print version  |
|
Freedom To Facism: The invisible tax law, RFID tracking of population, Computerized by M Wolber Apr 3, 2007 Aaron Russo sought out to find the law that requires the average citizen to pay taxes and came up with some interesting video and interviews. If you've heard the whole... |
|
Freedom To Facism: The invisible tax law, RFID tracking of population, Computerized voting. Aaron Russo sought out to find the law that requires citizens to pay individual income taxes and came up with some interesting video and interviews. If you've heard the whole "taxes are illegal" schpeel before, this sheds a whole new light on the story. Interesting topic to start off WTPT.com. What are your thoughts? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsZO6G7dfpI YouTube Video of Aaron Russo's "Freedom to Facism" Official Website: http://www.FreedomToFacism.com |
| Readers Rating: | [Log in to Rate this Editorial] | Average Score | 5 |
| Reader Feedback: | ||
 |
(2007-04-06 03:28:10) I think there should be more opinions on this. I mean- it's really controversial. I want to more opinions. Is this whacko liberal 'propaganda' or is there truth, or even part truth in what the video is claiming? First question is- WHERE IS THE TAX LAW? If it's NOT there, then you have to ask the question- WHY and to WHO. It's easy enough to sit back and cling to your faith, but one should at least be prepared to discuss the first question before tackleing the rest. Where is this individual income tax law? Does it matter even? We all LOVE taxes right? | |
|
(2007-04-10 13:13:15) I agree with paying a tax when you buy your drivers license, car, public transport, home and the various other taxes that go into improvements and the betterment of our welfare as a country. I don't agree that giving a bank control of our nations money is wise and think that the federal reserve should be dismantled and have our country be responsible for dealing with the currency. Giving banks money and interest from our direct income tax seems ridiculous. Why isn't our gov. controlling the $$? So it says they can tax us- fair enough- permission granted. So where is the LAW that says how and what they can tax? It's up to us to implement the laws so there must be one out there. Still looking for the law that says we have to pay a direct income tax on personal income. | |
|
(2007-04-10 13:28:12) From the IRS website: http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=119100,00.html 3. Congress used the power granted by the Constitution and Sixteenth Amendment and made laws requiring all individuals to pay tax. .....OK- we get it- The constitution gives the power to gov to tax....and the IRS even showed us which amendment. The point is- saying there is a law is not the same as producing that law. Where is it already? If congress made a law, where is it? Someone find it and post it so we can put this to bed already. ....or are the patriotic lefties correct on this one? | |
|
(2007-04-10 13:51:15) Here is your tax law: (From: http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm) The federal tax laws are contained in Title 26 of the United States Code, which is the compilation of laws passed by the Congress (“Title” basically means “Volume” when applied to the U.S. Code as a whole, so Title 26 is what might more casually be called Volume 26). The most important statutory provision with regard to income taxes is section one of the tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 1. This is the section that actually imposes the income tax. It’s very simply written. If you are unmarried, the relevant provision is § 1(c), which states: 26 U.S.C. § 1 There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . who is not a married individual a tax determined in accordance with the following table: followed by a table specifying the tax rates on various income amounts. If you are married, you are covered by the similar provision at § 1(a). There are also a couple of other possible filing statuses covered elsewhere in § 1 (such as “head of household”), but the basic point is that section 1 imposes an income tax. § 61 and § 63 Section 1, it will be observed, imposes the tax on your “taxable income.” How do you know what that is? Section 63 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 63, defines “taxable income” to mean “gross income minus the deductions allowed” by chapter 1 of the Code, so now we need to know what “gross income” is. So we turn to section 61 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 61, which provides the critical definition: 26 U.S.C. § 61 [G]ross 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; . . . There are 15 items in the full list (I’ve only quoted the first seven), but the key part of the definition is that gross income means “all income from whatever source derived.” So, between sections 1, 61, and 63, we see that the tax code passed by Congress imposes a tax on your taxable income, which includes all your income, from whatever source derived, less the deductions allowed by the tax laws. So the tax laws do impose a tax on you. Now, how do you know that you have to file a tax return and actually pay the tax? § 6012 and § 6151 Section 6151 of the code, 26 U.S.C. § 6151, says: 26 U.S.C. § 6151 [W]hen a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return). So according to this section, if you are required to file a tax return, you are required to pay the tax owed, to pay it at the time you file your return, and to pay it to the internal revenue officer with whom you file the return. But who says you’re required to file the return? Turn back to section 6012(a) of the code, 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a), which provides: 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a) Returns with respect to income taxes * * * shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount * * *. The “exemption amount” is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 151(d) as $2000, adjusted for inflation since 1989. You can see the exact amount for the current tax year in the IRS instructions to form 1040. If you have more income than this amount, section 6012 requires you to file a tax return (except that if you’re married, section 6013 gives you the option of filing a joint return with your spouse). So there it is: Sections 1, 61, and 63 impose the tax, Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return. § 6072 And when is your return due? Section 6072 provides the answer: “[R]eturns made on the basis of the calendar year shall be filed on or before the 15th day of April following the close of the calendar year.” This is the statutory basis for the familiar April 15 tax deadline. Of course, there’s a lot more to know if you want to achieve a full understanding of the tax system. For example, other statutes besides the ones quoted above create the extensive system of tax “withholding,” whereby you actually pay your taxes on your wages in advance, each time you receive a paycheck, so that on the day your return is due the government usually ends up owing you a refund. If you have substantial amounts of unearned income, there are also other statutes that require you to pay estimated taxes each quarter. And, needless to say, there are innumerable, complex statutes that more specifically define how much income tax you owe. But you only need to look at a few, relatively simple statutes to see that the duty to pay income tax is mandatory. You can look up the above statutes yourself in any law library (just ask the librarian to help you find Title 26 of the United States Code.) These statutes demonstrate that the claim that there is no law requiring anyone to file income tax returns or pay income tax is complete nonsense. | |
|
(2007-04-10 13:59:54) since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 the United States Government has been using totalitarian oppression to silence tax dissenters in the lower courts, even though the Supreme Court itself has ruled in several rulings that the Federal Income Tax itself is unconstitutional. You may believe that the Federal Reserve Notes you pay to the Federal Income Tax go to pay for things such as schools, roads, and defense. This is not the case, schools are funded through state and local taxes, mainly property taxes. Roads and transportation activities are funded through taxes on fossil fuels (bout .49 a gallon right now), and the defense budget is directly proportionate to the amount of Federal Reserve Notes taken in through their legitimate Federal Income Taxes (unlike citizens, corporations are legally liable to pay a Federal Income Tax). We have gone from a country founded on freedom, where any man can develop land, and build his/her own wealth, to a country living on borrowed credit, money not backed up by anything, and a citizenry all to apathetic to even see that they are slowly being enslaved to banking and corporate interests. | |
|
(2007-04-10 14:44:59) RE: The most important statutory provision with regard to income taxes is section one of the tax code, 26 U.S.C. Sec 1. This is the section that actually imposes the income tax. It's very simply written. If you are unmarried, the relevant provision is Sec. 1(c), which states: 26 U.S.C. Sec1 There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . who is not a married individual a tax determined in accordance with the following table: .... ------------------------- So this is a closed topic that is debunked as whacko liberal propaganda- yes? I'm not one to use the labels that the media has taught us to use- but whacko is whacko. While the Federal Reserve (Bank) doesn't seem a fitting overseer of our money, the tax law is clearly there. Right?? We are legally required to pay a (federal) income tax on personal income as defined in Title 26 U.S.C. Sec 1 | |
|
(2007-05-05 16:31:45) Taken from: http://www.apfn.net/Doc-100_bankruptcy24.htm Was the 16th Amendment properly and legally ratified? Q: 63 thru 121. : the 27th Amendment was proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789. Some of the State legislatures ratified the proposal on these dates: Maryland, on December 19, 1789; North Carolina on December 22, 1789; South Carolina on January 19, 1790; Delaware on January 28, 1790; Vermont on November 3, 1791; and Virginia, on December 15, 1791. This number of States was not sufficient for ratification of this amendment. Then some 84 years later on May 6, 1873, Ohio ratified this amendment. Interest in this amendment was rekindled when on March 6, 1978, Wyoming ratified this amendment. After this, other States ratified the amendment: Colorado on April 22, 1984; South Dakota on February 1985; New Hampshire on March 7, 1985; Arizona on April 3, 1985; Tennessee on May 28, 1985; Oklahoma on July 10, 1985; New Mexico on February 14, 1986; Indiana on February 24, 1986; Utah on February 25, 1986; Arkansas on March 13, 1987; Montana on March 17, 1987; Connecticut on May 13, 1987; Wisconsin on July 15, 1987; Georgia on February 2, 1988; West Virginia on March 10, 1988; Louisiana on July 7, 1988; Iowa on February 9, 1989; Idaho on March 23, 1989; Nevada on April 26, 1989; Alaska on May 6, 1989; Oregon on May 19, 1989; Minnesota on May 22, 1989; Texas on May 25, 1989; Kansas on April 5, 1990; Florida on May 31, 1990; North Dakota on May 25, 1991; Alabama on May 5, 1992; Missouri on May 5, 1992; Michigan on May 7, 1992; and New Jersey on May 7, 1992. 64. Admit that in the case of Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 374-375 (1921), the Supreme Court concluded: We do not find anything in the article which suggests that an amendment once proposed is to be open to ratification for all time, or that ratification in some of the states may be separated from that in others by many years and yet be effective. We do find that which strongly suggests the contrary. First, proposal and ratification are not treated as unrelated acts, but as succeeding steps in a single endeavor, the natural inference being that they are not to be widely separated in time. Secondly, it is only when there is deemed to be a necessity therefor that amendments are to be proposed, the reasonable implication being that when proposed they are to be considered and disposed of presently. Thirdly, as ratification is but the expression of the approbation of the people and is to be effective when had in three- fourths of the states, there is a fair implication that it must be sufficiently contemporaneous in that number of states to reflect the will of the people in all sections at relatively the same period, which of course ratification scattered through a long series of years would not do. These considerations and the general purport and spirit of the article lead to the conclusion expressed by Judge Jameson 'that an alteration of the Constitution proposed to-day has relation to the sentiment and the felt needs of to-day, and that, if not ratified early while that sentiment may fairly be supposed to exist, it ought to be regarded as waived, and not again to be voted upon, unless a second time proposed by Congress.' That this is the better conclusion becomes even more manifest when what is comprehended in the other view is considered; for, according to it, four amendments proposed long ago-two in 1789, one in 1810 and one in 1861-are still pending and in a situation where their ratification in some of the states many years since by representatives of generations now largely forgotten may be effectively supplemented in enough more states to make three-fourths by representatives of the present or some future generation. To that view few would be able to subscribe, and in our opinion it is quite untenable. We conclude that the fair inference or implication from article 5 is that the ratification must be within some reasonable time after the proposal. | |
|
(2007-05-19 11:48:36) That is pretty interesting. This doesn't sound like ratification 'within some reasonable time after the proposal'! the 27th Amendment was proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789. Some of the State legislatures ratified the proposal on these dates: Maryland, on December 19, 1789; North Carolina on December 22, 1789; South Carolina on January 19, 1790; Delaware on January 28, 1790; Vermont on November 3, 1791; and Virginia, on December 15, 1791. This number of States was not sufficient for ratification of this amendment. Then some 84 years later on May 6, 1873, Ohio ratified this amendment. Interest in this amendment was rekindled when on March 6, 1978, Wyoming ratified this amendment. | |
|
(2007-05-19 12:00:00) From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Sounds like an area the courts don't want to touch. Why? Under the 1939 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case of Coleman v. Miller, any proposed amendment for which Congress does not specify a ratification deadline remains pending business before the states and the states may continue to consider that amendment regardless of that amendment's age. In Coleman, the high Court ruled that the ratification of a constitutional amendment is political in nature—and not a matter properly assigned to the judiciary. For quite some time, it had been erroneously believed that ratification on May 7, 1992, by the Michigan Legislature propelled the 27th Amendment into the U.S. Constitution. However, when the June 1792 ratification of all twelve amendments by the Kentucky General Assembly during that commonwealth's initial month of statehood later came to light, it was quickly realized that the 27th Amendment's incorporation into the Constitution was actually finalized two days earlier than previously thought—and by the state (Alabama) whose legislature had acted immediately before Michigan's. Possibly unaware of the ratification actions taken in 1792, Kentucky lawmakers ceremonially approved the amendment a second time, nearly 204 years later in 1996, and almost four years after the amendment had already been made part of the nation's highest legal document. In 1989, the North Carolina General Assembly likewise re-ratified the amendment, having first adopted it two centuries earlier in 1789. Certification and Congressional acceptance of ratification On May 18, 1992, the Amendment was officially certified by Don W. Wilson, then-Archivist of the United States. On May 19, 1992, it was printed in the Federal Register.[1] Notwithstanding the Coleman v. Miller decision, Speaker of the House Tom Foley and others called for a legal challenge to the 27th Amendment's irregular ratification. However, the Coleman ruling made clear that only Congress has the authority to determine whether an amendment has—or has not—been properly made part of the Constitution. The courts would not involve themselves in such a "political question," the justices asserted. Because Congressional opposition to ratification would be perceived as little more than self-interest, reaction on Capitol Hill was silenced. However, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, then-President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate, scolded Wilson for having certified the Amendment without Congressional approval. Although Byrd supported Congressional acceptance of the 27th Amendment, he contended that Wilson had deviated from "historic tradition" by not waiting for Congress to consider the validity of the ratification, given the 202½-year lapse since the Amendment had been proposed.[2] In accordance with the Coleman ruling—and in keeping with the precedent first established in the 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment—both houses of the 102nd Congress, on May 20, 1992, acting separately, adopted concurrent resolutions agreeing that the 27th Amendment was indeed validly ratified, despite the unorthodox period of more than 200 years for the completion of the task. Neither body, however, adopted the concurrent resolution of the other. | |
|
(2007-05-19 12:00:41) That is pretty interesting. This doesn't sound like ratification 'within some reasonable time after the proposal'! the 27th Amendment was proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789. Some of the State legislatures ratified the proposal on these dates: Maryland, on December 19, 1789; North Carolina on December 22, 1789; South Carolina on January 19, 1790; Delaware on January 28, 1790; Vermont on November 3, 1791; and Virginia, on December 15, 1791. This number of States was not sufficient for ratification of this amendment. Then some 84 years later on May 6, 1873, Ohio ratified this amendment. Interest in this amendment was rekindled when on March 6, 1978, Wyoming ratified this amendment. | |
|
(2007-07-15 09:19:59) Looks like limited government to me...I believe the amendment taxes gains. The IRS taxes labor that is slavery. | |