it be state or federal, and when the authorities place you under arrest for income tax evasion, just tell them you don't recognize their constitutional power to collect taxes. I'm sure they'll just drop the whole affair...:rofl2:

---

I don't disagree with you in the least about what would be the probable reaction the government would have after an action of refusing to pay income tax. I'm not a tax expert, I'm not a tax protester and I do have taxes withheld and pay if required (tax protester would say forced) to do so I pay taxes.

IF the generally held beliefs among tax protesters are true: 1) The 16th amendment was never ratified. 2) The 16th amendment was ruled by the judicial branch as NOT giving the government any new powers not already bestowed (state apportioned tax collection only and not allowed to tax individuals), then just because the government seizes property and throws people in jail doesn't make the government's collection of taxes legitimate.

I guess I don't get your point.

Chris L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris L

IF the generally held beliefs among tax protesters are true: 1) The 16th amendment was never ratified. 2) The 16th amendment was ruled by the judicial branch as NOT giving the government any new powers not already bestowed (state apportioned tax collection only and not allowed to tax individuals), then just because the government seizes property and throws people in jail doesn't make the government's collection of taxes legitimate.

I guess I don't get your point.

---

The government seizes property and throws people in jail. The courts keep them there. I'd say the implication is that the judicial branch is in on it, wouldn't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quick

The government seizes property and throws people in jail. The courts keep them there. I'd say the implication is that the judicial branch is in on it, wouldn't you?

---

I should be more specific, I agree, and rather that state the the Judicial Branch as a whole, clarify that apparently and according to some site called political-resources.com where the following quote was taken from, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:


"The judges of the U.S. Supreme Court rejected any claims that the 16th Amendment changed the constitutional limits on direct taxes in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, when they ruled that it "created no new power of taxation" and that it "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals"."

Chris L

Well i went and found the text of the rulling

Quote:

---

Besides this demonstration of the want of merit in the contention based upon the progressive feature of the tax, the error in the others is equally well established either by prior decisions or by the adequate bases for classification which are apparent on the face of the assailed provisions; that is, the distinction between individuals and corporations, the difference between various kinds of corporations, etc., etc. Ibid.; Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107, 158 , 55 S. L. ed. 389, 416, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; Billings v. United States, 232 U.S. 261, 282 , 58 S. L. ed. 596, 605, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 421; First Nat. Bank v. Kentucky, 9 Wall. 353, 19 L. ed. 701; National Safe Deposit Co. v. Stead, 232 U.S. 58, 70 , 58 S. L. ed. 504, 510, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 209. In fact, comprehensively surveying all the contentions [240 U.S. 1, 26] relied upon, aside from the erroneous construction of the Amendment which we have previously disposed of, we cannot escape the conclusion that they all rest upon the mistaken theory that although there be differences between the subjects taxed, to differently tax them transcends the limit of taxation and amounts to a want of due process, and that where a tax levied is believed by one who resists its enforcement to be wanting in wisdom and to operate injustice, from that fact in the nature of things there arises a want of due process of law and a resulting authority in the judiciary to exceed its powers and correct what is assumed to be mistaken or unwise exertions by the legislative authority of its lawful powers, even although there be no semblance of warrant in the Constitution for so doing

---

i like that part of the ruling.... my belief is that there must have been a further ruling that either vacated this or in some way clearified it.