Richard Calls Upon You!

[Weston White]

Largest militaries are the PRC, North Korea, India, the USA. As a percentage of GDP, our military budget is probably less (percentage-wise) than that of many countries.

Not largest military as in numbers, but funding for military, as in technological, e.g. the F22.

http://www.spacewar.com/Military_Technology.html
http://www.futurefirepower.com


oh and

http://www.videosift.com/video/US-Defen ... -Flash-ver

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sOIe5Ql0v8

[Nikki]

Weston, I SO do not ever have to worry about running into you at any of the bars I frequent.

First, you couldn't afford the cover charge.

Second, you couldn't scrub up enough to get past the valet parking, much less the doorkeeper.

Finally, you are making an extremely incorrect assumption in your post. But, why is that not surprising?

[Weston White]

Weston, I SO do not ever have to worry about running into you at any of the bars I frequent.

First, you couldn't afford the cover charge.

Second, you couldn't scrub up enough to get past the valet parking, much less the doorkeeper.

Finally, you are making an extremely incorrect assumption in your post. But, why is that not surprising?

Oh yea and your refinement shines from you to me though my monitor. Wow, astonishing, absolutely astonishing.

BTW, you really don't have to worry, I do not go out to bars. And paying cover charges is not something that has ever appealed to me. I business wants me to pay them to let me in so that I can then purchase overpriced beverages from them... and all because I am equipped with male genitalia, (meaning at most places females get in for free). Yea that is so not happening.

[Weston White]

Finally, you are making an extremely incorrect assumption in your post. But, why is that not surprising?

And no I am not, go read the history of the income tax... not until recently was it perceived that taxing labor was within the purpose of establishing such a class of tax... then go and compare that to the history of the capitation tax... The difference between night and day. How things came to be, I will never know. Well yea I do know, public education, the socialist operandi.

[Nikki]

Finally, you are making an extremely incorrect assumption in your post. But, why is that not surprising?

And no I am not, go read the history of the income tax... not until recently was it perceived that taxing labor was within the purpose of establishing such a class of tax... then go and compare that to the history of the capitation tax... The difference between night and day. How things came to be, I will never know. Well yea I do know, public education, the socialist operandi.

WOOOOOOSH

WAFM !

[Red Cedar PM]

Okay Westy, so you don't agree with what the government does with its tax revenue, and it sounds like you don't agree with how they collect said revenue. Whoop de freaking doo. We do not care. Your opinions about the government have nothing to do with the FACT that the income tax applies to the pay you receive for labor, work, vocation, or whatever the hell you want to call it. This fact is undeniable. Until you find one court case, anywhere, that says otherwise, you are just pissing into the wind by posting here.

I will say it again - CPAs and Tax Attorneys are not unjustly enriched by most people's confusion with the tax system. Pete Hendrickson and the other de-tax gurus who prey on people's confusion about the tax system are the ones that should be exposed, have the proceeds from their ill-gotten gains seized, and be thrown in jail. They are scumbags. Pete is even worse - a mail-bombing felon who turned on his fellow criminals, and a snake-oil selling, lying scumbag. The fact that you feel so strongly about siding people like him and how you despise the good people who post here just goes to show how bad your judgment of character really is.

[Nikki]

In all fairness, Pete does deserve a modicum of credit in that he's one of the cheapest gurus around.

You can buy his snake oil for just a small percentage of what some of the others charge.

Pete, I think, actually believes his own line of crap and is selling the books for very little more than they cost him to self-publish and distribute. He's definitely not getting rich off individual sales in the low two figures.

[Red Cedar PM]

In all fairness, Pete does deserve a modicum of credit in that he's one of the cheapest gurus around.

You can buy his snake oil for just a small percentage of what some of the others charge.

Pete, I think, actually believes his own line of crap and is selling the books for very little more than they cost him to self-publish and distribute. He's definitely not getting rich off individual sales in the low two figures.

I wouldn't care if he gave it away for free. The fact that many people have been misled by him and that they are facing financial ruin as a result of his misleading them makes what he is doing utterly terrible. Just look at how many LHer's (including Westy himself, it appears) are facing massive frivolous penalties, interest, and possible criminal prosecution. Regardless of any personal gain Pete may or may not have gotten out of CtC, he has sufficiently ruined many people's lives. I am glad he will likely rot in jail, and I hope he has enough time this time to think about doing something positive with his life.

[Nikki]

I wouldn't care if he gave it away for free. The fact that many people have been misled by him and that they are facing financial ruin as a result of his misleading them makes what he is doing utterly terrible. Just look at how many LHer's (including Westy himself, it appears) are facing massive frivolous penalties, interest, and possible criminal prosecution. Regardless of any personal gain Pete may or may not have gotten out of CtC, he has sufficiently ruined many people's lives. I am glad he will likely rot in jail, and I hope he has enough time this time to think about doing something positive with his life.

As if

Pete has a deeply ingrained grudge against the federal government and the income tax.

The only thing he might gain in prison is a mambership in the Aryan Nation.

[LPC]

http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1704


So the only other question is do you all have the guts to respond?

How can I respond when I have been barred from posting to the forum?

[Joey Smith]

http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1704
So the only other question is do you all have the guts to respond?

How can I respond when I have been barred from posting to the forum?

Funny how those who profess to be the defenders of freedom are the first to censor or ban opposing views .........

[GoldandSilverEagles]

Talk about complicating a very simple issue. The truth of the matter is really very cut and dry, 'black and white', very simple, though legal minded people have a tendency to complicate matters.

Now I have Aspergers Syndrome so my English, spelling, and grammar isn't always the best.

Personally I am for the "flat tax" as long as the tax is zero. To all of you federal tax law guru's I post to you the same request I've repeatedly posed to the irs: I'm more than happy to pay the income tax, but first please send me the Federal law, along with the implementing regulation that makes me liable for it.

I asked the irs that question for many many years and they refused to send me an answer.

Those of you who support the (so-called) legality of the income tax may cite case law as your 'gods of witness'. I'll remind you that it is Congress (the legislative branch) that was given the responsibility of writing the tax laws, and not the courts (the judiciary). Please remember, the courts were given the the responsibility of enforcing the laws that Congress write, and not that of making the laws themselves.

Talk about a scam approach, when an individual asks for the law that makes them liable, they are accused of "where's the law" scam. Talk about a spin doctor approach. When said individual asks for the presentment of any other federal law(s), that is treated as a more reasonable request (because clearly enacted said law(s) can be easily produced). Yet the law making Americans working in the private sector liable seems to evoke a different response. Hmmm...me thinks something is being hidden because there is no law.
But rather than allowing the scam to be exposed, lets go on the offense and call the request for the law a "scam".

Quite simply, it's politics, intimidation, and mind f*ck, not law.

[Nikki]

You could start with 26USC and 26CFR, the law and the regulations, respectively.

Yes, we know that 26USC is not "positive law" but that doesn't matter. Every single line, every word in it reflects the actual law, found in the Statutes at Large, which was passed thereby creating the text which is codified into 26USC.

I realize you won't accept anything that simple, but that's one of YOUR problems, not ours or the system's.

[jg]

...
Personally I am for the "flat tax" as long as the tax is zero. To all of you federal tax law guru's I post to you the same request I've repeatedly posed to the irs: I'm more than happy to pay the income tax, but first please send me the Federal law, along with the implementing regulation that makes me liable for it.
...

From http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/ ... omeTax.htm

Around the web you can find scores of people and organizations touting the concept that there is no obligation to pay income taxes. These "tax protestors" (also called "tax protesters," "tax deniers," or "tax defiers") have dozens of theories, each kookier than the last. There is an eerie fascination to these theories, many of which are laced with so many references to the tax code and regulations that they have a veneer of plausibility that just might fool a very naive lay person. As a small public service, this page explains the error in some popular tax protestor theories.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/ ... tNoLaw.htm has the basic information refuting "There's just no law requiring you to pay federal income taxes."
But, on that page a link under "not serious" leads to a page that says:

Tax protestors frequently say "if someone would just show me the law that requires me to pay income tax, I would pay." But they're not serious.

If a tax protestor says, "there's no law requiring most people to pay income tax," and you show them the law, they never say, "oh wow, there it is, I was wrong, now I'll pay!" No, the next thing they usually say is, "the Internal Revenue Code is not a law!" You explain that it is, and they say, "but income tax is unconstitutional because it isn't apportioned!" You explain that to them and they say, "but it only applies to foreign income because of section 861!" No matter how patiently you answer their questions, they always have some further, misunderstood, irrelevant point that they claim is the double-secret key to the whole thing. I can understand the desire not to get started down this road.

My own experience suggests that maybe the IRS is showing tax protestors the law, but the protestors just won't accept it. Protestors report "the IRS refused to show me the law," but possibly, the IRS did show them the law, but the protestors thought that what was shown to them wasn't the law because of one of their absurd fallback arguments.

That's why the target market for my website is not hard-core tax protestors, but people who have been exposed to tax protestor rhetoric and who wonder if it could possibly be true, but who are still open to reason and who can accept the law if it's intelligently laid out for them.

So, no amount of quoting the law to you will help unless you are willing to accept and understand what the law actually does say (and not what you may have been led to think that it means).

[agent86x]

Talk about complicating a very simple issue. The truth of the matter is really very cut and dry, 'black and white', very simple, though legal minded people have a tendency to complicate matters.

Now I have Aspergers Syndrome so my English, spelling, and grammar isn't always the best.

Personally I am for the "flat tax" as long as the tax is zero. To all of you federal tax law guru's I post to you the same request I've repeatedly posed to the irs: I'm more than happy to pay the income tax, but first please send me the Federal law, along with the implementing regulation that makes me liable for it.

I asked the irs that question for many many years and they refused to send me an answer.

And, of course, you are too stupid and helpless to look it up for yourself, right?

LAW:
26 USC § 1. Tax imposed

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

(table snipped)

(b) Heads of households
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2 (b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

(table snipped)

(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

(table snipped)

(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

(table snipped)

REGULATION:

Code: Select all

[Title 26, Volume 1]

Sec. 1.1-1  Income tax on individuals.

    (a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on 
the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the 
United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), 
on the income of a nonresident alien individual. For optional tax in the 
case of taxpayers with adjusted gross income of less than $10,000 (less 
than $5,000 for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1970) see 
section 3. The tax imposed is upon taxable income (determined by 
subtracting the allowable deductions from gross income). The tax is 
determined in accordance with the table contained in section 1.
etc.

****
LAW:
26 USC 6012. Persons required to make returns of income

(a) General rule
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1)
(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount,..."
etc.

REGULATION:
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 26, Volume 13]
 
Sec. 1.6012-1  Individuals required to make returns of income.

    (a) Individual citizen or resident--(1) In general. Except as 
provided in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, an income tax return 
must be filed by every individual for each taxable year beginning before 
January 1, 1973, during which he receives $600 or more of gross income, 
and for each taxable year beginning after December 31, 1972, during 
which he receives $750 or more of gross income, if such individual is:
    (i) A citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or 
abroad,
    (ii) A resident of the United States even though not a citizen 
thereof, or
    (iii) An alien bona fide resident of Puerto Rico during the entire 
taxable year.
etc.

****
LAW:
26 USC § 6151. Time and place for paying tax shown on returns

(a) General rule
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return)."

REGULATION:
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 26, Volume 13]
 
Sec. 1.6151-1  Time and place for paying tax shown on returns.

    (a) In general. Except as provided in section 6152 and paragraph (b) 
of this section, the tax shown on any income tax return shall, without 
assessment or notice and demand, be paid to the internal revenue officer 
with whom the return is filed at the time fixed for filing the return 
(determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the 
return). For provisions relating to the time for filing income tax 
returns, see section 6072 and Sec. Sec. 1.6072-1 to 1.6072-4, 
inclusive. For provisions relating to the place for filing income tax 
returns, see section 6091 and Sec. Sec. 1.6091-1 to 1.6091-4, 
inclusive.
etc.
***

Now there are the laws and regulations that impose the income tax, require the tax to be paid, and require the returns to be made.  Let the weaseling begin.

[LPC]

I'm more than happy to pay the income tax, but first please send me the Federal law, along with the implementing regulation that makes me liable for it.

See IRC (26 USC) sections 1 and 6151. You can find additional details at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#liable

And one of the regulations under section 1 declares that "In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States." Treas. Reg. Section 1.1-1(b).

Although the "implementing regulations" argument has been rejected by numerous courts. See cases cited at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#regulations

And, anticipating your next delusion, the Internal Revenue Code is a statute (or a series of statutes) enacted by Congress. See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#law for details.

And as far as your happiness is concerned, I'm skeptical about whether you will be happy no matter how many statutes you are shown. See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#showmethelaw for an explanation as to why.

I'll remind you that it is Congress (the legislative branch) that was given the responsibility of writing the tax laws, and not the courts (the judiciary). Please remember, the courts were given the the responsibility of enforcing the laws that Congress write, and not that of making the laws themselves.

And yet you complain when the courts enforce those laws as written.

Talk about a scam approach, when an individual asks for the law that makes them liable, they are accused of "where's the law" scam.

Prove them wrong, then, and show that you're not scamming anyone. Now that you've been shown the law, stop asking for it.

[Red Cedar PM]

Personally I am for the "flat tax" as long as the tax is zero.

Well, that makes sense.

I suppose you propose that all needed federal government revenue will be collected by having the government join scAmway then, right?

[GoldandSilverEagles]

To all you "hot-rods":

1) Define "US citizen".

2) Define "US resident".

[Duke2Earl]

To all you "hot-rods":

1) Define "US citizen".

2) Define "US resident".

If you really need the definitions of those terms and you think that something in those definitions gets you out of paying income tax ....you are truely lost. No, I'm not going to play. I know where this game goes. Enjoy your time in jail.

[Imalawman]

To all you "hot-rods":

1) Define "US citizen".

2) Define "US resident".

Q.E.D. Thank you for demonstrating the typical mindset of a tax protestor. You see, we knew it wasn't "the law" you were after all along. I'm surprised you had the balls to post such a dumb question after everything that was just posted - were you trying to prove our point or just too stupid to realize that's what you were doing?