UCC! OK, So Who Is Not Paying Taxes Then?

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

... True, the Supreme Court held in Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920) that a tax on federal judges' income was unconstitutional, but that case was overruled in O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939). The bottom line is that federal judges, like everyone else, are liable for income tax.

The crucial issue in those cases was not the legality of the tax but Article III, sec. 1 states that the compensation paid to judges "shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." In these cases, the judges had taken office before the enactment of the Social Security tax and the issue was whether withholding that new tax from the judges' paychecks constituted a "diminishment" of their compensation. The final word was that judges had to pay any new taxes that applied to the entire public.

A subsequent case held that judges already in office could not be nailed for a new impost that was imposed only on members of the legal profession, because that was not applied to the general public.

[netwrkranger]

... the Supremes ruled in such fashion to prevent the subjects (citizens) from becoming restless.

If judges did not have to pay Social Security Tax, why should I?

=D

-netwrkranger

[Shoonra]

But it was decided that the judges DID have to pay Social Security.

[netwrkranger]

And I am saying they did that to not give people any ideas about revolting due to perceived inequity.

- netwrkranger

[mertensv16]

Shoonra, it's very simple: when the courts rule against tax protestors, it's because they're corrupt lackeys of the IRS who realize that because the government pays their salaries, it's in their own economic interest to hand down a pro-government decision. But when they rule against their own self-interest, it's not because they're suddenly not corrupt any more, it's simply to keep the mob at bay.

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by Charlie Blue

I've read all posts in this thread to which many are powerfully informative but, ezrhythm, I wonder if you can expound on your statement a little more.

When you sign a W4 you are giving permission for your employer to become a Withholding Agent thus claiming that you are a "taxpayer".
Since the ficticious courts only deal in fictions and presumptions, it is neccessary to rebutt circumstances that report presumptions of you.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

When you sign a W4 you are giving permission for your employer to become a Withholding Agent thus claiming that you are a "taxpayer".
Since the ficticious courts only deal in fictions and presumptions, it is neccessary to rebutt circumstances that report presumptions of you.

When those "fictitious" courts order you sent to prison, whose butt goes into the cell...you or your "legal fiction straw man"?

[ezrhythm]

AWAY FROM HERE SPIRIT OF ANTI SUI JURIS!!!

No one goes to jail, doesn't even see one of your defacto court rooms. MORE FREEDOM! MORE FUN FOR EVERYONE!