I don't pay the Illegal Income tax as descibed by any and all codes of the Unites States Go

I'd like to issue a challenge to all the tax payers out there.

Before you fill out the 1040 form please call the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and ask them if the control number that is on your form is a currently valid number.

When the answer you get is no, because form 1040 has not had a valid OMB control number since before I was born, simply don't file it.

You are not required to furnish any form to the government that does not have a valid OMB control number according to the federal Paperwork Reduction Act.

Section 3512 of the Paperwork Reduction Act , titled “Public Protection” reads as follows:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter [44 USCS § § 3501 et seq.] if--

(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter [44 USCS § § 3501 et seq.]; or

(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.

(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.

www.archives.gov...

Don't take my word for it. CALL!

[edit on 6-8-2009 by METACOMET]

Originally posted by 1 4M 7H3 1
Yes, I have a few. If proper actions were to take place, eliminating all waste in government spending, would you still opt not to pay taxes, even if means significantly reducing our constantly growing national debt? If you refuse to pay, would you view yourself as a patriotic citizen, and how would the Founding Fathers consider that?

If the proper actions were taken, there would be no income tax, just as there was no income tax in the days of the founding fathers.

The national debt is a scam, it is not real at all, and is more of a measure of how much money has been stolen from the American people than a measure of something that is owed.

Tell me, this money which is created as a loan - where does it come from? Whom is it that is so rich in this world that what is called the richest country in the world is able to owe these trillions of dollars. WHOM is that money owed too?

You think China or something? Think again, no country is owed even a 1 trillion dollars.

The money that is "loaned" and created the debt in the first place gets it's value from the American people to being with. And then they charge interest on it, which is never created.

It is impossible to pay off the debt. You would run out of money before it was paid off.

Small example for you.

Lets keep it simple.

Lets say there is a total of $100 in the entire world. You own $10 of it. You have 10% of the worlds wealth. Lets say there are 20 widgets in the world which can be bought.

Supply and demand dictates that each widget has a value of $5. 20 widgets X $5 each = $100. You have enough purchasing power to buy 2 widgets.

We will ignore the additional insult of interest for the moment. The fed comes in and creates $100 and adds it to the money supply. You now own only 5% of the wealth. There are still 20 widgets, but now supply and demand dictates that each one has a value of $10. 20 X $10 = $200.

You just had half your purchasing power stolen from you, and they never touched your wallet. You can now only buy 1 widget instead of 2. Meanwhile, who gets that newly created $100? Corporations. But who is actually expected to pay it back? The American people mostly, because the corporations pay for their "end" by the services they supposedly render.

So, first they took your purchasing power(called the inflation tax) and gave it to someone else, bringing your quality of living down. Then they have the nerve to say you must pay it back. There goes a good portion of the rest of your purchasing power, as part of the $10 you did have is now going towards taxes. You can't even afford 1 widget anymore.

This hurts the poor the most. Because they are on fixed income. The price of milk and butter goes up, and they are unable to compensate. They must do with less. It's a constant transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor.

It's called counterfeiting if you do it,it's legal for them. Organized crime isn't gone, it was legalized.

Now, thrown in a "reasonable" 5% interest on the loan. You now have to pay back not just the $100 that was created, but $105. So, in only 20 creations of the $100, the original money is completely gone and is owed back as well now. Any further money that is created is impossible to pay back, there is not even enough money in circulation.

But it doesn't stop there. Much like a bad infomercial there is more. We haven't even gotten into fractional banking practices.

Because it doesn't actually take 20 creations to get that original $100, it takes only 2. How's that for a deal? Because the money first goes to regional banks. Regional banks are allowed to loan out 9 times the money they actually have. So you give that bank $100, and they loan out another $900. Wrap your mind around that. So, with the "reasonable" interest of 5%, $45 is already owed back in interest, along with the original $5.

Since the banks only have to keep a certain amount of cash for their loans, it's the reason they have "Banking runs". It use to be illegal, and that is why they had banking runs, people would find out a bank was doing it and they would hurry up and try to get their money. So they legalized it with the FDIC to come in and say - oh we will just give you the money in case(also btw, they have up to 99 years to actually pay you).

But there is a limit to how much money they can create, and you have a credit monster. Eventually the interest payments get to be so high, and there is no money to pay it. So they have to keep adding new money into the system in order to pay previous interest money(why do you think those trillians went to the banks?). But eventually that amount gets to be so much that you enter into hyperinflation and the value of the money is nothing. Check out 1930's Germany, or current day Zimbabwe(everyone is a millionaire there).

So from time to time there is a "shakedown", money isn't created and debts are called in. And those who are selected of course are given whatever is needed to continue. And the others lose their business, houses and so forth in order to reduce the amount of debt on the books etc. This is called the business cycle.

The only reason you are ticked off is because you are clueless. And don't beat yourself up, you are hardly alone and I have only known about it a few years myself. It's complicated stuff and they throw tons of other things on it to confuse you even more.

The founding fathers knew of this, and Franklin stated it was the reason for the revolutionary war. THE reason. To get away from the Central Bank of England. The colonies had colonial scripts(google it). With this system they only issued money in direct porportion to trade. If trade increased, then they increased reserves and such. This paid for government buildings and such and allowed for growth. If trade goes down, they eat up the amount with other legal taxes. The point was to keep that widget costing you $10 the entire time. The extra money was not created as a loan with interest, they knew where the value came from, so it was put into work for the people. This made england very mad, so they started adding all sorts of extra taxes and such as punishment. And of course that escalated and so forth.

The federal reserve claims to do this, but why the loans and interest etc? They don't do it at all, it's putting the foxes in charge of the hen house.

The reason we do not have that today is because of the Continental dollar. If kept uncheck, you can still do the above thing and hyper inflate. So they tied the money to gold and silver to keep it from happening again. It also meant that the people had to actually be behind a war, as they had to actually pay for it up front and such. They why war efforts used to be efforts rather than watching it on the TV.

The founding fathers directly warned of this system. So I'm sorry,but being a patriot is not about waving the flag and blindly following the guy with the flag pin. It's about educating yourself and standing up for what's right. And as long as they are going to claim to uphold the constitution, I'm gonna stick it to them or make them show their hands even more and prove that the constitution isn't being followed.

Because they control where the money comes and goes, they decide what makes it and what doesn't. They with the companies decide who is worthy and who is not. And what makes you worthy? Your ability to serve them as they wish.

Can't be capitalism when there is no capital. It's despotism and economic slavery.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson

Tell me that isn't exactly whats happened and what he warned of.

"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot." -Mark Twain

Notice everyone says "keep me posted"? Scarce indeed.

Check out the link in my sig.

[edit on 8/6/2009 by badmedia]

Originally posted by johnnyflip
reply to post by Jeffesq

 

U.S. dollars that actually have no value, so he can trade his labor

I guess some of you may never understand that the dollar, and any "money" is just part of an advanced bartering system.

Let me explain.

Three people, A,B,and C.

A needs services from B, B needs services from C, and C needs services from A.

But if the need is not mutual, how do they do it in such a classic bartering system?

Well, they do the work for those who need it, and in return receive a coin. This coin can be used for a service of the same "market" value.

Understand?

Obviously the tax system is abused, but that is besides my point. Currency is great.

Not going to pay your taxes? Good for you. Not the smartest thing to tell the world, unless of course you got a good case against those pesky lawyers.

Taxes have been paid since the dawn of time. You may feel you are a unique and special snowflake that doesn't deserve to pay taxes, but how in the hell do you expect programs, repairs, schools, construction, defense, etc. to get paid?

If everyone took your stance (which btw, has no legs to stand on in a court of law), this country would collapse.

I don't agree with all the places tax money go (mostly black projects and our fine abbreviated agencies), but you are living in a fantasy-land where unicorns poop rainbows, if you really feel NO ONE should pay ANY taxes.

reply to post by johnnyflip


Just come to Texas, no income tax. All of the income tax states are liberal anyways


[edit on 6-8-2009 by epete22]

Originally posted by fleabit
Taxes have been paid since the dawn of time. You may feel you are a unique and special snowflake that doesn't deserve to pay taxes, but how in the hell do you expect programs, repairs, schools, construction, defense, etc. to get paid?

If everyone took your stance (which btw, has no legs to stand on in a court of law), this country would collapse.

I don't agree with all the places tax money go (mostly black projects and our fine abbreviated agencies), but you are living in a fantasy-land where unicorns poop rainbows, if you really feel NO ONE should pay ANY taxes.

Did you know the romains considered it a crime to charge interest on loaned money? Taxes yes, thievery no.

Did you know the romains considered it a crime to charge interest on loaned money? Taxes yes, thievery no.

What is your point? That it is our duty to a man to stop paying all taxes? Yes.. let's do that. We have no need for defense, humanitarian services, improvements, medical care, or anything else. We should clearly go back to living in caves, because that's the smart thing to do.

reply to post by fleabit


A standing army isn't necessary.

Name one thing that's supposedly paid for with the income tax that is needed.

Originally posted by fleabit

Did you know the romains considered it a crime to charge interest on loaned money? Taxes yes, thievery no.

What is your point? That it is our duty to a man to stop paying all taxes? Yes.. let's do that. We have no need for defense, humanitarian services, improvements, medical care, or anything else. We should clearly go back to living in caves, because that's the smart thing to do.

actually yes, i believe that this gov. and their tax code is unjust, unfair and created to keep the rich rich and the poor supporting them.

being that i'm a part of a tribe that is indigenous to the state in live in, i do in fact believe i am unlawfully taxed. i'm going to call my tribal office and see if these forms together with tribal treaties (if you choose to call them that) make any difference to the possible outcome of this thread.

great job OP!

S&F

[edit on 6-8-2009 by anonamousantichrist]

Originally posted by SpacePunk
reply to post by fleabit

 

A standing army isn't necessary.

Name one thing that's supposedly paid for with the income tax that is needed.

Are you kidding me? No standing army is needed?

You are clearly out of touch with reality. But where does it go? It goes to many interests that benefit the U.S. citizenry as a whole. Go here for details:

www.gpoaccess.gov...

Like I said, I don't agree with all expenditures, but even many black projects are in the best interest of our country.

Originally posted by SpacePunk
reply to post by fleabit

 

A standing army isn't necessary.

Name one thing that's supposedly paid for with the income tax that is needed.

Income tax doesn't pay for the military. Corporate taxes pay for the military.

As I posted earler, all income taxes go to the fed for interest on the national debt. 100%. From a government source. It's a fact.

Okay, I have a question. Lets say you get arrested for not paying your taxes. And in court you are afforded the right to provide evidence of your innocence, right?

Here is my question. Can someone tell me exactly what the rules are on providing evidence in court? Can't someone gather all the evidence that says income tax is illegal, not ratified, unconstitutional, or whatever and just provide the court with the evidence without portraying the evidence in the court room? Is there wording in the law that says you must portray your evidence when attempting to prove your innocence, and wouldn't this apply to every crime and court proceeding?

Isn't it up to the prosecutor to prove your guilt? And if so he would along with the judge have to read all the proof and evidence you have provided correct?

Why bother with lawyers at all, if all you have to do is "provide" the evidence. Does this make sense to anyone?

I saw the collapse was iminent in 2007 and didn't file. It's time for Americans to get some courage and stop cooperating with the murderous thugs. I realized I was a slave and made the decision I would rather be dead or in prison. That made it a lot easier to overcome the fear and give them the finger.

Originally posted by pteridine
The Infernal Revenue Service has no sense of humor or mercy and they will get you, eventually. When you are done with child support, you'll pay penalties and interest on all that you've deferred paying. You haven't dodged anything, really. Don't even try to take this to court because then you'll have to pay your lawyer after you lose, provided you can find one dumb enough to represent your case.
Plead an insanity defense based on the long form 1040 instruction book driving you over the edge. The judge and jury will understand and you won't go to jail for tax evasion.

I refuse to make my decisions out of fear. It honestly has very little to do with the money at all. It's the principle of it. Once my mind is set on something as being right or wrong, that is pretty much all that matters to me.

I don't own anything that I'm attached too. There is more to life than collecting things.

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. They may can take from me, but I'll never give it up freely.

I would defend myself. Probably not the best idea for the majority of people, but I learn fast etc. I've been working the system when it was in error since I was a teenager, and taken my lumps when I was in error.

U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986):

“Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he did not need to file tax returns because the sixteenth amendment is not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states’ ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void. “Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize “States,” and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had “remuneration” in place of “enumeration”; the instrument from Missouri substituted “levy” for “lay”; the instrument from Washington had “income” not “incomes”; others made similar blunders. “Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so. “Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas’. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review.”

to the OP: good luck with that. Question is this: If you have no income as in at all, aren't there ways in your country to avoid spiraling deeper into debt that don't require a court (in wich you will lose, as so many before you did?) If you need help, you need to go out and ask for it.

Originally posted by fleabit
Taxes have been paid since the dawn of time. You may feel you are a unique and special snowflake that doesn't deserve to pay taxes, but how in the hell do you expect programs, repairs, schools, construction, defense, etc. to get paid?

If everyone took your stance (which btw, has no legs to stand on in a court of law), this country would collapse.

I don't agree with all the places tax money go (mostly black projects and our fine abbreviated agencies), but you are living in a fantasy-land where unicorns poop rainbows, if you really feel NO ONE should pay ANY taxes.

Are you talking federal income taxes?

If so, you do know the federal income tax doesnt pay for any of the things you mentioned correct?

Incidentally, education isnt listed in the Constitution as something Congress can spend our money on.

reply to post by debunky


It actually doesn't matter if the 16th amendment was ratified or not, as the supreme court has ruled that it doesn't give any new taxing powers at all. It's effectively a defective amendment.

If you ask what power the IRS is allowed to tax in such a way, then they say the 16th amendment. But it doesn't give any new taxing powers, so it's a bit of a farce.

I wonder if the 5th amendment would apply towards filing taxes. As you are being required to submit information would could incriminate you. No idea if that is valid.

Also wonder if a breach of contract argument could be made. As they have violated the constitution, if it would be considered a breach in contract. Also no idea if that is valid, just came to me as well.

You guys make me laugh..... seriously!

You have the american revolution that was brought about by the tax impost by england at the time, and then you go about for the next couple of hundred years waving the flag, singing the anthem and holding your hand over your heart at the very thought of the pledge of allegiance, then when your country actually says well hey guys you gots to pay us taxes, you jump up and down saying they have no right!!! lol

If history proves true as a repeater, then you'll have yourself another revolution, whinging that you dont have to pay tax at all, then sit back gawking while your economy goes to hell, your homeless starve and roads decay, all the while happy that at least you got away with not having to contribute to a society you hold dear and near, and salute the flag while your country quickly becomes like Zimbabwe....

O say can you see...

Don't pay your taxes, I dare you, I'll send you a post card while your doing hard time behind bars "guranteed"

I found this thread to be incredible! Not because of the "Don't pay taxes.", but because of the responses. My girlfriends mother submitted a packet to the government 10 YEARS ago to have her social security number removed from her name. She has not had to pay taxes, or Social Security, sense then. The IRS has not come after her for tax debt. Nothing ever happened. I, on the other hand, just check the exempt box on a W-2 and no federal taxes are withheld from me and my tax debt at the end of the year is calculated 'legally', as it were. I make some where above $30,000 a year and my usual tax debt is around $50 a year. I do, however, pay Social Security. Doing these things is a lot easier than people actually think and only fear keeps them from doing them.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by peppersgc]