U.S. Marshal: NH Tax Evaders (Ed and Elaine Brown) Arrested

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

The items excluded are all types of "gains", gains are what title 26 is all about, and the gains are derived from corporate dealings.

You have yet to show anything which applies to the average Americans labor.


[edit on 6-10-2007 by C0le]

Cole:
Man, you don't know how good it is to see someone actually reading stuff. The interpretation may be off but at least you're doing research. I'll go over your posts in a bit....

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Yes. It. Is.

You got a link or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

Please do some research, then get back to me.

Again, are we just supposed to take your word for it?
How the federal reserve system is set up is common knowledge. You're really going to have to provide a credible link showing otherwise.

[Point out where in the Constitution it says labor can be taxed, and I'll drop my part of this argument.

16th Amendment.

When the economy is doing well, jobs are created. That's common sense.

No where did I dispute that. But by cutting defense your taking away jobs. Taking away jobs would HURT the economy.

Show me where I said we should abolish our military, and you'll be right about what you say.

??
I didn't say you said we should abolish the military?
You do realize there's a difference between our armed forces and the Department of Defense, right?

My basic point is we don't need to spend $700 billion on our military when China, the second highest amount of money spent on military, barely hits $100 billion.

There are a ton of stuff besides maintaining our military that goes into our defense budget. We also have a more up to date (as far as weaponry) military than China.

All of that is not necessary, and in fact, it's quite pathetic, because we spend all of that, yet we're allegedly having issues in Iraq.

The problems in Iraq stem from leadership or rather, lack there of. Not because of our military. Had we done things right, there is no WAY we would be seeing the things we're seeing now in Iraq and we more than likely would be out of there by now.

Again, stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say abolish military. Since I didn't say that, all of those jobs wouldn't be lost.

Again there's a difference between the Military and the Defense Department.

Yes, some jobs would be lost with cut spending.

But if you know anything about economics, then you'll know that diverting at least a couple hundred billion to local communities and city development, rather than dumping it into the military, would create jobs in those areas, which would push the process of cleaning up poor areas, which would help the housing market, which, in the end, would give more people extra money to spend. Extra money to spend means they'll be spending more money, circulating that through the economy, allowing businesses to profit more, meaning they can now open up more jobs, and the cycle repeats itself.

This isn't tough, dude.

lol
It is NOT that simple. In theory this would seem great, but reality NEVER works that way. There is absolutely no guarantee jobs would be created. And if they are, there is no guarantee there would be enough to replace the ones that are lost and be as beneficial to the economy as the ones that are lost. Not all jobs have the same benefit to the economy.

As an example - I live in Michigan. Recently, the state government could not manage to reach an agreement on a budget plan. Eventually they did, but had they not, on October 22nd, public schools would have been shut down, and college loans would have stopped as a result of the government shut down.

States pay for the education. The federal government merely has oversight on the education and decides what is in the curriculum. They pay for VERY little, if any at all.

The states cover the education.

Again, please do research.

Did you not read my post?

The federal gasoline tax, which dates from 1932 and is used to support mass transit and highways, is currently 18.4 cents per gallon. The average tax on gasoline, including federal, state, and local taxes, is 41 cents per gallon.

source

My bad, 41 cents per gallon.

But as you see, the federal, state, and local governments put tax on gas to pay for the roads.

Ok...no where did I dispute that...

Give me another link and I'll look at it. But Wikipedia is no credible source. As you should know, it can be edited. I could go on there right now and edit it to say something that favors my argument.

I won't, and I'm not saying you did that, but it can be done.

It was simply a something for you to see how social security works...
You can try and use the website to figure it out.
www.ssa.gov...

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
You got a link or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

Cole has provided it to you.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
How the federal reserve system is set up is common knowledge. You're really going to have to provide a credible link showing otherwise.

Why would I do that? Any link I provide that doesn't have .gov on the end of it, you'll say isn't credible. And any link with .gov on the end of it of course would hide the truth about the Federal Reserve.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
16th Amendment.

Show me where in the 16th Amendment it says labor can be taxed.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
No where did I dispute that. But by cutting defense your taking away jobs. Taking away jobs would HURT the economy.

Please read. I said myself that yes, it would cut jobs. Please don't take things I've said myself and act as if I haven't said them and try to make a point out of it.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I didn't say you said we should abolish the military?
You do realize there's a difference between our armed forces and the Department of Defense, right?

Yes, I do. But without a DoD, I'd like to see the armed forces remain organized.

And the reason I said it's as if you were implying I said to abolish the military/DoD is because you mentioned that there are 700,000 jobs there. It came across as if you were saying that's how many jobs would be lost, which means you were basically saying that I said to abolish the DoD.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
There are a ton of stuff besides maintaining our military that goes into our defense budget. We also have a more up to date (as far as weaponry) military than China.

I know it's not just maintaining our military. It's to strengthen our military so we can run over defenseless nations and steal their resources.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
and we more than likely would be out of there by now.

I don't think so, but that's for another discussion at another time.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
There is absolutely no guarantee jobs would be created. And if they are, there is no guarantee there would be enough to replace the ones that are lost and be as beneficial to the economy as the ones that are lost.

Based on what? Because that's just what you think? Or do you have a reason to think that?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Did you not read my post?

I did. You clearly didn't read mine.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Ok...no where did I dispute that...

You were implying that the income/labor tax pays for the roads, and you were arguing my point that a gas tax pays for it. So you did dispute it, and now when I provide a source (with a .gov on the end), you say you didn't dispute it.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
It was simply a something for you to see how social security works...
You can try and use the website to figure it out.
www.ssa.gov...

I'll do that.

[edit on 10/6/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

If you work for me, what I give you is YOUR income.

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

Not sure what your point was....

The point lies in item One:

(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;


You are taking the pay that a man recieves for work done to be his "compensation for service", and hence that pay to be income.

That is incorrect.

Pay is compensation for the value of labor.

It is an even exchange where neither party gains income. My labor was worth $1000, you paid me $1000. I gave you my time, and time is money. You gave me your money. We are even.

Now, if I claim to warrant my work and say it will be good for 10 years... but I expect now 1200 for the 1000 dollars worth of work I did... well then you pay me 1200, 1000 is not taxable (it is the agreed upon even exchange) and 200 is taxable as a service income.

Labor, by its very definition is the cost of goods served (sold) aka COGS

Taxable Net Income is defined as Gross Income (pay) less "Cost of Goods Sold" (labor)

When you subtract the value of your labor from the pay you recieved for performing the labor you are left with ZERO Taxable NET Income.

"If you work for me, what I give you is YOUR income."

no...

If you work for me, what I give you, less the value of what you give me, is YOUR income.

similarly...

I purchase a car for $300 and then turn around and sell it to you for $300. No net income.

or...

I purchase food, a roof, transportation, a financed education, and tools which I keep dry stored when not in use; it cost me $300 a day to prepare myself in such a manner to serve you. You pay me $300 for my day's labor.

NO NET INCOME.

Now watch what happens when I sends some boys out to do the work for me...

I send you 3 guys to move your furniture. I have told you it will cost $500 to move you across town. I pay my laborers $350 to move the furniture. You pay me $500. I have not lifted a finger, so Gross (500) less COGS (350) leaves $150 Net Profit; aka Taxable Income; profits earned from providing the service of guaranteeing that the price would be $500 and that I would cover labor expenses.

Sri Oracle

Originally posted by Sri Oracle

It is an even exchange where neither party gains income. My labor was worth $1000, you paid me $1000. I gave you my time, and time is money. You gave me your money. We are even.

Incorrect. Time is not money. That's just an old expression.

Gain is not the difference between the values of what is exchanged, it is the difference between the original cost of what is being given-up and the value of what is received.

Your labor didn't cost you anything. Anything you receive for your labor is, therefore, income.

Using your logic, almost nothing would be taxable income because almost all transactions are made at market value. For example, if I sell a great stock to you for $100 (what the stock is worth today), I can't say it's an "even exchange" and report no income can I? No, because the stock originally cost me $10. I've gained $90 of income.

reply to post by Sri Oracle


One definition of income, as mentioned, is compensation for services provided.
Labor is a service you provide. Therefore, money recieved for labor is compensation and is defined as personal income. It is income, therefore taxable.
Or let's take your arguement that you "give" your time and that "time is money". Since you did not pay for the time you "own" and yet you make money by "selling" that time then the "product" you sell is time and the "profit" you recieve is INCOME, therefore taxable under the law.

Most of what I'm seeing here says that most people who fight the income tax do so not so much because they want to keep their money (although that's part of it) but because they disagree with what the government does with it once it's in their far too slippery hands. There are two totally different issues here that people keep trying to combine into one: "I don't like what the government is doing and refuse to financially support it."

So let me ask this: If you agreed 100% with what the government was doing with your money, would you still be so dead set against the income tax? If the government took your money and did what you consider "good" with it, would we be having this conversation? Just curious.

reply to post by Nitehawke


But it applies on the Business/Corporate end, not the employee end.

look at all the rest of the sources, they don't apply to the average individual.

the sources derived are both sources of income, but they are also types of income, word games.



[edit on 7-10-2007 by C0le]

reply to post by C0le


Ok, there's one of my problems with your definition. WHERE does it state that those definitions apply ONLY to corporate income?

reply to post by Nitehawke



The entire code, outlines income which are gains, multiple times it clearly explains the liability of business and specific entities, through the various sections of code.

read the various outlying sections and related articles within it.


Nowhere, does it indicate an individual is liable to pay a tax on his labor, nowhere, and thats the bottom line.

yes income is derived form an employees work, but his work isn't income.

income = gains, the employer aka the business owner, who could be an individual implied in title 26, or the corporation, can make income based upon the employee work, but as stated his work isn't income, but income is derived from it on the employers end.




[edit on 7-10-2007 by C0le]

Federal Bureau of Prisons Online Inmate Locator:
(An interesting Website I just discovered)
Bureau Of Prisons - Inmate Search webpage

The BOP webpage indicates that Elaine Brown Age 66 is being held at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Danbury houses low security female offenders and also has an adjacent satellite camp that houses minimum security female offenders. FCI Danbury is located in southwestern Connecticut, 70 miles from New York City and 3 miles north of Danbury on State Route 37.

The info also indicates she has a projected release date of 4-30-2012.
Bureau Of Prisons - Elaine Brown

The BOP website info says that Ed Brown is being held at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Ashland is a low security institution housing male inmates with a satellite camp that houses minimum security inmates. The facility is located in the highlands of northeastern Kentucky, 125 miles east of Lexington and 5 miles southwest of Ashland.

His projected release date is 5-14-2017.
Bureau Of Prisons - Ed Brown


[edit on (10/7/07) by AllSeeingI]

Basic definition
Income:

The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments.

Report by the Tax Foundation over the meaning through the years. Very interesting read.
www.taxfoundation.org...



Absolutely NONE of this is all new. If you guys think you're the first to question the meaning of "Income," then you've got another thing coming....

The Supreme Court UPHOLDS that income is

....It is conceded by the respondents that there is no constitutional barrier to the imposition of a tax on punitive damages. Our question is one of statutory construction: are these payments comprehended by 22 (a)?

The sweeping scope of the controverted statute is readily apparent:

"SEC. 22. GROSS INCOME.

"(a) GENERAL DEFINITION. - `Gross income' includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever. . . ." (Emphasis added.) 4
....

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
"SEC. 22. GROSS INCOME.

"(a) GENERAL DEFINITION. - `Gross income' includes gains, profits, "and income" derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever. . . ." (Emphasis added.) 4
....

they could have said,

"(a) GENERAL DEFINITION. - `Gross income' includes gains, profits, salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever. . . ." (Emphasis added.) 4

which would include these things as income, but notice gains and profits were directly included as income, however salaries wages and compensation for services are not.

it states income can be derived from them, but it doesn't state they are income.



[edit on 8-10-2007 by C0le]

Originally posted by C0le
it states income can be derived from them, but it doesn't state they are income.

bing, bing, bing... you got it.

You can derive income from the payments you recieved for your labors.... but the payments you recieved for your labors ARE NOT, in their entirety, income.

EVERY resource you consume in getting yourself prepared for work, to and from work, fed for work, etc. is a cost of labor that is deductable against gross labor income.

Sri Oracle

Originally posted by IAttackPeople

Incorrect. Time is not money. That's just an old expression.

Gain is not the difference between the values of what is exchanged, it is the difference between the original cost of what is being given-up and the value of what is received.

Your labor didn't cost you anything. Anything you receive for your labor is, therefore, income.

I'd like to see how long the average laborer could labor without food.

If you spent every penny you earned last year feeding your family and keeping a roof over their head... and your personal savings is about the same now as it was this time last year...

THEN YOU DID NOT EARN INCOME.

If you spent money on frivilous, personal, non business related purchases, (vacations, yachts, sport cars that you drive on weekends, etc.) then the monies spent on such items are taxable as INCOME.

If after paying for feeding and housing your family... transporting yourself to and from work... you were able to increase your savings for the year... then that increase is INCOME.

Sri Oracle



[edit on 8-10-2007 by Sri Oracle]

Income are gains and profits, nothing derived from your labor on your end is a gain of profit unless for example you receive a bonus.

Gains and profits can be derived by the employer based upon your wages through you work. meaning you work they pay you evenly for your work, they in turn make profits with your help.

ie: your a sales person, you make $5 an hour (equal exchange), but your a really good sales person, the store purchases an item from a distributer which costs $1, but the store sells that item for $3, they profit $2 of of every sale you make.

Now adding up their total profits, minus what they pay to their employees, and you'll get there taxable income.


An equal exchange for your labor and the deal is done, what you do with your money after that exchange is your business, regardless it isn't income unless its a profit or gain, if you spend that money on rent or food, thats again an equal exchange, your money for their item or services (which are being taxed already through the sales tax), But if for example you were to gamble with that money and "profit or gain" from that gamble, then that profit or gains could be considered income.

Thats if and only if title 26 applies to the average American, It doesn't, if you read further into the code and related regulations you'll find it applies to corporations and businesses/employers who conduct international business or business in U.S territories and the district of Columbia.


[edit on 9-10-2007 by C0le]

[edit on 9-10-2007 by C0le]

UPDATE: Ed Brown Gets Word Out: He Is Being Gassed and Tortured In Prison!!!

Hey MODS: we got two of these post going in breaking news, how about shutting one of them, so we can focus the discussion on helping this couple outta the awful situation they're in?!

I think the "gassed in prison" one should remain open, can you move all the posts to one thread easily?