Ending income taxes

[KissMy]

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

It matters big time. The illusion is that the rich pay the majority of taxes because of the well publicized income tax rates. The reality is the Middle Class who create all the wealth are the ones paying most of the taxes through payroll & income taxes based on their earnings. This makes it appear to the low information Republican voter that the Rich pay most of the taxes & everyone else are freeloaders when the exact opposite is really true. Republicans vote based on simple campaign slogans like Class War, Marxism, the Rich pay most of the taxes. They can't understand complex class war tax codes that are really redistributing the wealth to the Rich.

Taxing Middle Class workers 33% income tax + 7.65% + employer 7.65% makes that employee real expensive to employ & the employee retains little wealth because 40% went to the government. It is better to fire that employee & higher a foreigner so the employer can pocket the wealth because their total tax bill is 13% like Mitt Romney's. These Rich people do not hire highly taxes US citizens with that wealth, they use it to buy up land & mineral rights creating inflation on us all.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Have you ever heard of the 16th amendment?

 

[AmazonTania]

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.

If the Government forces you to provide information incriminating yourself, that is a violation of your fifth amendment rights. Which is why tax law is beyond your level of understanding. Something cannot possibly be voluntary and compulsory at the same time. Your income tax is a 100% voluntary tax. Your liquor tax is a 100% mandatory tax.

The two are about the same as night and day.

That isn't what it says.

Then what does it say, because your comprehension isn't very good:

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 made disclosures, instead of claiming his 5th amendment privileges. It doesn't say taxes had to be filed or not filed. This is what happened and Garner was prosecuted for it.

The Supreme Court Decision is very explicit on the matter, as it says the petitioner has the right to refuse to answer.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

If the Government forces you to provide information incriminating yourself, that is a violation of your fifth amendment rights. Which is why tax law is beyond your level of understanding. Something cannot possibly be voluntary and compulsory at the same time. Your income tax is a 100% voluntary tax. Your liquor tax is a 100% mandatory tax.

The two are about the same as night and day.



That isn't what it says.

Then what does it say, because your comprehension isn't very good:

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 made disclosures, instead of claiming his 5th amendment privileges. It doesn't say taxes had to be filed or not filed. This is what happened and Garner was prosecuted for it.

The Supreme Court Decision is very explicit on the matter, as it says the petitioner has the right to refuse to answer.

He made disclosures ... instead of claiming his 5th amendment privileges on his tax returns. Did you get tired and stop reading at that point? I have made it in big letters so you can see.

 

[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.

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

You are already aware of them. As you call them, they're 'nice looking blogs.' Never-mind the fact that these 'nice looking blogs' you will find that they are maintained by former IRS agents, Constitutional Lawyers and tax professionals.

But somehow I'm suppose to look at this website with validity because... It's good at putting two and two together to formulate a conclusion.

I shouldn't even have to look any further than the beginning of this website. It's wrong on what is defined as income. The Supreme Court has already consistency ruled that the income is defined as profits and gains, not labour or wages.

 

[AmazonTania]

If the Government forces you to provide information incriminating yourself, that is a violation of your fifth amendment rights. Which is why tax law is beyond your level of understanding. Something cannot possibly be voluntary and compulsory at the same time. Your income tax is a 100% voluntary tax. Your liquor tax is a 100% mandatory tax.

The two are about the same as night and day.



That isn't what it says.

Then what does it say, because your comprehension isn't very good:

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 made disclosures, instead of claiming his 5th amendment privileges. It doesn't say taxes had to be filed or not filed. This is what happened and Garner was prosecuted for it.

The Supreme Court Decision is very explicit on the matter, as it says the petitioner has the right to refuse to answer.

He made disclosures ... instead of claiming his 5th amendment privileges on his tax returns. Did you get tired and stop reading at that point? I have made it in big letters so you can see.

You failed to see the point. The point is he already filed, and because he filed he was prosecuted. The court decisions was that he had the right not to answer. Maybe you should look up that word in an online dictionary.

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.

It is you who gets tired of reading, and instead you choose to selectively read what you see. That might work with the other idiots you try to one-up on this forum. That isn't going to work with me.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Then what does it say, because your comprehension isn't very good:



He made disclosures, instead of claiming his 5th amendment privileges. It doesn't say taxes had to be filed or not filed. This is what happened and Garner was prosecuted for it.

The Supreme Court Decision is very explicit on the matter, as it says the petitioner has the right to refuse to answer.

He made disclosures ... instead of claiming his 5th amendment privileges on his tax returns. Did you get tired and stop reading at that point? I have made it in big letters so you can see.

You failed to see the point. The point is he already filed, and because he filed he was prosecuted. The court decisions was that he had the right not to answer. Maybe you should look up that word in an online dictionary.

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.

It is you who gets tired of reading, and instead you choose to selectively read what you see. That might work with the other idiots you try to one-up on this forum. That isn't going to work with me.

Do you even know what the bold faced print means? It means that if you do NOT claim the 5th amendment privilege, the disclosures on your tax form are considered voluntary and can be used against you. It doesn't mean you don't have to file a tax return. From the same opinion cited right after your fancy bold text:

In United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 47 S.Ct. 607, 71 L.Ed. 1037 (1927), the Court held that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is not a defense to prosecution for failing to file a return at all.