Introduction only. Introduces the basic issues revolving around the income tax. Learn about the nature of currency, and how employees of the Treasury Department, IRS, SSA, and other government agencies routinely misapply and subvert the law.
Related Posts:
- [Urdu] An increase of 15% in Salaries Budget 2011-2012
- Reforms in Govt policies regarding foreign investments
- Income Tax of Pakistan
- Senior citizens can avail 50pc tax rebate in payable income, says FBR
- EMPLOYMENT LAW BASICS FOR HAWAII EMPLOYERS: ILLINOIS RULING HIGHLIGHTS THE IMPORTANCE OF POLICIES AND TRAINING TO HAWAII EMPLOYERS
- FLAWS IN PUNJAB RENTED PREMISES ORDINANCE, 2007
- Income Tax Jurisdiction Order Karachi (Updated)
- Business Law
- Agricultural taxation in Pakistan
- Circular 1 (2004)
- Capital Gains Tax on Shares Sold will be implement after After July 1
- Pakistan Jumps in to the Matrix of the Cyber World
- 5 Keys to Achieving Financial Independence
- INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1981
- How Students Can Prepare To Become an Attorney
Look into WHY the gold was confiscated in the 1930′s
[Reply]
@ Godsmack0Believe,
the constitution prohibits a direct, unaportioned tax on the income of American citizens.
The Internal Revenue Code only requires non-resident aliens who earn money within the states, and U.S. citizens who earn money outside of the 50 states to pay a Federal Income tax. But those specifics seem to be lost on a vast majority of people for some reason, I’m not saying its intentional theft by deception or anything, but there is a video on Google Video called “Theft by deception”
[Reply]
@diamy00
Your statement is NOT true even today, the Federal income tax is over $1.2 trillion…that is what is actually recieved… the payment on the debt was only about $250 billion in ’08.
Do the math. You are wrong, your post is just another internet rumor.
[Reply]
@retsquid
When the report says that 1/3 of taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency, isn’t it speaking about ALL taxes in general? Not just the income tax exclusively?
regardless of the specifics, the simple fact of my statement is still true. And that is that it found that ALL the income tax that is collected is absorbed by interest on the national debt.
which is the simple answer to the question.
[Reply]
@Godsmack0Believe
The Federal Income Tax (~$1.3 trillion) covers about 43% of the entire budget.
[Reply]
…With two-thirds of everyone’s personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.
–Grace commission
[Reply]
WRONG!!!!
Here is what they REALLY said:
One-third of all their taxes is consumed by waste and inefficiency in the Federal Government as we identified in our survey.
Another one-third of all their taxes escapes collection from others as the underground economy blossoms in direct proportion to tax increases and places even more pressure on law abiding taxpayers, promoting still more underground economy-a vicious cycle that must be broken…
[Reply]
So, is that legal, or unconstitutional or something? Or is it just bad because its our mone we do labour for?
[Reply]
RE: Question, what does our income tax pay for, its been bugging me?
President Regan initiated an audit of the Government shortly after taking office. The report is referred to as “The Grace Commission Report” <–search YouTube
What it discovered is that the Federal income Tax is used to pay the interest on the national debt.
So basically it becomes the paycheck of the Federal Reserve Bank, which is not actually a federal institution but a private banking cartel
[Reply]
Question, what does our income tax pay for, its been bugging me?
[Reply]
This may be an ignorant question on my part but, What is a federal constitutional republic ?
[Reply]
@ANGELBLU2042
That sounds like a pretty good definition.
[Reply]
The correct answer is the United States is a federal constitutional republic.
[Reply]
Depends, what is the question?
[Reply]
the right answer is a republic right?
[Reply]
Incorrect
Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.
Eisner v. Macomber
[Reply]
Income, as defined by the Supreme Court, means gains made through corporate activity.
[Reply]
Pabon v. Commissioner, The court characterized Pabon’s position – including that she was not subject to tax because she was not an employee of the federal or state governments – as “nothing but tax protester rhetoric and legalistic gibberish.” The court imposed a penalty of $2,500 on Pabon for bringing a frivolous case, stating that she “regards this case as a vehicle to protest the tax laws of this country and espouse her own misguided views.”
[Reply]
“he admitted by signature to being an employee”
Not really, in order to file a W-4 you must be employed in the first place, if he didn’t file a W-4, his employer would have had to withhold at the highest rate.
[Reply]
“Just” or “unjust” does not come into play
Absolutely true. Anyone choosing to buck the trend is bound for bars, likely.
Common law provides no exclusion for “public servants” nor does the constitution or any other statute I am aware of.
As far as Latham from my old files, Latham filed false W-4′s and signed them under penalty of perjury. In his case, he admitted by signature to being an employee and for HIM to argue otherwise is, as the court said, preposterous.
[Reply]
“inclusion of specific items”
…is to make sure people know that ‘public servants’ are still “employees” under the law.
So, we know that ‘income’ need not be defined because you use the common definition of it and that items of gross income ARE defined which tells what is considered ‘income’.
“Just” or “unjust” does not come into play on whether or not there IS a law that requires you to pay income tax.
[Reply]
And Kelo v New London was a just ruling as well.
If “employee” is anyone considered under common law to be an “employee” the inclusion of specific items is not only unnecessary, but redundant.
[Reply]
Similarly, Lathams instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of employee does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious that within the context of both statutes the word includes is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.
United States v. Latham
[Reply]
Though the definition of person in 6332 does not mention States or any sovereign or political entity or their officers among those it includes [footnote omitted], it is equally clear that it does not exclude them. This is made certain by the provisions of 7701(b) of the 1954 IRC that The terms includes and including when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
Sims v. United States
[Reply]
“limited expansion so it does not include everything”
Correct, it only includes those listed and the normal people considered to be ‘employees’, not ‘everyone’.
Plaintiffs next argument is that he is not an employee under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) because he is not a federal officer, employee, elected official, or corporate officer. Plaintiff mistakenly assumes that this definition of employee excludes all other wage earners.
Peth v. Breitzmann
[Reply]