New Hampshire man, Ed Brown, refuses to pay federal taxes - willing to fight for it.

The value of a house, by an assessor, is determind by comparing similiar house on the market and what they are currently going for. He does walk into you house and look around then go "I think its worth 100,000...I don't like the design". His opinion is based upon how much other people felt the value of that house was. But the value he comes up with may not even be accurate because he may come up with a price that already is over what some one thinks its value is.

He may say this house is worth 300,000 dollars, when 90% of the people wouldn't pay that much for the house. 90% of people may pay like 285,000. Does that mean that is he sells at 295,000 he is selling at a 5,000 dollar loss?

What's to stop some one from telling an assessor "I'll slip you 1,000 to raise the house value 15,000 dollars."?

Value is based solely upon what some one is willing to pay for something. What if the majority of people find a corvettes value at 10,000 dollars, but it cost 15,000 to make it? Well does that mean if they sell it for `13,000 dollars they are making a profit of 3,000 dollars?
Not a chance, they just lost 2,000 dollars and made NO profit. Value and cost to manufactor are two completely different things.

You are made to believe that labor has a set value, and anything over that value is profit. Thats not true. Even assessor GUESS at what the AVERAGE value of a house is. If he say 355,000 that doesn't mean it costed 355,000 to make the house, that means you can probably sell it for 355,000 without too much a problem. It may have costed 100,000 to actually make the house, but the average value of the house may be 355,000.

Value is controlled by nothing more then demand. And demand isn't a means of meassuring profit, which is what you seemed to be confused over.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
Value is controlled by nothing more then demand.

You forgot the supply part in setting market value as per classic economics.
Supply and demand Wiki

Ed Brown interview - Jan 18th


[edit on 20-1-2007 by Regenmacher]

you are right in that demand does not directly determine profit. I never said it did. Demand does as you say play a role in determining value and profit is simply the amount received minus the value. Now as to the question of determining the value of labor here is how I think it should work. First a standard value of an hour should be set so that 1hour=xdollars. From there the unions need to negotiate with employers how much an hour of labor is worth. Then to determine income simply subtract the value of an hour plus the value of the work from the total amount payed and you have the total profit, or taxable income. Unluckily that is not how our economy works. our economy works like I have described previously. In our society labor is seen as worthless.

[edit on 1/20/2007 by Belenus]

yes well supply regulates the demand, and demand regulates value. Value, does not regulate profits, or have any connection to profits.

You cannot set a value on labor, and you never will be able to. You keep mixing up value to raw cost to create something. Profit is produce when the cost to make something is sold at a higher price. Why you keep bringing up value is beyond me. Value has no connection to profit, and it never will. The only connection it has, is the made up connection the IRS has made so they can tax you for it. As long as you keep defending it, whether its real or imagined, of course it will be around.

I could say lions are not mammals. I could keep saying that. It may not be true, but if I say it enough and get enough people to believe it will that make it true? No, it just means Ive spread a lie better then most lies are spread is all.

If you want to believe in the lie that you can place a value on something and make it a benchmark to level off profit lines, fine. The fact of the matter is profits are determind by the costs of making a product, not the value at which it is set at by the public.

No matter what the value it still costs X amount to produce a xbox, so that X amount creates the benchmark for profit, not the value at which people find the system.

I felt that the xbox 360 was a value of 500 dollars and paid that 500 dollars. My friend felt that was way too high and wasn't worth more then 250. None of that determines the amount of profit made. Nobody said, well the xbox 360 is valued at 300 dollars, so if they sell it for 500 they make 200 profit per system. Want to know why? Because if the value was at 300, then the systems would be sold at 300 dollars. Thats what people are willing to pay for it.

You act like we can set a value, then anything over the value is profit. We set a value, its going to be sold at that value because thats the average price people will buy it at.

Now costs to produce the items is much different. its costs you 50 dollars for parts, 50 for labor, and 15 for distribution per unit, that means it costs you 115 dollars to make that system. The VALUE of that system is not 115 dollars, the costs to create the system is at 115 dollars. The value of the product may be at 150 dollars or maybe 300 dollars because its in high demand and short supply. The cost to make it was 115 dollars, the value was 300. They made 185 dollar profit. The profit had to do with the difference between what it costed to make the product and what it was sold at.

With labor, you aren't making a product. You decide you are going to charge 150 dollars to paint a wall. A guy hires you and pays you to paint a wall and pays you 150 dollars. The labor costed you 150 dollars, and he paid you 150 dollars. No profit was made. If you say it costs you 150 to paint a wall, why would anyone pay you more then 150 to paint the wall? Out of the good of their heart? No.

The fact is you cannot regulate the cost of labor. Value is not related to profits directly. Value decides how much profit can be made if there is a cost to manufactor the product.

Has anyone seen this story covered by any of the major networks or major national newspapers?

They're not

Ed Brown is about to be assinated by the federal government, you would think that the national media would be covering it.




[edit on 20-1-2007 by In nothing we trust]

I saw this story on Drudge Report, hopefully more media outlets will be running it due to Drudge Report.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Has anyone seen this story covered by any of the major networks or major national newspapers?

There was actually a suprisingly large amount of coverage yesterday. foxnews.com had it on the front page under the top story and on cnn.com, it was the second most watched video. It's more or less completely disappeared from the news today though.

Bad Request

Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.

Very cool .
We should all support our constitutional rights, I own a copy of the original constitution and nowhere does it say that the federal government has the right to charge people money for living here. When we buy something they charge us extra for sales tax! I mean that is bull****, why do we have to pay more than the price listed on the tag.

Originally posted by dk2852
We should all support our constitutional rights

The problem is that you also must comply with your obligations.

Also, the original constitution it's not the only source of rights and obligations to the US citizens.


[edit on 21/1/2007 by ArMaP]

Anyone ever hear about UCC 1-207?

UCC 1-207 Review

It is so important to know and understand the meaning of "'Without prejudice' UCC 1-207," in connection with your signature, that we should go over this once more. It is very likely that a judge will ask you what it means. So please learn and understand this carefully: The use of "'Without prejudice' UCC 1-207," in connection with my signature indicates that I have reserved my Common Law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that I did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability associated with the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.

Once you state that, it is all the judge needs to hear. Under the Common Law, a contract must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally, by both parties, or it can be declared void and unenforceable. You are claiming the right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that you did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. And you do not accept the liability associated with the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or agreement.

The compelled benefit is the privilege to use Federal Reserve Notes to discharge your debts with limited liability rather than to pay your debts with silver coins. It is a compelled benefit, because there are no silver coins in circulation. You have to eat, and you can only buy food with the medium of exchange provided by the government. You are not allowed to print your own money, so you are compelled to use theirs. This is the compelled benefit rendered by government, so that you will be obligated, under an implied agreement, to obey every statute, ordinance and regulation passed by government, and at all levels; federal, state and local.

Here is a link to the page:
www.landrights.com...

How do you retract a post? is it possible?


Thank you so much to anyone responding

Originally posted by FredT
What exactly are your taxes used for? For defence to preserve your right to complain about having to pay taxes. For medicare and other social programs. The roads you are going to use to get tot he guys house to support him etc etc etc etc.

EXACTLY FredT.

This guy doesn't want to pay his taxes? Then tell him to get the hell out of my country and go somewhere else where he can sponge off the workers. I work and pay taxes so that the roads (highways) can be built to make it possible for groceries to get to the store; for bridges to be built; so we can have police and firemen and libraries (local taxes); so poor people can have food; so elderly can have medical care; we can have schools; so we can pay for NATIONAL DEFENSE.

This idiot is a free loader. He wants freedom but won't pay the taxes necessary to support it.

Originally posted by Byrd
I think the perfect solution is for them to get out of America, quit using the services that my taxes are paying for, and move to a micronation like Redonda or Sealand.

AMEN! I'd give you a WATs if I could Byrd!

[edit on 1/21/2007 by FlyersFan]

It seems like Mr. Brown is more angry about the cheating and stealing part than the money. He is saying that what they are doing is illegal and he is taking a stance. It does not matter if you steal one dollar or one million. Stealing is stealing.

Originally posted by tsloan I can only hope the hillbillies in the ozarks come to this guys aid.

Thats me.

I've got his back. If this man dies, I hold a hand forged katana in opposition.

Federal income tax does one thing: It fuels the NWO global war machine. The money ends up in the hands of Halliburton, Dupont, Con-agra, and weapons manufacturers, etc.

I currently choose to avoid the WAR TAX by not earning an income.

It has been 3 months since I have taken a carpentry contract (which I have always paid income, aka WAR TAX, on in the past) and I have never held a 9-5 "real job". My intent is to earn "less than a taxable income".

Grow your food (on the roof if necessary) and keep stock of dried goods.

Shelter can be obtained from the garbage/debris on the curb; unoccupied buildings can be purchased for pennies on the dollar. I own 4 homes (4500 sqft total) for a combined under 70k purchase price; now with a few rotten boards and shingles replaced, and a paint job... they're somehow worth half a million.

Time is FREE.

Money is illusion.

Work the LAND to subsist, not to get rich, and God will support you.

Be prepared to cut yourself off the grid and STAY HOME!



I hereby pledge ZERO TAXABLE INCOME for FEBUARY 2007 in support of ED BROWN!



Let the revolution unfold.

I am,

Sri Oracle

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by FredT
What exactly are your taxes used for? For defence to preserve your right to complain about having to pay taxes. For medicare and other social programs. The roads you are going to use to get tot he guys house to support him etc etc etc etc.

EXACTLY FredT.

This guy doesn't want to pay his taxes? Then tell him to get the hell out of my country and go somewhere else where he can sponge off the workers. I work and pay taxes so that the roads (highways) can be built to make it possible for groceries to get to the store; for bridges to be built; so we can have police and firemen and libraries (local taxes); so poor people can have food; so elderly can have medical care; we can have schools; so we can pay for NATIONAL DEFENSE.

This idiot is a free loader. He wants freedom but won't pay the taxes necessary to support it.

Originally posted by Byrd
I think the perfect solution is for them to get out of America, quit using the services that my taxes are paying for, and move to a micronation like Redonda or Sealand.

AMEN! I'd give you a WATs if I could Byrd!

[edit on 1/21/2007 by FlyersFan]

your not alone in your opinion, but i dont feel like going through the whole thread and finding all of the similar views that iv'e read.

when i drive on roads, half the money in the gas i bought went to pay for highways, it was my choice and it is fair.

when i buy cigarettes, roughly half the money goes to the gov, my choice.

if i wand medical, i pay a monthly premium based on my income to pay for the insurance (premiums do not go up for frequent use) that is also fair.

any product that i buy i have to pay 7% to the feds and 7% to the prov. my choice, that is fair.

now where do they get the money for fire and police and the many other services? why not just print it and give it to them as it is needed.

I dont want to hear anything about inflation, especially from anyone carrying a morgage. the bank inflates us all the time, and at their discretion, and based on their agenda's

hasn't anyone wondered why intrest rates have stayed so low for so long? (i believe they droped in 2000) are you not all happy? you feel good, you own a home, your buying toys, your expanding your buisness, just cant find enough poor folk these days to fill the positions being made available by yesterdays middle class that think their modern day ballers.
even poor people are happy making money these days, why worry about what is happening over seas with your military, you got a dope pair nikes on right? who cares.

and for all you lawyers out there, who think you know stuff, have you brought human nature into your equation? Just because you wrote something on a piece of paper and had it signed by someone ive never met, doesnt mean that i should surrender my happyness and well being.

I dont pay taxes, but i do drywall for a living so, basically im only working while your guys are all spending, my happyness lays on the balance of everthing that is wrong in this world, and it is only a matter of time now before i make an attempt at doing what is RIGHT, because i know my life uder this rule does not amount to squat. i wouldn't do it for myself as much as i would do it for my baby boy Huey that was born a week ago, everthing has changed now, and i will not settle for what i see today.

I would leave this country if they would issue me the proper identification to do so.







[edit on 21-1-2007 by tom goose]

Sorry FlyersFan I couldn't disagreee more since he has paid ALL his taxes BUT the income tax. You were around for reagans investigation into the income tax were you not?

Took me some time to find this document for you, but here it is for you:

Importantly, any meaningful increases in taxes from personal income would have to come from lower and middle income families, as 90 percent of all personal taxable income is generated below the taxable income level of $35,000.

Further, there isn't much more that can be extracted from high income brackets. If the Government took 100 percent of all taxable income beyond the $75,000 tax bracket not already taxed, it would get only $17 billion, and this confiscation, which would destroy productive enterprise, would only be sufficient to run the Government for seven days.

Resistance to additional income taxes would be even more widespread if people were aware that:

-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.

-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.

www.uhuh.com...


That means that income tax on your paycheck, is either being wasted/lost, or paying for the interest on the federal debt. It doesn't go to the schools and the roads, or any of that.

Stop falling for the illusion this Federal Income Tax is actually paying for anything. Our government themselves said it wasn't...isn't that enough for you.

But how do you make the connect of freedom to social security taxes and other things? If it were really freedom I would have the choice if I wanted to pay for such things. The idea that taxes that help people=freedom is another illusion. Freedom isn't a a synonym for everything I believe is right and moral. Freedom is, and I quote, "able to act at will, unconstrained". Forced taxes are anything but unconstrainment. Taxes and freedom do not go hand in hand.

The idea is to limit taxes to the highest possible degree so you have the most amount of FREEDOM as possible. Freedom to choose if you want to support healthcare, or social security, or the war in iraq, etc. Freedom has nothing to do with forced taxes, and in fact it goes against the idea as a whole.

Got to hand it to Mr. Brown, the man knows how to stand by his convictions.

I'm not sure as to the validity of his argument, though. As with so much, it has a lot to do with interpretation of the "law". The cases brought forward by tax protesters all seem to have merit if viewed in the proper light. The 16th Amendment , for instance, can easily be considered as having never been properly ratified, thus making it null. It can also be seen as legally binding (it is, after all, there) if one accepts the record and disregards any possible improprieties.

Of course, as with any "law", the interpretation that counts is that of the enforcing body, (i.e. the government), and it is notoriously difficult to get them to change their minds about anything. Especially something that affects their "income" so drastically as this.

Most people, when informed of the situation, realize that the Fed is a major scam designed to profit the already "uberich" (I guess it's a word now) and needs to be abolished. Yes, this would throw our economy into chaos for a while, but it wouldn't be the first time, and it would be far less damaging then leaving the Fed in charge of it.
Although congress has no oversight of the Fed, they do still retain the authority to SHUT IT DOWN. It's only a private corporation after all.

I propose everyone figure out their taxes, and find what they owe. Call this subtotal A.
Then EXAMINE THE FEDERAL BUDGET, see what they spent the money on, and calculate the percentage of what you disagree with. Call this value subtotal B.
Than simply subtract subtotal B from subtotal A. Write a check for this amount, and send it in with all your figures. This way, you can fund the things you think your money is well spent on, and not fund things like illegal wars and Halliburton-built FEMA camps and such.

And SHUT DOWN the Fed. Seize their assets. Bankrupt their board of directors.
Invest that money in the country's future. Education and ecosystem.


Oh, and as a side note, and I'm not trying to be a chud here or anything, the past tense of "cost" is "cost", not "costed". Not slamming anyone, but it's kinda been making me twitch through the whole thread.

Deny ignorance, right?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
This guy doesn't want to pay his taxes? Then tell him to get the hell out of my country and go somewhere else where he can sponge off the workers.

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 21 Jan 2007 at 06:56:39 PM GMT is:

$8,676,000,000,000

The estimated population of the United States is 300,768,125
so each citizen's share of this debt is $28,849.31.

www.brillig.com...

Congress is suppossed to balance the budget and make laws that benifit all of the people in this land, not just the richest most privlidged or the stupidest and the poorest.

Do you understand that it's over. The gig is up. The revolution is beginning and it is not being televised.

Whatever we hear from this point on will just be the system attempting to save itself.

[edit on 21-1-2007 by In nothing we trust]