A Jacobin's Perspective on the IRS

[Lasagna]

And to clarify, your position is that everything the IRS and government says is true, and anyone who questions it is either mentally ill or foolish or an agent of Russia or what?

God, man. Do you really think you're being clever here? Where the hell do you live that people allow this sort of nonsense?

[Demosthenes]

He has to go all weasely on the terms of the debate. He didn't think anyone would take him up on his offer.

[webhick]

Biggest hurdle is an impartial jury/audience.

A nearly impossible hurdle, if you ask me. The only people who would bother listening to such a debate are people with an interest in you winning.

[The Observer]

And I will scan and post the Master File and the copy of what the codes mean. It says my friend is a cattle rancher in the US Virgin Islands. This is a document from the IRS.

You are saying that 6209 doesn't exist or doesn't matter or what?

Or you just say ignore it?

Well, this has gotten me quite upset. When I first got classified as a Virgin Islands gunsmith, the IRS promised me that they wouldn't be creating any other new franchise opportunities that would compete or otherwise detract from my economic niche in the Islands.

Guess I am going to have to wander over to your friend's ranch with some of my product and eliminate his product.

[webhick]

Guess I am going to have to wander over to your friend's ranch with some of my product and eliminate his product.

Soo...barbecue at your place?

[BBFlatt]

I don't recall a requirement for an "impartial jury/audience" in the original debate challenge, how many more conditions are you going to attach to your offer, now that it's been accepted?

[Famspear]

Spartacus wrote:

IRS isn't even in Title 31 except for one mention. Why?

Spartacus, I've read your posts in this thread, and all I can say is......

What are you thinking?

Take a deep breath. Organize your thoughts. Try to come up with something original.

Example: Ask yourself the question: What in the world does the "number of mentions" of the "IRS" (Internal Revenue Service) in title 31 (of the United States Code) have to do with any point you seem to be trying to make (but are apparently unable to make)? Hint: The rest of us here already know the answer.

And, by the way, the "Internal Revenue Service" is mentioned at least three times in title 31 of the United States Code (last time I looked), not just once. The "Internal Revenue Service" is also mentioned over 200 times in the Internal Revenue Code, at least ten times in title 5, and a few more times in titles 2, 12, 23, and 42 of the United States Code.

Do your homework.

And for heaven's sake, don't cite "Paul Andrew Mitchell"/Mitch Modeleski and ask people here to "refute" him. You're humiliating yourself.

[wserra]

Actually, you are confused. I did not say the purpose of taxes -- I said the purpose of income tax.

The purpose of taxes is to raise revenue. Perhaps you don't like those taxes which (in your opinion) gore your personal ox. Perhaps the next guy doesn't approve of taxes which don't preserve biodiversity. The rest of us reserve the right not to care.

Which is taken from (and only applies to) Part 26 of Title 27, entitled "PART 26—LIQUORS AND ARTICLES FROM PUERTO RICO AND THE VIRGIN ISLANDS". Were you concerned with a matter dealing with stuff from Puerto Rico or the USVI? If not, why do you worry about this definition?

There is no other definition. No other mention. No other definition. Did I mention there is no other definition? Wait, there's no other definition.

Perhaps you could point out the context in which the lack of a further definition of "revenue agent" matters. It seems quite possible that the USC and CFR may not define "pumpkin" either. Unless you can show that this absence somehow creates an anomaly, the rest of us reserve the right not to care.

Read these and disprove them please -

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/cooper/cooper.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

There, happy? I see your Modeleski and raise you ten bandersnatchi.

I will put up $3000 of my own money to debate you or any other member in this form, in a public venue of sorts. We can let a non-biased panel or audience vote and see who they believe is right. The winner gets the money.

Right about what? In a later post, you write "My argument is that income tax drives economic integration and thus is used as political tool to promote policies of CFR-globalization. As such, the income tax and FED were created in a potentially illegal, immoral way through obfuscated laws to pull people under a false jurisdiction." Lots of that is just gibberish. Of course the income tax is in part a "political tool". I have no idea what "CFR-globalization" is. I do know what "illegal" means, although I doubt you do. Do you mean that the income tax is unconstitutional? I'll debate you on that one anytime, so you will of course claim that you don't mean that. If that isn't it, what do you mean by "illegal"? The phrase "false jurisdiction" is worthy of a random word generator.

I'm ready any time.

OK, let's start now. I won't even discuss a wager with someone whose identity I don't know, so I'll go first. My name is Wesley M. Serra, and I am a lawyer in New York. You can now find me easily.

Who are you?

[Demosthenes]

Hey, Spartacus. Are you vivus_spartacus from LOIT?

[Imalawman]

I accept in the event certain conditions are met. $3,000.00 for how long of a debate? What rules apply? What radio station? What dates? I will want $1,500.00 up front and the remainder upon completion of the debate. Of course there will need to be more details ironed out, but its a start.

Great. There has to be a scope to the debate. My argument is that income tax drives economic integration and thus is used as political tool to promote policies of CFR-globalization. As such, the income tax and FED were created in a potentially illegal, immoral way through obfuscated laws to pull people under a false jurisdiction. However, it could be rationalized in the sense that it is driving economic growth.

Radio works. Escrow company or person. Biggest hurdle is an impartial jury/audience.

And to clarify, your position is that everything the IRS and government says is true, and anyone who questions it is either mentally ill or foolish or an agent of Russia or what?

Damn it. I thought I could make an easy $3,000.00. I will seriously debate you on a radio station for $3,000.00.

My position, to be argued in the affirmative - Resolved, that the federal income tax as currently codified in title 26 USC is a collection of valid and constitutional laws, the primary purpose of which is to raise revenue for the federal government.

[The Operative]

Spartacus,

I have a suggestion for you. Why don't you ask a single, specific question instead of acting like a random word generator? Ask a single question, wait for a few responses and then ask a follow-up question if you don't understand a particular point.

I'll begin by explaining one question you seem to have.
"Is the Internal Revenue Service an organization within the U.S. Department of Treasury?"
Yes. § 7801 gives the authority to the Secretary of the Treasury for the administration and enforcement of all of Title 26 with the exception that the Attorney General has the authority for administration and enforcement of Chapter 53 and of Chapters 61 through 80 as they apply to Chapter 53. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is described as being in the Department of the Treasury in § 7803. That section also assigns duties and responsibilities to the Commissioner and provides a way for the Secretary of the Treasury to either delegate additional power or to withhold a power. § 7804 gives authority to the Commissioner to "employ such number of persons as the Commissioner deems proper for the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws, and the Commissioner shall issue all necessary directions, instructions, orders, and rules applicable to such persons." That is all that is required to form the Internal Revenue Service.

Now, do you have any other specific questions?

[DarkestBeforeDawn]

http://www.shadowstats.com/article/292

To me it's not about legal or not legal, it's about what people are willing to put up with. Was it legal for slavery, yes. Was it legal for Egyptian Kings to use the lives of millions of slave to build the Pyramids, yes. Law is the regulation of people and their activities. Law arises out of power. Whoever has the power is the Law and makes the Law. Was it legal for Hitler to establish a fascist dictatorship and invade countries of Europe, and cook people in ovens, yes. 100% legal. Was it legal for white slave owners to bring black slaves to the States, yes. Under man's Law, anything is legal if you have the force to make it happen.

According to the federal government, it is legal to take 28% of a person's wages or earnings. That means it's legal for them to take 100% if they decide to change the rate. It is purely up to the ones governed to decide if they like the terms of their service and if not cancel the agreement. Such things have always taken place in history and will continue to be so. To me once the economics collapse than you will see people rethink the agreement, until then they will get in their Hummers and continue to drive along like everything is fine.

The people that established the U.S. back in the 1700s would be considered today to be terrorist, lawbreakers, anarchist, and tax cheats -- so I tend to disregard labels. It really boils down to the governed no longer agreeing to the terms. It really doesn't take many to establish change, the Nazi party was only 10% of the population of Germany yet during the economic down turn they were able to take control of the country.

I believe the shadowstats article is a basic description of what I see for the U.S. as a whole, all imbalances one day get corrected. To me all this talk about Law is just getting to the point where it's kind of stupid. The thing that bothers me about the U.S. is not anything to do with taxes or whatever, it's that we keep on trying to say we are something we clearly are not. This country is no more free or capitalist than any other country I have visited, it's words and definitions that to me no longer fit.

Thank you for listening to my rant, ya'll can go on to your this Statute says this and this Statute says that, and Judge so and so said this or said that. To me it's all getting to the stage where it's pointless either way.

[Imalawman]

This country is no more free or capitalist than any other country I have visited, it's words and definitions that to me no longer fit.

Such as? Certainly the US is more free than the countries I have been to and/or lived in. But I'm curious what countries you're referring to.

[Dr. Caligari]

The people that established the U.S. back in the 1700s would be considered today to be terrorist, lawbreakers, anarchist, and tax cheats -- so I tend to disregard labels.

You should read up on how George Washington treated the people who protested the federal government's whiskey tax. (Hint: he had them prosecuted for treason and sentenced to death, although the sentences were never carried out.)

Thank you for listening to my rant, ya'll can go on to your this Statute says this and this Statute says that, and Judge so and so said this or said that. To me it's all getting to the stage where it's pointless either way.

Thank you for conceding that you would lose any debate about what the law in this country actually is. If you want to debate what the law should be, there's a Ranting & Raving forum.

[Famspear]

Dear DarkestBeforeDawn:

Thank you for your comments.

It occurs to me that one of the attributes I have seen over and over among people who question the "validity" of laws, of government, of big institutions, is the attribute of what I will call, for lack of a better term, a "very dark view" of the world. Correctly or incorrectly, I sense from your comments, and from those of "Spartacus" and "SteveSy" and countless others with whom I have interacted on the internet, a deep sense of foreboding about the "validity" or "legitimacy" of Authority and about the nature and extent of political freedom we enjoy in the United States. Many of these people talk about the United States of America as though they really do believe we somehow live in a totalitarian state. You often see the references to "Nazis" and so on. My impression is that the vast majority of these people have no idea what it would actually be like to live in a totalitarian state. My impression is that the vast majority of these people, to the extent that they claim to have studied Nazis, etc., and are supposedly knowledgeable about history are really delusional in the sense that they don't really know nearly as much history as they think they know. A rational person who really studied totalitarian regimes like those of Hitler, Stalin, and so on, could not possibly believe that the United States is anywhere close to any such thing.

At any rate, I am always curious about where, in each individual case, this deep sense of pessimism comes from (assuming that it's not just my imagination about what the other person is feeling). So, the question is: Why do so many tax protesters, for example, seem to have this sense of pessimism, this feeling of foreboding, this anger at Authority, and this "drive" to pretend that the law is not "really" the law, and that governmental Authority (I'm deliberately capitalizing the word) is "wrong," "bad", "invalid," etc.??

I'll address that question to "DarkestBeforeDawn" or "Spartacus" or anyone else who wants to respond. Was it a specific run-in with some Authority Figure that has influenced you? Can you be specific (without giving away your privacy, etc.)? Any thoughts?

[DarkestBeforeDawn]

You should read up on how George Washington treated the people who protested the federal government's whiskey tax. (Hint: he had them prosecuted for treason and sentenced to death, although the sentences were never carried out.)

Which was the exact point of the post.

[Dr. Caligari]

You should read up on how George Washington treated the people who protested the federal government's whiskey tax. (Hint: he had them prosecuted for treason and sentenced to death, although the sentences were never carried out.)

Which was the exact point of the post.

Nope. You said that the people who founded this country would today be considered tax protestors. In fact, what they were protesting was taxation without representation. Once they achieved independence from Great Britain and set up their own government, they proceeded to impose a whole slew of taxes, and treated anyone who protested those taxes quite harshly. (The failure to carry out the death sentences was merely the result of Washington's term ending, and his successors wanting to quiet down the rebellious Pennsylvanians).

[DarkestBeforeDawn]

Nope. You said that the people who founded this country would today be considered tax protestors. In fact, what they were protesting was taxation without representation. Once they achieved independence from Great Britain and set up their own government, they proceeded to impose a whole slew of taxes, and treated anyone who protested those taxes quite harshly. (The failure to carry out the death sentences was merely the result of Washington's term ending, and his successors wanting to quiet down the rebellious Pennsylvanians).

That is a big one in the movies isn't it. Although that was a part of it, that was not the complete story. Much of it started with the Stamp Act and having to house troops in Quarterly Act. Britain passed they Declaratory Act stating that the British government had total power to legislate any laws governing the American colonies in all cases whatsoever. I don't know how to make that anymore clear, all act against Britain were acts of terrorism. It doesn't matter what the Colonist disagree with, the canceled the agreement. Taxes were a part of it, but it basically comes down to being governed and agreeing with the terms.

[The Observer]

The problem with your post, Darkest, is that you failed to acknowledge the rule of law in this country - in this instance you have failed to acknowledge that there is a method or an ability for the people to change laws that they don't agree with. And this happens on a regular basis. At the federal level, every two years there is an election where the people get the right to vote in representatives who have the authority and power to change laws. And they get an additonal vote every six years to send senators to Washington, D.C with the same power to change laws. That right has continued on, in some form or fashion for the last 220 or so years and I expect it to continue. Therefore, there is no need for people to consider disobeying a law that they disagree with, all they need to do is to vote for representatives that share the same outlook about that law.

[SteveSy]

My impression is that the vast majority of these people have no idea what it would actually be like to live in a totalitarian state. My impression is that the vast majority of these people, to the extent that they claim to have studied Nazis, etc., and are supposedly knowledgeable about history are really delusional in the sense that they don't really know nearly as much history as they think they know. A rational person who really studied totalitarian regimes like those of Hitler, Stalin, and so on, could not possibly believe that the United States is anywhere close to any such thing.

No see, most people do not make direct comparisons to those regimes as if we are just like them, you're just attempting to construct a strawman. People like me use them to shoot your arguments down in flames just like Dark did. What Hitler did was legal, what Stalin did was legal. You attempt to say "the law says" as if that somehow adds validity to the acts being done. The law does not make something right. Hitler is a good example to expose all sorts of flaws in arguments people like you make. For instance you claim that things can not happen in an elected democracy.

Germany was a democracy and people willingly allowed someone to obtain power that ended up abusing millions. Most of the abuse was hidden from the citizens. German citizens would have laughed at you if you tried to claim Hitler was on a path to destroy their nation and abuse the people on a mass level after being elected. People willingly gave up their freedoms as they do now, and people like you as they did back then defended the benefits of giving up those freedoms. People like you defended the hard hand of government because "they were elected". Almost all of those supporters supported their government up to the very end and still had no clue that their government was involved in such vile acts. They like you refuse to accept an elected government was capable of such things. It simply can't and won't happen here, and to even talk about it is ridiculous.

Maybe you should learn from history....instead of ignoring it. First and foremost repeatedly arguing its the law, a judge said this or that, is meaningless nonsense. It doesn't make anything right and it doesn't prove anything. It proves nothing other than someone in power said something. If you believe it proves something then you must believe those regimes were just as valid. They too had laws, courts, scholars and citizens who did not openly argue what was happening was wrong. In fact, anybody that mattered supported them, that is, up and until it was too late.

No we are not Nazi Germany, and I doubt we'll ever get there. However there is a possibility we could be very similar in many ways without all the murders. Some of you claim, well, if you don't like what's happening just elect someone else. I'm pretty sure 90% of the population is sick and damn tired of all the massive government waste and pork barrel spending. You hear about it every single election....Does it ever get fixed, are we reducing the waste, are we stopping all the corruption? No, the national debt just gets bigger and bigger, spending goes higher and higher. More and more appropriation's bills get filled with more and more unrelated nonsense. It won't be until people like you realize that there is a point when the system you so dearly trust and defend is just a method to further the madness. People like you need to realize that you are an individual capable, at least some of you, of thinking for yourself and deciding whether something is right or wrong and if its not stand up and say its not. This is regardless of what some politician, government official, judge or an indoctrinated scholar says.