Ending income taxes

[AmazonTania]

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:

Maybe you should have read the case before actually responding. Garner ALREADY filed his income tax returns. He was accused of a crime and his tax returns was used against him in court. He claimed the fifth amendment because he prepared his tax return himself and the fifth amendment doesn't allow you to incriminate yourself. The summary states that he should have stated the privileged on the return. It doesn't not say that you are required to file. In order to claim this privileged, you don't have to file, or you have to claim said privileged on the return.

Again, read before you present things to me. It makes you at least appear somewhat informed.

"[A] witness protected by the privilege may right-fully refuse to answer unless and until he is protected at least against the use of his compelled answers and evidence derived therefrom in any subsequent criminal case in which he is a defendant. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972).

Refusing to answer means either not responding (not filing) or claiming the fifth. The right to remain silent falls under both of these categories.

It's pretty sad that I'm a Brit and I know more about your legal system than you do. And you live here!

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:

The footnote says that if a taxpayer wants to claim protection under the fifth amendment, he must claim said protection. It in no way says that it must be disclosed on a tax return.

Must be more of that great reading comprehension.

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.

LMAO, do you even know what a W-2 form is? W-2 are for the employers to fill out ONLY. They're not for employees to fill out. The IRS cannot use a W-2 form as evidence. It can only use the evidence which is prepared by the petitioner in question. Also, bank records tells you nothing. Even if it can, bank records ultimately tells you nothing.

You really can't be this ignorant, but it's apparent that you've never had a job before.

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.

Like I said, ignorant ramblings of something passing off Google as a college degree. Garner vs. US speaks on the petitioners right NOT to disclose anything. He could have not filed the return or claimed the 5th on the return itself. Either way, you are not required to disclose information on your return. No where in your case statement does it say that a return must be filed.

Where exactly do you work. It can't be in a institution which requires much reading skills.

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

While a sales tax/consumption tax is just as fair as any other tax, it is not the most compassionate for the lower income. When you spend all your money on basic necessities--food, clothing, housing, transportation--the lower income people would be taxed on 100% of their earnings while those who have money left over to save and invest would pay taxes on a much lesser percentage of their income. But on the theory that the poor are not required to stay poor, that is not that big a deal.

My main concern, however, is that a sales tax is too easy to manipulate by Congress because people generally don't notice when a small fraction is added so what they are buying costs only a penny or so more. But there would be a huge temptation on the part of Congress to keep adding those tiny 'unnoticable' percentages. And also a temptation to pick and choose what products and services would be subject to the tax and what would be exempt. We could wind up with a tax code as nightmarish as what we have now. Also would government have incentive to encourage inflation in order to increase its revenues?

A reasonable flat tax on all income across the board would be the simplest and least easy to manipulate.

 

[Darkwind]

Anyone who watches the market news can see the stock market is on the brink of dire straits, the indications are plain. The REAL reason for this instability is that the government has been using borrowed money to buttress the economy and maintain numerous jobs for years and there are clear indications that the federal government is about to cut spending drastically, yanking the buttresses out from under the American economy and leading to global economic collapse.

It occurs to me that there is a very simple no non-sense way to avoid economic collapse and the possible wars that could follow and its shockingly simple, end income and reduce capital gains taxes by making the 66% of companies that operate without paying taxes, pay them (and stop giving them tax “benefits”).

You see the corporations are not “people”, when an individual pays taxes its money out of their own pocket and that hurts. Corporations however are not people; the corporate employees pay personal income taxes, taxes paid by the company however are never “felt” by either the shareholders or the employee’s. By slowly reducing personal income taxes while ending tax benefits for corporations and banning the hiding of corporate profits in overseas tax havens, consumer spending can be increased while balancing the national budget by creating domestic jobs through increased consumer spending and increasing job creating ventures through the reduction in personal taxes.

At this point it’s either that or hide your gold under your mattress and invest heavily in nonperishable foods, firearms, toilet paper and other post economy goods.

That’s my two cents on the subject.

Let Me see if I can give you a different perspective on corporations not being people.

You spoke of the private citizen, who is out real money when they have t pay taxes. This deduction of the governments for its excesses harms the individual citizen because it reduces the amount of income that is available to the citizens family. It can be said to hurt families.

Now, a corporation also has a family. Money taken from the corporation DOES hurt the people who work for this company in the form of reduced or stagnant wages. It hurts the people who have invested in the company for the purpose of securing a nest egg for retirement. It hurts the people who rely upon that company for innovative advancement of our society.

Both entities pay taxes all through the year. Both entities, for the most part, will get ALL that money back at the end of the year. The individual may contribute 12,000 dollars of interest free loans to the government, whereas the corporation will likely contribute 100's of millions of dollars, interest free, to the government, before they LEGALLY file their taxes and recoup what is theirs.

If you want corporations to pay their taxes, and you want citizens to pay their taxes, then you change the tax code so that it is fair.

The real definition of fair. Not the made up version of the democrats.

Then get back to Me when you've managed to change the tax code.

Otherwise, this is just more of the same ole impotent whining about how the other guy gets more than I do.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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:

Maybe you should have read the case before actually responding. Garner ALREADY filed his income tax return and was used against him.

No fucking shit sherlock.

He claimed the fifth amendment because he prepared his tax return himself and the fifth amendment doesn't allow you to incriminate yourself.

No - the 5th amendment doesn't allow the government to compel you to incriminate yourself, you fucking idiot. You're free to incriminate yourself all you want.

The summary states that he should have stated the privileged on the return. It doesn't not say that you are required to file. In order to claim this previledge, you don't have to file, or you have to claim said privileged on the return.

Bullshit. The summary says:

In summary, we conclude that, since Garner made disclosures instead of claiming the privilege on his tax returns, his disclosures were not compelled incriminations. He therefore was foreclosed from invoking the privilege when such information was later introduced as evidence against him in a criminal prosecution.

There's absolutely nothing stating that not filing was an option for Garner. He can either make the disclosures on his return or claim the 5th on his return. Failure to notify the IRS at all isn't making a claim - it isn't doing anything.

LMAO, W2 are for the employers to fill out ONLY. They're not for employees to fill out.

Wow you're so smart

The IRS cannot use a W2 form as evidence.

Yes they can you fucking moron. If they employer sends in a W2 for your income and you fail to file a return, the IRS will eventually file your return for you and send you the bill -if any -based on that W2. My lord you're an idiot.

It can only use the evidence which is prepared by the petitioner in question. Also, bank records tells you nothing. Even if it can, bank records ultimately tells you nothing.

Bank records either tell you the source of a deposit - or - that the deposit was in cash. jeezums lord you are an idiot. This is why deposits over a certain amount are required to be reported to the IRS. If you deposit 10k or more the deposit is reported to the IRS and if it is cash and you do not report it - they'll be getting in touch with you. If it isn't cash they can easily use that record to see where the money came from and if needed get in touch with the source to determine if its income.

Like I said, ignorant ramblings of something passing off Google as a college degree.

I don't have a degree in U.S. tax law like you do. I do have a PhD in Physics.

Garner vs. US speaks on the petitioners right NOT to disclose anything. He could have not filed the return or claimed the 5th on the return itself.

Not filing isn't an option presented in the summary. You're putting words into the Justice's mouth.

Either way, you are not required to disclose information on your return.

ONLY IF IT IS EVIDENCE OF A CRIME

No where in your case statement does it say that a return must be filed.

It doesn't have to numb nuts, 26 USC 6012 requires it and nothing in Garner v U.S. invalidates 26 USC 6012 except that you aren't required to disclose evidence that you have committed a crime.

 

[Foxfyre]

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:

Maybe you should have read the case before actually responding. Garner ALREADY filed his income tax returns. He was accused of a crime and his tax returns was used against him in court. He claimed the fifth amendment because he prepared his tax return himself and the fifth amendment doesn't allow you to incriminate yourself. The summary states that he should have stated the privileged on the return. It doesn't not say that you are required to file. In order to claim this privileged, you don't have to file, or you have to claim said privileged on the return.

Again, read before you present things to me. It makes you at least appear somewhat informed.



Refusing to answer means either not responding (not filing) or claiming the fifth. The right to remain silent falls under both of these categories.

It's pretty sad that I'm a Brit and I know more about your legal system than you do. And you live here!



The footnote says that if a taxpayer wants to claim protection under the fifth amendment, he must claim said protection. It in no way says that it must be disclosed on a tax return.

Must be more of that great reading comprehension.



LMAO, do you even know what a W-2 form is? W-2 are for the employers to fill out ONLY. They're not for employees to fill out. The IRS cannot use a W-2 form as evidence. It can only use the evidence which is prepared by the petitioner in question. Also, bank records tells you nothing. Even if it can, bank records ultimately tells you nothing.

You really can't be this ignorant, but it's apparent that you've never had a job before.

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.

Like I said, ignorant ramblings of something passing off Google as a college degree. Garner vs. US speaks on the petitioners right NOT to disclose anything. He could have not filed the return or claimed the 5th on the return itself. Either way, you are not required to disclose information on your return. No where in your case statement does it say that a return must be filed.

Where exactly do you work. It can't be in a institution which requires much reading skills.

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.

Okay, in the interest of education, the employee indeeddoes not make out his W2. At the end of the calendar year, the employer prepares the W2 showing the total wages paid to the employee, the number of exemptions declared by the employee, and the amounts withhheld for FICA, income taxes, Medicare, 401Ks, etc. These along with mandatory 1099's for other kinds of income paid are sent directly to the IRS. But it IS a legal document.

When we prepare our 1040 forms to file our taxes, we also have copies of these and must list the amounts shown in specific boxes on our tax return. We attach copies of the W2 to our tax return. For whatever reason we are not required to attach copies of 1099s or other legal documents showing income received.

Those paying us varous kinds of cash outlays whether that be large gambling winnings, contract work, piece work, or purchase of a product we have produced, etc. are required by law to furnish us a 1099 showing the amount we received as well as furnish a copy of that 1099 to the IRS. Some lesser amounts are left to report voluntarily, and of course most of those aren't, but they are a small portion of the money changing hands.

Bottom line is, if you don't report the income from all the W2s and 1099s and other such documents that have been issued, the IRS computers WILL catch the omissions. And they WILL be having a discussion with you about those omissions.

 

[Foxfyre]

One year I was using H&R Block software to prepare our taxes and somehow or other their software did not record two 1099s I had entered into it. And when the program showed the tax return to be complete, I didn't double check it manually and went ahead and e-filed. Within a couple of weeks I had a telephone call from the IRS inquring about those omitted 1099s. I checked to see what had happened, reported to her why it had happened, and she made the adjustments to our return and our refund before the refund check was issued, and all was well. Not a bad experience. We have had much worse.

She also said this was not the first time this had happened with H&R Block software. I have been using Turbotax since, though she said they have had a few incidents with Turbotax too.

 

[AmazonTania]

No - the 5th amendment doesn't allow the government to compel you to incriminate yourself, you fucking idiot. You're free to incriminate yourself all you want.

Didn't even read the self-incrimination clause in school, eh? Exactly how many years were you held back. Take the time to research things before you post, at least.

The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

Self-Incrimination Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bullshit. The summary says:


There's absolutely nothing stating that not filing was an option for Garner. He can either make the disclosures on his return or claim the 5th on his return. Failure to notify the IRS at all isn't making a claim - it isn't doing anything.

The summary is not a guideline for what should or should not have been done. The summary is not the Court Decision. All it says is that if the petitioner was going to file a return, he should have claimed it on the return. It doesn't say failure to file isn't an option, not does it say that. What the decision from the courts DOES say is that the petitioner has the right not to answer.

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.

Reading is fundamental.

Wow you're so smart

I know I'm smart. If you stayed in school, maybe you would have been as smart as I am.

Yes they can you fucking moron. If they employer sends in a W2 for your income and you fail to file a return, the IRS will eventually file your return for you and send you the bill -if any -based on that W2. My lord you're an idiot.

They can prepare a substitute return for you. A W-2 is merely a statement of your wages and which taxes have already been levied. It's not evidence that you haven't already paid taxes, owe taxes or are suppose to receive tax credit. Again, W-2 cannot be used to convict you and tells you nothing.

Bank records either tell you the source of a deposit - or - that the deposit was in cash. jeezums lord you are an idiot. This is why deposits over a certain amount are required to be reported to the IRS. If you deposit 10k or more the deposit is reported to the IRS and if it is cash and you do not report it - they'll be getting in touch with you. If it isn't cash they can easily use that record to see where the money came from and if needed get in touch with the source to determine if its income.

Laughable. Do you know how many types of taxes an stem from a bank deposit of more than $10,000. Gift tax, Estate tax, Sin Tax, Capital Gains, Dividends, etc.

Hardly any of which can be in the form of a general income tax.

I don't have a degree in U.S. tax law like you do. I do have a PhD in Physics.

No wonder you don't actually know anything. But please expose more of your ignorance. I needed a good laugh today.

Not filing isn't an option presented in the summary. You're putting words into the Justice's mouth.

Either way, you are not required to disclose information on your return.

It doesn't say anything about not filing, period. The summary is only focusing on the situation at hand, which is claiming the 5th on a tax return which has already been filed. You are putting words in the Justices mouth. Maybe it's because you can't actually read.

ONLY IF IT IS EVIDENCE OF A CRIME

Only when you are accused of a crime. Know your rights.

It doesn't have to numb nuts, 26 USC 6012 requires it and nothing in Garner v U.S. invalidates 26 USC 6012 except that you aren't required to disclose evidence that you have committed a crime.

Only two provisions of the US Code was used: 26 U.S.C. 7203, and Title 26 U.S.C. 7602. 26 USC 6012 was not used as a reference anywhere in this case, because 26 USC 6012 does not require anyone to file.

Try again. And please read what you are trying to present before presenting it. I'm already running out of ways to make you look like a fool.

 

[Oddball]

I don't have a degree in U.S. tax law like you do. I do have a PhD in Physics.

Don't fall for it!...He has already been smoked out on this total lie!

 

[Foxfyre]

Anyone who watches the market news can see the stock market is on the brink of dire straits, the indications are plain. The REAL reason for this instability is that the government has been using borrowed money to buttress the economy and maintain numerous jobs for years and there are clear indications that the federal government is about to cut spending drastically, yanking the buttresses out from under the American economy and leading to global economic collapse.

It occurs to me that there is a very simple no non-sense way to avoid economic collapse and the possible wars that could follow and its shockingly simple, end income and reduce capital gains taxes by making the 66% of companies that operate without paying taxes, pay them (and stop giving them tax “benefits”).

You see the corporations are not “people”, when an individual pays taxes its money out of their own pocket and that hurts. Corporations however are not people; the corporate employees pay personal income taxes, taxes paid by the company however are never “felt” by either the shareholders or the employee’s. By slowly reducing personal income taxes while ending tax benefits for corporations and banning the hiding of corporate profits in overseas tax havens, consumer spending can be increased while balancing the national budget by creating domestic jobs through increased consumer spending and increasing job creating ventures through the reduction in personal taxes.

At this point it’s either that or hide your gold under your mattress and invest heavily in nonperishable foods, firearms, toilet paper and other post economy goods.

That’s my two cents on the subject.

Let Me see if I can give you a different perspective on corporations not being people.

You spoke of the private citizen, who is out real money when they have t pay taxes. This deduction of the governments for its excesses harms the individual citizen because it reduces the amount of income that is available to the citizens family. It can be said to hurt families.

Now, a corporation also has a family. Money taken from the corporation DOES hurt the people who work for this company in the form of reduced or stagnant wages. It hurts the people who have invested in the company for the purpose of securing a nest egg for retirement. It hurts the people who rely upon that company for innovative advancement of our society.

Both entities pay taxes all through the year. Both entities, for the most part, will get ALL that money back at the end of the year. The individual may contribute 12,000 dollars of interest free loans to the government, whereas the corporation will likely contribute 100's of millions of dollars, interest free, to the government, before they LEGALLY file their taxes and recoup what is theirs.

If you want corporations to pay their taxes, and you want citizens to pay their taxes, then you change the tax code so that it is fair.

The real definition of fair. Not the made up version of the democrats.

Then get back to Me when you've managed to change the tax code.

Otherwise, this is just more of the same ole impotent whining about how the other guy gets more than I do.

Not to mention that the vast majority of corporations are mom and pop operations who incorporate and put up with the somewhat higher taxes just to have the extra layer of liability protection for their personal assets that otherwise would be at higher risk.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No - the 5th amendment doesn't allow the government to compel you to incriminate yourself, you fucking idiot. You're free to incriminate yourself all you want.

Didn't even read the self-incrimination clause in school, eh? Exactly how many years were you held back. Take the time to research things before you post, at least.

The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "no person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

Self-Incrimination Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's what I said you blubbering idiot. I said "the 5th amendment doesn't allow government to compel you to incriminate yourself" - you just quoted me on it in fact. YOU said "the fifth amendment doesn't allow you to incriminate yourself." http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/297227-ending-income-taxes-6.html#post7339793 That's not true. You are free to incriminate yourself. It is not a crime to provide the government evidence that you've committed a crime. My fuck you're an idiot. The 5th amendment only restricts government - not individuals.

All it says is that if the petitioner was going to file a return...

That isn't what it says.

 

[Foxfyre]

Also in the interest of education, here is a simplified explanation of the law detailing why the government can legally require you to pay income taxes and file a tax return:

Income Tax Page

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Also in the interest of education, here is a simplified explanation of the law detailing why the government can legally require you to pay income taxes and file a tax return:

Income Tax Page

The most important statutory provision

That's the problem. These moron tax protesters for some really fucked up reason think "statutory" means "not a real law that you have to follow".

SOme people - when they read something on a blog that looks nice - and then look around and see its on a lot of other nice looking blogs - they latch on to it and it must be true. It doesn't matter how many people show the factual evidence to the contrary - they trusted the blogger and if the blogger is wrong it means they trusted the wrong person and they can't comprehend that. They feew it must be true so it is - and you're a fucking moron for thinking any different.

 

[AmazonTania]

I don't have a degree in U.S. tax law like you do. I do have a PhD in Physics.

Don't fall for it!...He has already been smoked out on this total lie!

How? Where there a situation where he made a completely inaccurate statement regarding physics.

I wish I can make up aspects about my life just to dazzle others on an internet forum. In that case, I am a Noble Laureate in Economics.

 

[editec]

DEBT is NOT the problem.

You people are being stampeded like cattle.

 

[Oddball]

I don't have a degree in U.S. tax law like you do. I do have a PhD in Physics.

Don't fall for it!...He has already been smoked out on this total lie!

How? Where there a situation where he made a completely inaccurate statement regarding physics.

I wish I can make up aspects about my life just to dazzle others on an internet forum. In that case, I am a Noble Laureate in Economics.

Numerous times...There's a reason he quit sparring with people who really do have advanced degrees in other sub-forums....He was regularly getting his ass kicked and being exposed, through his ignorance of things that someone with an advanced degree should understand.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Don't fall for it!...He has already been smoked out on this total lie!

How? Where there a situation where he made a completely inaccurate statement regarding physics.

I wish I can make up aspects about my life just to dazzle others on an internet forum. In that case, I am a Noble Laureate in Economics.

Numerous times...There's a reason he quit sparring with people who really do have advanced degrees in other sub-forums....He was regularly getting his ass kicked and being exposed, through his ignorance of things that someone with an advanced degree should understand.

So many times you can't even name one.

 

[AmazonTania]

Also in the interest of education, here is a simplified explanation of the law detailing why the government can legally require you to pay income taxes and file a tax return:

Income Tax Page

I've seen this many times before. That's been debunked more times than I can care to remember.

When it comes down to it, Supreme Courts decisions are what the examples are regarding the laws of the land. The lower courts have to be in compliance to the supreme court, as well as the IRS.

 

[Oddball]

DEBT is NOT the problem.

You people are being stampeded like cattle.

Continuing to accumulate it is the problem.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Also in the interest of education, here is a simplified explanation of the law detailing why the government can legally require you to pay income taxes and file a tax return:

Income Tax Page

I've seen this many times before. That's been debunked more times than I can care to remember.

So many times you can't even show us one.

 

[Foxfyre]

Also in the interest of education, here is a simplified explanation of the law detailing why the government can legally require you to pay income taxes and file a tax return:

Income Tax Page

The most important statutory provision

That's the problem. These moron tax protesters for some really fucked up reason think "statutory" means "not a real law that you have to follow".

SOme people - when they read something on a blog that looks nice - and then look around and see its on a lot of other nice looking blogs - they latch on to it and it must be true. It doesn't matter how many people show the factual evidence to the contrary - they trusted the blogger and if the blogger is wrong it means they trusted the wrong person and they can't comprehend that. They feew it must be true so it is - and you're a fucking moron for thinking any different.

Well include me among the ranks of the 'moron tax protesters' because while I agree with you that the law exists, I do not agree that it is legal under the intent of the Constitution. And I have been making my voice heard for a very long time now that we better start unwinding the illegal interpretations of Constitutional power that are slowly but surely taking away all our liberties and will return us to totalitarian government.