Do Tax Laws Apply To You?

[weishaupt1776]

This was continued from here

Originally Posted by buck09

No, Miss Cleo, like the posters around here, decided that the income tax laws didn't apply to her. (Seriously). Perhaps now she can't afford proper dental care.

B9, are you inferring that tax laws apply to everyone who lives & works upon the soil within any one of the 50 union states?
Is that basically your position?

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

This was continued from here


B9, are you inferring that tax laws apply to everyone who lives & works upon the soil within any one of the 50 union states?
Is that basically your position?

Income tax applies to anyone whose net income is above a certain level.

How about addressing my question about how one can be morally justified in partaking in fradulant credit transactions without giving the goods back?

[weasel]

well that settles it then. I don't have a net income. i earn wages.

[DeJure]

Wrong thread, sorry guys

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by buck09

How about addressing my question about how one can be morally justified in partaking in fradulant credit transactions without giving the goods back?

I'll admit that I have not attempted that move yet. I am almost out of the hole & will no longer use credit cards.
But the person you bought the goods from got paid. How could it be immoral if they already got paid? Does the credit card company then seek the "money" back from the merchant because you discharged a credit card debt?
As a result, the credit card created more obligations, and then paying an obligation w/ another obligation is non-sensical. The person you bought the goods from doesn't get put out anything. The credit card company gets theirs back from the Fed anyway via the TTL line through Fed Wire.

I was thinking about doing the VOD, but I am enjoying my downtime right now & I don't want any more flack. I am not far from getting this credit card OVER & OUT. NEVER AGAIN!!

Originally Posted by buck09

Income tax applies to anyone whose net income is above a certain level.

So let's say this "net income" of which you speak is above that appointed level.
Your opinion that there is an obligation isn't pulled out of thin air, right?

[KaosTheory]

Weis,

I don't understand why you chose not to go the VOD route from the start.

Buck,

Are you not aware of the current economic situation with debt based currency? Do you have any idea where 'money' comes from or what it is, factually?

If there is a real obligation then I'm sure the alleged creditor can produce the proof. In which case, by all means, make him whole. What if he can't produce the proof though?

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

[b]I'll admit that I have not attempted that move yet. I am almost out of the hole & will no longer use credit cards.
But the person you bought the goods from got paid. How could it be immoral if they already got paid? Does the credit card company then seek the "money" back from the merchant because you discharged a credit card debt?
As a result, the credit card created more obligations, and then paying an obligation w/ another obligation is non-sensical. The person you bought the goods from doesn't get put out anything. The credit card company gets theirs back from the Fed anyway via the TTL line through Fed Wire.

So, in essense, what you're saying is that since the credit card companies get paid either way, there is nothing morally wrong done by me if I go out, get a credit card, max it out at Best Buy and then never pay back the credit card company?

So let's say this "net income" of which you speak is above that appointed level.
Your opinion that there is an obligation isn't pulled out of thin air, right?

I don't quite understand your question. Federal and (most) state law states that if your net income is above a certain level, you are liable to pay taxes.

Rather than being coy about the issue, how about you simply tell me which de-tax theory you subscribe to - there's a lot of them out there, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by weasel

well that settles it then. I don't have a net income. i earn wages.

It may settle it for you, however, if you find yourself in court, I think you're going to have a much more difficult time getting them to agree with you:

"Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive labels as to their nature. And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted." Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955)

Although not raised in his brief on appeal, the defendant's entire case at trial rested on his claim that he in good faith believed that wages are not income for taxation purposes. Whatever his mental state, he, of course, was wrong, as all of us are already aware. Nontheless, the defendant still insists that no case holds that wages are income. Let us now put that to rest: WAGES ARE INCOME. Any reading of tax cases by would-be tax protesters now should preclude a claim of good-faith belief that wages--or salaries--are not taxable." United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 n.1 (7th Cir. 1984)

Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income." United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-944 (3rd Cir. 1990)

"Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax on income, and under the Tax Code, wages are income." Grimes v. Commissioner, 806 F.2d 1451, 1453 (9th Cir. 1986

"The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions." Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985)

[weishaupt1776]

In regards to the credit card company, they get paid via Fed Wire the moment you jack that sucker up at Best Buy. You then pay them again plus interest. So the first moral wrong is committed by the credit card co. The successive maxing it out at Best buy would be the rotten fruit of the poisonous tree. I believe if someone is in serious debt to their credit card, it is MOST OF THE TIME, the result of poor discipline. If they then find out later, that the whole thing is based on fraud, they should go for the discharge. If they already know what's really going on, and they max out Best Buy(are you a gadget freak or something, Buck?), I find that to be morallly wrong for this reason:

It jacks up people's income tax, because the Income Tax is used to pay off the interest of the National Debt. The Debt is created by the Privately held Fed Rsrv having to print up more FRNS, thus charging the United States corporation interest PLUS more than the face value of each FRN printed.
So people who think that there is an obligation to pay income taxes wind up getting screwed as the result of people intentionally jacking up credit card debt. But it gets sicker. If you pay the CC with FRNS, then more FRNS gotta get printed up anyway, and then even more debt compounds. I'm tellin ya, I can't wait till Christ comes back.

This brings us to the next topic.

I do not subscribe to any one theory, but a systematic circuitous path through the Constitution, Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, CFR, and lastly, case law.

My intention is not to be coy, but to ask you the question,
"So if one's net income is over a certain mark; there definitely is an obligation?"

I believe that your answer would be yes, there is an obligation.

So, the next question to you is
"Bucko, do you have grounds to support your opinion that there is an obligation?" A yes or no is fine. Commentary is fine, too, but I would apprecciate a yes or no.

BUCK, I have explained this before and I think you need to see it and if you don't believe it than you need to get books from the American Bankers Association and others to look it up yourself. How can you pay when there is only debt? Debt paying debt gee that is how we got here in the first place. When you sign up for a charge card your signature just created out of thin air say your limit is $5000.00 the bank then puts the $5000.00 into there assets (notice I said assets and then another in liability for $5000.00) and then if you pay them again well they made out like bandits so who are the real robbers here Buck??????????? Now if I had 1.00 and gave you .50 cents I would only have .50 cents left not like the banks do they would then have a whopping 1.50 to the good not a minus at all.
Also, if the CAT is no good and you say they are looney I want proof by you going down the line each sentence and show the mistakes and tell me why they are not recording it in the court house and why mysteriously it was gone out of my file yesterday when I filed it last Thursday??? I would not leave till they found it and WHALA it was in someelses file??
What say you love??
Bobbie