Ending income taxes

[OohPooPahDoo]

Maybe it's just me, but has anyone actually seen the law in the federal registrar requiring anyone to pay income taxes?

I'm not sure what the "federal registrar" is, but you can look up the Internal Revenue Code in Title 26 of the U.S. Code. Here is the one specifying what individuals owe:

26 USC § 1 - Tax imposed | Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

The Federal Registrar is where all laws in the land are recorded.

You might want to inform the good folks at google then. They aren't aware of it:
https://www.google.com/search?clien...661,d.aWc&fp=24856511bfa89a24&biw=960&bih=458

The internal revenue code are just statutory tax regulations.

Its Title 26 of the U.S. Code.

And that is not a statutory law requiring any citizens paying taxes.

"Tax imposed" means the taxes you are required to pay.

Those are just statutory brackets imposed on individuals making a certain amount of money.

Yes, they are. What's your point? You asked for the law which requires citizens to pay income tax, I showed it to you.

You've confused the two. Good job.

Confused the two what exactly?

You already professed to not knowing what the Federal Registrar is, and you somehow think you are going to take 5 minutes to show me what the law is?

I confess that if Google returns zero hits I find it hard to know about something I hadn't ever heard of. Its funny how Google isn't aware of this "Federal Registrar" you profess is the keeper of all the laws. The rest of us people in the real world refer to something called the "U.S. Code".

 

[AmazonTania]

I'm not sure what the "federal registrar" is, but you can look up the Internal Revenue Code in Title 26 of the U.S. Code. Here is the one specifying what individuals owe:

26 USC § 1 - Tax imposed | Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

The Federal Registrar is where all laws in the land are recorded.

You might want to inform the good folks at google then. They aren't aware of it:
https://www.google.com/search?clien...661,d.aWc&fp=24856511bfa89a24&biw=960&bih=458

Google is not a dictionary, nor text book. The sooner you understand this, the better off you will be in the future.

Not to mention, you don't even realise that what I am referring to is the first search item on what you have just looked up. There is truly no hope for you.

Its Title 26 of the U.S. Code.

Where?

"Tax imposed" means the taxes you are required to pay.

'Tax Imposed' means taxes which are levied. Imposed is not synonym with the word required. You can at least use Google as a dictionary if you think it is actually a dictionary.

Yes, they are. What's your point? You asked for the law which requires citizens to pay income tax, I showed it to you.

You didn't. You showed me a law of statutory brackets imposed on those who already do pay taxes. You have not shown me a law requiring citizens to pay taxes.

Confused the two what exactly?

A statutory tax regulation and the actual law.

I confess that if Google returns zero hits I find it hard to know about something I hadn't ever heard of. Its funny how Google isn't aware of this "Federal Registrar" you profess is the keeper of all the laws. The rest of us people in the real world refer to something called the "U.S. Code".

They're the same thing you, rather ignorant individual... One just details regulations while the other just cites the actual laws.

 

[bripat9643]

People get mad because some corporations get tax breaks that end up with those corporations not paying any taxes.

Some of those same people who get mad at corporations not paying taxes are also the people who take the mortgage interest deduction, child tax credits, and all kinds of other tax breaks so they end up not paying any taxes, either!

Many of the 47% of Americans who don't pay any federal income taxes get all indignant over some corporation not paying any federal income taxes, and they do so without any sense of irony at all.

We are a nation of hypocrites and treasury leeches. "Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."


End tax expenditures. All of them.

Yeah! take 100% of everyone's money! After all, a "tax expenditure" is where the government allows you to keep some of your money.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Federal Registrar is where all laws in the land are recorded.

You might want to inform the good folks at google then. They aren't aware of it:
https://www.google.com/search?clien...661,d.aWc&fp=24856511bfa89a24&biw=960&bih=458

Google is not a dictionary, nor text book. The sooner you understand this, the better off you will be in the future.

Not to mention, you don't even realise that what I am referring to is the first search item on what you have just looked up. There is truly no hope for you.

No, the first search item is the "Federal Register". You were talking about the "Federal Registrar", which google knows nothing about.

Where?

The United States Code. Its what the rest of us here in the real world refer to when we want to know what the law is. Refer to 26 USC 1 to find out the tax imposed on individuals. Refer to 26 USC 6012 for the law that requires most people to file a return.

'Tax Imposed' means taxes which are levied. Imposed is not synonym with the word required. You can at least use Google as a dictionary if you think it is actually a dictionary.

Sorry, but "require" is a synonym for the word "impose"

Main Entry: impose  [im-pohz]
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: set, dictate
Synonyms: appoint, burden, charge, command, compel, constrain, decree, demand, encroach, enforce, enjoin, establish, exact, fix, foist, force, force upon, horn in, inflict, infringe, institute, introduce, intrude, lade, lay, lay down, lay down the law, levy, move in on, oblige, obtrude, ordain, order, place, prescribe, presume, promulgate, put, put foot down, read riot act, require, saddle, take advantage, trespass, visit, wish, wreak, wreck

http://thesaurus.com/browse/impose

You didn't. You showed me a law of statutory brackets imposed on those who already do pay taxes. You have not shown me a law requiring citizens to pay taxes.

You didn't actually read any of the law I showed you, did I? Its 26 USC 1. You asked for it, I showed it to you, and you didn't even read it. Why? It says:

(a)There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(1) every married individual...
(2) every surviving spouse...

(b)There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household...

(c)There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual...

(d) There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013...

Perhaps you'd like to open up your dictionary and look up what the word "every" means?

Confused the two what exactly?

A statutory tax regulation and the actual law.

The United States Code is the "actual law".

I confess that if Google returns zero hits I find it hard to know about something I hadn't ever heard of. Its funny how Google isn't aware of this "Federal Registrar" you profess is the keeper of all the laws. The rest of us people in the real world refer to something called the "U.S. Code".

They're the same thing you, rather ignorant individual...

The "U.S. Code" and the "Federal Registrar" are the "same thing"?

One just details regulations while the other just cites the actual laws.

I thought you just said they were the same thing?

I showed you the "actual law" in the U.S. Code which requires every person to pay taxes. When you grow up and are old enough to pay taxes, that is the law that will require you to do it. If you don't and are caught you will face civil and possibly criminal penalties.

Your question has been answered.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

People get mad because some corporations get tax breaks that end up with those corporations not paying any taxes.

Some of those same people who get mad at corporations not paying taxes are also the people who take the mortgage interest deduction, child tax credits, and all kinds of other tax breaks so they end up not paying any taxes, either!

Many of the 47% of Americans who don't pay any federal income taxes get all indignant over some corporation not paying any federal income taxes, and they do so without any sense of irony at all.

We are a nation of hypocrites and treasury leeches. "Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."


End tax expenditures. All of them.

Yeah! take 100% of everyone's money! After all, a "tax expenditure" is where the government allows you to keep some of your money.

Yeah! THose mean nanny staters! They just wanna take all our money and give it to welfare queens! Bwwaaahhh!!!! Let us keep it all - its our goddammit!

 

[zeke]

Amazon. You are not from around here. Are you?

But please, feel free to show all just where it says I do not have to pay Federal Income taxes.

I will check back cause this is BIG.

 

[AmazonTania]

You might want to inform the good folks at google then. They aren't aware of it:
https://www.google.com/search?clien...661,d.aWc&fp=24856511bfa89a24&biw=960&bih=458

Google is not a dictionary, nor text book. The sooner you understand this, the better off you will be in the future.

Not to mention, you don't even realise that what I am referring to is the first search item on what you have just looked up. There is truly no hope for you.

No, the first search item is the "Federal Register". You were talking about the "Federal Registrar", which google knows nothing about.

I need to start doing some work, so I'll reply to this rather inane post.

You goggled exactly what I was looking for. Registrar and Register are the same thing.

The United States Code. Its what the rest of us here in the real world refer to when we want to know what the law is. Refer to 26 USC 1 to find out the tax imposed on individuals. Refer to 26 USC 6012 for the law that requires most people to file a return.

It requires most people to file a return. It does NOT require an individual to file an income tax return. It's right there in the first statue, but reading must not be your wrong suit.

Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual—

Sorry, but "require" is a synonym for the word "impose"
Impose Synonyms, Impose Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

No, it isn't. Here is a better source, from Merriam Webster Britannia Encyclopedia Company.

Imposed - Synonyms and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

You didn't actually read any of the law I showed you, did I? Its 26 USC 1. You asked for it, I showed it to you, and you didn't even read it. Why? It says:


Perhaps you'd like to open up your dictionary and look up what the word "every" means?

You didn't actually read the law. I'll break it down for you and outline the part you ignored.

every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013

As I have said before, the law you have referenced to is a statutory imposed tax on those who already make a return. The law does not state anywhere that a person is directly required to make said return tax in compliance with the Internal Revenue Code.

You have yet to show a law requiring any individual to make a return, or pay income taxes. You're grasping at straws, which is common for those who don't understand what they are talking about. Do you even understand that the Internal Revenue Code operates on voluntary compliance? Call them for yourself. I promise that is exactly what they will tell you.

The United States Code is the "actual law".

It is, but you didn't show me the law in writing requiring individuals to pay an income tax. All you've done was show a statutory regulation of taxes imposed on those who have already filed a return. If you really cannot understand the difference, then I can't help you.

How come you spell it differently than the entire rest of the world?

Apparently you are really uninformed about different forms of American English and U.K. English. No, I did not spell it differently than the rest of the world. You're just really not a smart individual.

Well I showed you the "actual law" in the U.S. Code which requires every person to pay taxes. Your question has been answered.

You showed me a statutory regulation which imposes a specific tax on those who make a return. Not an actual law requiring anyone to make a return or pay taxes. You are just way to ignorant to understand what you are reading. Personally, I blame public school.

 

[AmazonTania]

Amazon. You are not from around here. Are you?

But please, feel free to show all just where it says I do not have to pay Federal Income taxes.

I will check back cause this is BIG.

Call the IRS yourself and ask them if you are required to pay income taxes. It can't get any easier than that.

 

[Oddball]

Oh, look...You've met Poopypoo.....He's a dick.....Kinda like Scott from Canada.

Funny thing is that he started out here as a (relatively) normal lefty and decided at some point to go full lobotomized moonbat retard....Or maybe the former was just an act.

Nonetheless, I imagine that you also know the legal distinction between "must", "shall" and "are required to"....Interesting read, that Black's Law Dictionary.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Google is not a dictionary, nor text book. The sooner you understand this, the better off you will be in the future.

Not to mention, you don't even realise that what I am referring to is the first search item on what you have just looked up. There is truly no hope for you.

No, the first search item is the "Federal Register". You were talking about the "Federal Registrar", which google knows nothing about.

I need to start doing some work, so I'll reply to this rather inane post.

You goggled exactly what I was looking for. Registrar and Register are the same thing.

No they aren't. A "registrar" is a person. A "register" is not. That's a huge difference I'd say.

It requires most people to file a return. It does NOT require an individual to file an income tax return. It's right there in the first statue, but reading must not be your wrong suit.

Yes it does. Any individual with taxable income over a certain amount is required to file a return. 26 USC § 6012 - Persons required to make returns of income | Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

No, it isn't.

Am I to take it that Roget's thesaurus is no longer considered reliable? LOL!

Here is a better source, from Merriam Webster Britannia Encyclopedia Company.

Imposed - Synonyms and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So now the dictionary is a "better source" for synonyms than the thesaurus?

As I have said before, the law you have referenced to is a statutory imposed tax on those who already make a return.

The law I cited makes no distinction based on whether or not someone "already made a return". You're making stuff up that isn't there. Do you understand that just because someone's blog looks really nice and you'd like to believe what they are telling you, it doesn't make it true?

The law does not state anywhere that a person is directly required to make said return tax in compliance with the Internal Revenue Code.
You have yet to show a law requiring any individual to make a return, or pay income taxes.

26 USC 6012 actually requires any individual who makes over a certain amount to file.
26 USC § 6012 - Persons required to make returns of income | Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

You're grasping at straws, which is common for those who don't understand what they are talking about. Do you even understand that the Internal Revenue Code operates on voluntary compliance? Call them for yourself. I promise that is exactly what they will tell you.

Yes, you are correct. Its not like, say, applying for disability, where you the onus is on the applicant to prove themselves disabled - the IRS does presume that your return is honest. That's why they have an audit system - and when you don't voluntarily comply honestly and are caught in an audit you will be forced to pay penalties and may go to prison.

It is, but you didn't show me the law in writing requiring individuals to pay an income tax.

26 USC 1

All you've done was show a statutory regulation of taxes imposed on those who have already filed a return.

26 USC makes no such qualification.

If you really cannot understand the difference, then I can't help you.

The difference between what? What the law says and what tax protesters with nice looking blogs have convinced you it says? I know quite well the difference, thanks.

How come you spell it differently than the entire rest of the world?

Apparently you are really uninformed about different forms of American English and U.K. English. No, I did not spell it differently than the rest of the world. You're just really not a smart individual.

Well which English do we speak here in America?

You showed me a statutory regulation which imposes a specific tax on those who make a return.

Except that's not what 26 USC 1 says in reality. I'm sorry the real law isn't the same as what the bloggers told you it was.

Not an actual law requiring anyone to make a return or pay taxes. You are just way to ignorant to understand what you are reading. Personally, I blame public school.

Is that the argument you'll use in court when you are finally old enough to get a job and make enough money to pay taxes?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Amazon. You are not from around here. Are you?

But please, feel free to show all just where it says I do not have to pay Federal Income taxes.

I will check back cause this is BIG.

Call the IRS yourself and ask them if you are required to pay income taxes. It can't get any easier than that.

Why haven't you called them? Your mommy doesn't let you use the phone yet?

Tell you what - don't call them - and when you get older - don't pay your taxes. Eventually, they will call you - and you might not like the answer they give.

 

[AmazonTania]

No, the first search item is the "Federal Register". You were talking about the "Federal Registrar", which google knows nothing about.

I need to start doing some work, so I'll reply to this rather inane post.

You goggled exactly what I was looking for. Registrar and Register are the same thing.

No they aren't. A "registrar" is a person. A "register" is not. That's a huge difference I'd say.

That would depend on whether or not you use it as a noun or a verb. Basic grammar fails you even when you have a dictionary and thesaurus at the ready.

Yes it does. Any individual with taxable income over a certain amount is required to file a return. 26 USC § 6012 - Persons required to make returns of income | Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

That's not what it says. And I already showed it to you as plain as day. From your own source again.

Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:

(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual

It helps to actually READ what you are showing me.

Am I to take it that Roget's thesaurus is no longer considered reliable? LOL!

I said my source was more reliable. If you understand what the Britannia Encyclopedia is, you'd know why.

Reading comprehension.

So now the dictionary is a "better source" for synonyms than the thesaurus?

If you actually taken the time to check the hyperlink, you would see that I used the thesaurus. Or maybe that is just your top notch reading comprehension again.

The law I cited makes no distinction based on whether or not someone "already made a return". You're making stuff up that isn't there. Do you understand that just because someone's blog looks really nice and you'd like to believe what they are telling you, it doesn't make it true?

I don't make anything up. That is just your reading comprehension:

every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013

At which point do I highlight it so you can understand that the law only applies to those who have filed a return. Do I have to increase the font size, bright colours perhaps.

26 USC 6012 actually requires any individual who makes over a certain amount to file.
26 USC § 6012 - Persons required to make returns of income | Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

That's not what it says:

Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual—

Yes, you are correct. Its not like, say, applying for disability, where you the onus is on the applicant to prove themselves disabled - the IRS does presume that your return is honest. That's why they have an audit system - and when you don't voluntarily comply honestly and are caught in an audit you will be forced to pay penalties and may go to prison.

If it is voluntary, then you are not required to file an income tax return. Thank you for being daft enough to make my point for me.

26 USC 1

Where does it show it? I haven't seen it in plain words.

26 USC makes no such qualification.

Again, reading comprehension:

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and

(b)Married individuals filing separate returns
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

Again, I do not see where it says anyone it required to pay or must pay.

The difference between what? What the law says and what tax protesters with nice looking blogs have convinced you it says? I know quite well the difference, thanks.

Your understanding of what the law actually says is limited to your reading comprehension.

Well which English do we speak here in America?

It's the same English, just different spelling of words. Neither is more correct or incorrect. You can't really be his inept.

Except that's not what 26 USC 1 says in reality. I'm sorry the real law isn't the same as what the bloggers told you it was.

I already showed you what it says in plain text.

Is that the argument you'll use in court when you are finally old enough to get a job and make enough money to pay taxes?

I already make plenty enough to pay taxes. Speaking of courts, you are aware that Supreme Courts have ruled that you do not have to pay taxes, correct?

I'm guessing you are a better interpreter of the law than Supreme Court Judges. Get back at me when you grow a brain, or at least formulate better reading comprehension.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I need to start doing some work, so I'll reply to this rather inane post.

You goggled exactly what I was looking for. Registrar and Register are the same thing.

No they aren't. A "registrar" is a person. A "register" is not. That's a huge difference I'd say.

That would depend on whether or not you use it as a noun or a verb. Basic grammar fails you even when you have a dictionary and thesaurus at the ready.

No it doesn't. A "registrar" is always a person, and "register" is never a person.

That's not what it says. And I already showed it to you as plain as day. From your own source again.

You cut off the rest of the paragraph. Did you tire of reading by that point? The individuals who are not required to file are specifically listed in i),ii),iii)and iv) that follow your quote - and they all must make under a certain amount.

I said my source was more reliable. If you understand what the Britannia Encyclopedia is, you'd know why.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary is a "more reliable" thesaurus than Roget's thesaurus - according to whom?

If you actually taken the time to check the hyperlink, you would see that I used the thesaurus. Or maybe that is just your top notch reading comprehension again.

I used a thesaurus, too. It doesn't count because you say so.

At which point do I highlight it so you can understand that the law only applies to those who have filed a return.

And if you are required to file a return by 26 USC 6012 then you are one of those people.

If it is voluntary, then you are not required to file an income tax return.

26 USC 6012 requires most individuals file.

Where does it show it? I haven't seen it in plain words.

(a) General rule
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1)
(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual—
(i) who is not married (determined by applying section 7703), is not a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)), is not a head of a household (as defined in section 2 (b)), and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual,
(ii) who is a head of a household (as so defined) and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual,
(iii) who is a surviving spouse (as so defined) and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual, or
(iv) who is entitled to make a joint return and whose gross income, when combined with the gross income of his spouse, is, for the taxable year, less than the sum of twice the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to a joint return, but only if such individual and his spouse, at the close of the taxable year, had the same household as their home.
Clause (iv) shall not apply if for the taxable year such spouse makes a separate return or any other taxpayer is entitled to an exemption for such spouse under section 151 (c).

26 USC § 6012 - Persons required to make returns of income | Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
So unless you are under the listed exemption amounts depending on your status - you are required to file.

Again, reading comprehension:

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and

(b)Married individuals filing separate returns
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

So a) applies to married individuals who DO file jointly - and b) applies to married individuals who do NOT file jointly. That's ALL married individuals. Unless you can show me a married couple who NEITHER a) filed jointly or b) did NOT file jointly.

It's the same English, just different spelling of words. Neither is more correct or incorrect. You can't really be his inept.

Really? Then how come the two words have different meanings in every single English dictionary I can find?

I already make plenty enough to pay taxes.

Your parents no doubt claim you as a dependent, don't they?

Speaking of courts, you are aware that Supreme Courts have ruled that you do not have to pay taxes, correct?

No they have not.

 

[AmazonTania]

No they aren't. A "registrar" is a person. A "register" is not. That's a huge difference I'd say.

That would depend on whether or not you use it as a noun or a verb. Basic grammar fails you even when you have a dictionary and thesaurus at the ready.

No it doesn't. A "registrar" is always a person, and "register" is never a person.

A registrar is a noun. A noun is a person, place or thing. You are really not smart and I see that you spend most of your time here. You fit right in.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary is a "more reliable" thesaurus than Roget's thesaurus - according to whom?

If you understand what the Britannia Encyclopedia is, you'd know why.

I used a thesaurus, too. It doesn't count because you say so.

I said it wasn't as reliable as mine. Look up the Britannia Encyclopedia, then you will understand.

Really? Then how come the two words have different meanings in every single English dictionary I can find?

It's the same meaning in the UK as it is in English. Again, it's not my job to be your English Teacher.

Your parents no doubt claim you as a dependent, don't they?

I don't have parents. Try not to assume much about my family, and we won't try to assume much about your education. You are already doing a notch job of displaying that you don't have much of that already.

And if you are required to file a return by 26 USC 6012 then you are one of those people.
26 USC 6012 requires most individuals file.



26 USC § 6012 - Persons required to make returns of income | Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
So unless you are under the listed exemption amounts depending on your status - you are required to file.



So a) applies to married individuals who DO file jointly - and b) applies to married individuals who do NOT file jointly. That's ALL married individuals. Unless you can show me a married couple who NEITHER a) filed jointly or b) did NOT file jointly.



No they have not.

I'm not going to waste my valuable time being your English teacher and explaining what the law says to you plain as day. If you want to remain ignorant, that is your right as an American. For the rest who wants to learn, keep reading

Poop has already claimed that the Supreme Court has not said that individuals don't have to fill out a tax return. I'm going to show where this person is wrong using Supreme Court rulings.

Garner v. United States - 424 U.S. 648 (1976) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Petitioner's income tax returns, in which he revealed himself to be a gambler, were introduced in evidence, over his Fifth Amendment objection, as proof of the federal gambling conspiracy offense with which he was charged.

Held: Petitioner's privilege against compulsory self-incrimination was not violated. Since petitioner made incriminating disclosures on his tax returns instead of claiming the privilege, as he had the right to do, his disclosures were not compelled incriminations. Here, where there is no factor depriving petitioner of the free choice to refuse to answer, the general rule applies that, if a witness does not claim the privilege, his disclosures will not be considered as having been "compelled" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. United States v. Sullivan, 274 U. S. 259. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436; Mackey v. United States, 401 U. S. 667; Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493, distinguished. Pp. 424 U. S. 650-655.

And this is just one case. These supreme court decisions have never been overturned. Unless you are suggesting that you are a better interpreter of the law than Supreme Court Justices, you are spouting off ignorant ramblings of an individual being bred from a sub-par educational establishment.

 

[healthmyths]

So you are in favor of abolishing deductions of employee health insurance and pensions, as well as mortgage deductions... all which benefit the 99%???

As I said earlier to you, those two deductions are extremely regressive. They DO NOT benefit the 99%.

Every economist across the political spectrum is in favor of eliminating the mortgage interest deduction.

Think about it. The larger the income someone has, the bigger the mortgage they have, which means the bigger tax break they get. The bigger the tax break the rich man gets, the more the rest of us have to make up for it. This is a tax break for the 1%.

Can a lower income afford a house? No. They don't get that tax break. The mortgage interest deduction is a highly regressive tax which works to the rich man's benefit.

So hell yes I am in favor of abolishing those deductions.

I said "all of them", several times.

You only addressed 1 that affected individuals.. MID.. what about these??

Are you saying that when employers DEDUCT from their taxes the payments made to health and pension plans are ONLY good for the employers?

$249 billion a year would NOT BE ALLOWED deducted from employers taxable income which is what you SUBJECTIVE, HYPERBOLICALLY suggest right??

OK that means then if these employers didn't deduct, then the ONLY increase in taxable income would be 35% top corporate rate of the $249 billion right?
This would mean federal tax revenue would increase by $87 billion!

BUT This would mean ALL of these people with some type of health coverage (59 millon covered by their employers-- that they like!!) would be dropped.

OH right Obamcare will pick up the difference! RIGHT!!!

That additional $87 billion in revenue for Obamacare will cover at $2,500 per person premium... let's see..35 million... little short there!!!

Just doesn't seem right when Obama said:
"If you like your health-care plan, you keep your health-care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health-care plan. If you like your doctor, you keep seeing your doctor. I don't want government bureaucrats meddling in your health care."

• 195,900,000 in Private health insurance Health insurance coverage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• 72,600,000 covered by Medicaid: 72,600,000: Record Number on Medicaid in 2012; Outnumbers Populations of France and UK | CNS News
• 59,000,000 covered by their employers plans Number of Americans Obtaining Health Insurance Through an Employer Declines Steadily Since 2000 - Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
• 47,200,000 covered by Medicare
• 8,300,000 covered by Tricare which is the Department of Defenses health insurance for military personal and their families. TriCare Information - Military Health Care
  383,000,000

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That would depend on whether or not you use it as a noun or a verb. Basic grammar fails you even when you have a dictionary and thesaurus at the ready.

No it doesn't. A "registrar" is always a person, and "register" is never a person.

A registrar is a noun. A noun is a person, place or thing. You are really not smart and I see that you spend most of your time here. You fit right in.



If you understand what the Britannia Encyclopedia is, you'd know why.



I said it wasn't as reliable as mine. Look up the Britannia Encyclopedia, then you will understand.



It's the same meaning in the UK as it is in English. Again, it's not my job to be your English Teacher.



I don't have parents. Try not to assume much about my family, and we won't try to assume much about your education. You are already doing a notch job of displaying that you don't have much of that already.

And if you are required to file a return by 26 USC 6012 then you are one of those people.
26 USC 6012 requires most individuals file.



26 USC § 6012 - Persons required to make returns of income | Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
So unless you are under the listed exemption amounts depending on your status - you are required to file.



So a) applies to married individuals who DO file jointly - and b) applies to married individuals who do NOT file jointly. That's ALL married individuals. Unless you can show me a married couple who NEITHER a) filed jointly or b) did NOT file jointly.



No they have not.

I'm not going to waste my valuable time being your English teacher and explaining what the law says to you plain as day. If you want to remain ignorant, that is your right as an American. For the rest who wants to learn, keep reading

Poo has already claimed that the Supreme Court has not said that individuals don't have to fill out a tax return. I'm going to show where this person is wrong using Supreme Court rulings.

Garner v. United States - 424 U.S. 648 (1976) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Petitioner's income tax returns, in which he revealed himself to be a gambler, were introduced in evidence, over his Fifth Amendment objection, as proof of the federal gambling conspiracy offense with which he was charged.

Held: Petitioner's privilege against compulsory self-incrimination was not violated. Since petitioner made incriminating disclosures on his tax returns instead of claiming the privilege, as he had the right to do, his disclosures were not compelled incriminations. Here, where there is no factor depriving petitioner of the free choice to refuse to answer, the general rule applies that, if a witness does not claim the privilege, his disclosures will not be considered as having been "compelled" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. United States v. Sullivan, 274 U. S. 259. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436; Mackey v. United States, 401 U. S. 667; Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493, distinguished. Pp. 424 U. S. 650-655.

Garner V U.S. - Awesome. Its good to know that when I have illegal income, I can invoke the 5th amendment on my return and claim the 5th amendment on my tax return. My income is legal. How about yours?



Now run off and go read some blogs. Don't worry about reality - ignore all the people who have been successfully prosecuted and found guilty by juries for failing to file or pay taxes - they don't exist.

 

[AmazonTania]

No it doesn't. A "registrar" is always a person, and "register" is never a person.

A registrar is a noun. A noun is a person, place or thing. You are really not smart and I see that you spend most of your time here. You fit right in.



If you understand what the Britannia Encyclopedia is, you'd know why.



I said it wasn't as reliable as mine. Look up the Britannia Encyclopedia, then you will understand.



It's the same meaning in the UK as it is in English. Again, it's not my job to be your English Teacher.



I don't have parents. Try not to assume much about my family, and we won't try to assume much about your education. You are already doing a notch job of displaying that you don't have much of that already.



I'm not going to waste my valuable time being your English teacher and explaining what the law says to you plain as day. If you want to remain ignorant, that is your right as an American. For the rest who wants to learn, keep reading

Poo has already claimed that the Supreme Court has not said that individuals don't have to fill out a tax return. I'm going to show where this person is wrong using Supreme Court rulings.

Garner v. United States - 424 U.S. 648 (1976) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Petitioner's income tax returns, in which he revealed himself to be a gambler, were introduced in evidence, over his Fifth Amendment objection, as proof of the federal gambling conspiracy offense with which he was charged.

Held: Petitioner's privilege against compulsory self-incrimination was not violated. Since petitioner made incriminating disclosures on his tax returns instead of claiming the privilege, as he had the right to do, his disclosures were not compelled incriminations. Here, where there is no factor depriving petitioner of the free choice to refuse to answer, the general rule applies that, if a witness does not claim the privilege, his disclosures will not be considered as having been "compelled" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. United States v. Sullivan, 274 U. S. 259. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436; Mackey v. United States, 401 U. S. 667; Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493, distinguished. Pp. 424 U. S. 650-655.

Garner V U.S. - Awesome. Its good to know that when I have illegal income, I can invoke the 5th amendment on my return and claim the 5th amendment on my tax return. My income is legal. How about yours?

Gambling is not illegal, as each state determines what acceptable forms of Gambling and minimum age requirements. It's no different from smoking or alcohol.

Educate yourself, please.

Now run off and go read some blogs. Don't worry about reality - ignore all the people who have been successfully prosecuted and found guilty by juries for failing to file or pay taxes - they don't exist.

I'm a Brit, and I understand your legal system better than you. And you live here!

Over 60 million people don't file income taxes. Lower courts have to be in compliance with the Supreme Courts and the IRS has to be in compliance of the Supreme Court. All you have pretty much said was that the IRS has legal authority to violate your rights, which they have done routinely unless you've been living under a rock the past few weeks.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

A registrar is a noun. A noun is a person, place or thing. You are really not smart and I see that you spend most of your time here. You fit right in.



If you understand what the Britannia Encyclopedia is, you'd know why.



I said it wasn't as reliable as mine. Look up the Britannia Encyclopedia, then you will understand.



It's the same meaning in the UK as it is in English. Again, it's not my job to be your English Teacher.



I don't have parents. Try not to assume much about my family, and we won't try to assume much about your education. You are already doing a notch job of displaying that you don't have much of that already.



I'm not going to waste my valuable time being your English teacher and explaining what the law says to you plain as day. If you want to remain ignorant, that is your right as an American. For the rest who wants to learn, keep reading

Poo has already claimed that the Supreme Court has not said that individuals don't have to fill out a tax return. I'm going to show where this person is wrong using Supreme Court rulings.

Garner v. United States - 424 U.S. 648 (1976) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Garner V U.S. - Awesome. Its good to know that when I have illegal income, I can invoke the 5th amendment on my return and claim the 5th amendment on my tax return. My income is legal. How about yours?

Gambling is not illegal, as each state determines what acceptable forms of Gambling and minimum age requirements.

Educate yourself, please.

In this case the gambling was used as evidence of his illegal activities. What are your illegal activities?

Further -nothing in Garner V US says you are not required to file a return. Here's the summary from the opinion itself:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

In summary, we conclude that since Garner made disclosures instead of claiming the privilege on his tax returns, his disclosures were not compelled incriminations

Garner is required to file a return either way. He may either make the disclosures on the return, or he may claim the privilege on his return - but must still file it either way. It says in footnote 21 from the Summary:

If a taxpayer desires the protection of the privilege, he must claim it instead of making disclosures.

If you file a return with a 5th amendment claim on it, the IRS will use other means to determine your income - such as W2's submitted from your employer, bank records - what not - and if they determine you owe tax , they will send you the bill and if you don't pay it they will seize your property. You may contest it in court, but if you refuse to provide evidence based on 5th amendment claims, the jury will only have the IRS's evidence to go on - and since it is a civil proceeding proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not the standard but rather, preponderance of evidence (as OJ Simpson knows all to well). Further - the government always has the option of providing you immunity from use of whatever you are taking the 5th on against you. If they choose to, they can compel you to disclose all of your income in exchange for immunity from those disclosures as evidence in a criminal proceeding. The tax itself is still owed either way - Garner v US speaks to the issue of what you must disclose on your return.

That's the fact of reality I'm sorry your tax protester hero bloggers are full of crap.

 

[KissMy]

End all payroll taxes!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

End all payroll taxes!

Why? So everyone can gripe about the self employment tax? So employers can get a temporary break on their labor costs until the market adjusts wages and salaries upwards to make up the difference?

It ultimately doesn't matter whether a tax is levied on the payroll or out of an employees paycheck