Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ThomPaine
A direct tax is subject to apportionment. An indirect tax is an excise tax, which is a tax on an activity, priviledge or thing. There is an excise tax on beer, if you buy beer, you pay it just like everyone else. There is no way to avoid it, pay more or less, etc. It is legally avoidable: if you desire not to pay it, dont buy any beer or cigarettes or gasoline or whatever the item is.
The tax is on the item or the activity and this is the case in the income tax. The tax is NOT on the income, the income only determines the amount of tax due AFTER you have determined if you are subject to that tax based on the activities or priviledges that you participate in.
I had a face to face conversation with a DOJ representative in the recent past regarding a bogus NFTL and was asked, "Do you participate in any priviledged activity?" My reply of course was, "no, that I did not" at which time she smiled and said, well, then you are not a person of interest to us and do not have a tax liability as far as we are concerned and she turned and walked away.
I have never earned any taxable income (I know DM will say otherwise) but simply from a code standpoint, the income tax is very limited in its scope. If you dont do XY or Z, then the tax does not apply to you, end of story..
Thom
|
Yes! That was exactly my point when I countered lapdog's uninformed comments concerning the snippet he posted from a propaganda website with the facts concerning Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913). It is an excise (privileged) activity.
The Social Security is relevant as it is one of many items used to create a privileged nexus.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ThomPaine
You guys were doing well in the first few posts and then got off track quickly, which I will attribute to the attorner.
|
Yep. Going off on tangents is how they rack up the hours in their "practice". LOL