100% Legal proof income tax doesn't apply to most Americans!

Is this accurate? As far as my research has gone, I've found just as many sites that say income tax IS legal, and the same amount that say it is not. I've been told a number of reasons why it's unconstitutional, but never the reasons presented in this video. (Below is only part one, there are nine parts, just follow the link and you will see part 2 and so forth listed on the right....

Here, it goes into detail of statutes and regulations regarding the actual written tax law. Short summary:

Lawmakers are granted the power to make laws ONLY by power of the constitution, therefore they must be allowed by the constitution. From there, statutes and regulations are written, each with many sub categories upon sub categories. Statutes basically state the written law and present a GENERAL definition. The corresponding regulation for the statute explains the statute in detail, thus explaining to the citizen what the law requires of him. As for this video, it simply (well actually NOT so simply) exposes the truth that income tax does not apply to the average joe in America, it only applies to FOREIGN entities withing the US, Domestic entities earning income in FOREIGN land, and those earning from govt. possessions, such as Puerto Rico. The law specifically LISTS what activities have incomes that are taxable, and the above is the ENTIRE LIST! Do you see domestic workers earning WITHIN the US up there?

So, my question is how accurate is this source? Seems to be very professionally done. Comments?



[edit on 9-6-2009 by Karrotz]

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Karrotz]

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 9 Jun 09 by Gools]

Yeah, go right ahead and fight the IRS.

The ironic thing is, most people that started these "tax clubs", where they debate the legality of income taxes, and "show YOU how", are now doing a nice little stretch in pound me in the arse federal prison.

Me, I'll give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's.

The SCOTUS is tasked with interpretting the U.S. Constitution. With that in mind I don't care if the Constitution says "No law will ever be written that says you can't eat ice cream"

If the SCOTUS says that law actually means you cant eat ice cream. Then it doesn't matter what your intepretations are.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by ExistenceUnknown]

reply to post by ExistenceUnknown


Why interpret anything? Why not rely on the actual words?

reply to post by MajesticJax


What about that which is not Caesars? Going to give that to him too?

Good little sheep.

reply to post by SurvivalGearDepot


Because the people who wrote the constitution arent around anymore to tell us what they meant. This is why the SCOTUS is tasked with interpreting.

reply to post by ExistenceUnknown


Do you really need someone to explain to you what "Shall not be infringed" or "Shall not be abridged" means?

reply to post by SurvivalGearDepot


No I don't, and I don't agree with the rulings the SCOTUS makes half the time. But they are and were tasked with interpreting it.

How would you interpret The Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection of the laws? Does treating people equally mean treating them exactly the same? Or are there circumstances when equal treatment sometimes requires different treatment? This no doubt is a very open ended statement that has been made by the constitution so it is very likely that many people will answer with many different interpretations. This is a prime example of why we need a central interpreting body.

Actually, they do have the authority to take taxes. Sorry. It is constitutional and it is legal for them to do.

en.wikipedia.org...

Incidentally this is exactly where all those Pollock jokes come from too. But that's an entirely different thread.

reply to post by ExistenceUnknown


I think the words in the constitution are pretty clear, many of the words aren't in use anymore and we sound stupid in comparison (that couldn't be because of the lowering of standards in education would it?) When they say interprete, it means they are going to tell you what it means the way they want it to mean. Have you actually ever read the U.S Constitution? It's an easy read and for any word that is too big for you, that is why there are dictionarys.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Darth Lumina]

reply to post by Karrotz


Yeah go ahead and take tax advice from YouTube.

If you find a video saying you don't have to pay taxes then it must be true, right? After all its on YouTube.

Amazing how after all these years of Americans paying taxes it took a video of YouTube to make everyone realize that it is illegal to make us pay them.

reply to post by Darth Lumina


Yes I have read the constitution and I do agree that alot of it is pretty self-explanatory. But your missing the point. You or myself aren't tasked with interpreting it. So it doesn't matter how apparent some things are to us. The SCOTUS interprets the constitution in order to enforce the law.

There is a good arguement that the 16th amendment was passed illegally, but even if that is true, there is no way that SCOTUS is going to overturn it now. I happen to believe that taxing income is unconstitutional. I would really like to keep the money I make rather than giving to local, state, and federal governments, but I just don't see it happening.

You can beat them, but you better have deep pockets.

There were two times the supreme court ruled on it, but they will not allow that as evidence in any court case with the IRS.

It's complete BS.

Kind of like the line in the old song. I fought the law and the law won.

If our court systems were not so corupt, things would be different in the US. Look at what they just did with SC and excepting Fed Funds. Since when did they start make rulings over the Executive branch?
Just flat out Corupt.

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
There is a good arguement that the 16th amendment was passed illegally, but even if that is true, there is no way that SCOTUS is going to overturn it now. I happen to believe that taxing income is unconstitutional. I would really like to keep the money I make rather than giving to local, state, and federal governments, but I just don't see it happening.

States can due what they want under the Fed Constitution. It depends on what it has in their constitution at the state level. The Feds are the one's that are out of line starting in 1913.

Originally posted by MajesticJax

Me, I'll give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's.

The best part about that is Caesar decides what's Caesar's.

And if should happen to disagree you get either prison or shot to death in front of your kids. Depending on Caesar's mood of course.

I don't think a single one of you has watched all 9 parts to that video. Yer flappin yer traps. Watch the fricken videos! They are excellent, and extremely well researched, with history of statutes, changes, and the whole works. It is a scam, has always been a scam, and the author here shows clearly how the changes made to the regulations were clearly meant to deceive, and bury the truth that the income tax was meant for income derived from foreign related sources.

Quit yappin and start watching.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I'm sure the videos are excellent and honest in their approach. (I can't watch because of work filter) But I will tell you this, none of it matters because, like I have already said, the SCOTUS makes the law. You WILL pay or go to jail if you don't pay income taxes.

You have 2 choices, blind obediance or revolution. And all I see are people trying to find loopholes in a Law that is not static and whose content is at the discretion of the SCOTUS.

Originally posted by SurvivalGearDepot
reply to post by ExistenceUnknown

 

Why interpret anything? Why not rely on the actual words?

Because our founding fathers were never "literal" in their writings.

"All men are created equal"

and the 2nd amendment just to name a few.

Interpretations of both are found only in the eye of the beholder. And arguably, both sides of each debate have very valid points that cannot easily be disproved.


They loved to make language sound magnanimous....just not in a "literal" kind of fashion.

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Fremd]

I know two people personally that have used a similar interpretation to buck the IRS. I agree that the way the law is written, it reads that nobody has to pay unless it is voluntary.

One of them was in jail for three years. The other, serious financial burdon.

The problem is, to adress these questions what venue hears them? Nope, not the Supreme Court. TAX court. Open your mouth again, for an additional fine. More to say? Fine, here's a fine. Oh? Finished now? [gavel smacks]. It's very draconian, to say the least.

[edit on 9/6/09 by argentus]