|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
The Catalyst for the formation of the US was a revolt against unfair taxes
by the poms.
Americans and Australians have only been taxed on income since WWI. Usually
income taxes were only temporary things during wars.
Seems to me if you sacked most public servants we not need any income tax
and therefore we would need less public servants in the IRS and ATO. Then
those people would be freed from governmental wage slavery. Sounds very
efficient to me.
Regards
David Hunt
www.adest.com.au
----- Original Message -----
From: Lamont Cranston <strategies@xxxxxxx>
To: Patrick White <simgenie@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2000 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: Re:Stop paying taxes
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick White <simgenie@xxxxxxxx>
> To: Lamont Cranston <strategies@xxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 6:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Re:Stop paying taxes
>
>
> > Lamont,
> >
> > I read through your post. It sounds like you really know your stuff. If
> this
> > is truly the case, what do I need to do so that I don't have to pay tax?
> > What are you doing along these lines? What are the known risks of
adopting
> > such a posture?
>
> You first have to understand that by taking this defense against the IRS
you
> would lose. There have been many cases based on the constitutional issue
of
> the direct tax issue that have lost. What it takes is an extensive
> understanding of the Internal Revenue Code and what areas of that code
that
> you can base your defense upon. The code is very ambiguous, and I want to
> emphasis the word very, and difficult to understand. Having said that,
> there are many web-sites and books that can help you with that
> understanding. One web-site that gave me the deepest understanding is;
>
> http:\\home.erols.com\scambos\taxbook.asc
>
> >
> > Also, how does the phrase: "on incomes, from whatever source derived."
> mean
> > from corporate incomes only? I am not familiar with this particular
> > interpretation.
>
> In this case the word income is misused. It really should be profits. A
> corporation never pays taxes on income, but profits. In other words, net
> profits.
>
> As an individual earning a wage from a profession, those wages are not
> taxable, because it is not profits, but income. The way the code is
> written, the ambiquity of the phrases regarding income and profits makes
it
> appear that an individual earning a wage is liable for taxes on income.
> However, I will defy you to find anywhere in the code a definition of a
> specific tax on income.
>
> Now, once you read this paragraph, you should begin to understand that any
> individual earning a "profit" from trading or any other endeavor that
> generates a profit must pay a tax on those profits.
>
> In the Constitution, it states "we have the right to life, liberty and the
> ownership of property, and those rights will not excised". What basically
> this means is that our labor is the individuals property and therefor
cannot
> be taxed. It does not make any reference to profits on the sale or trade
of
> property.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Patrick White
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lamont Cranston" <strategies@xxxxxxx>
> > To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 7:58 PM
> > Subject: Re:Stop paying taxes
> >
> >
> > > To All:
> > >
> > > The Constitution provides for two types of Taxes; Direct Taxes, which
> are
> > > taxes that are paid directly to the Government (which is the way that
> the
> > > Government attempts to impose the federal Income Tax) and Indirect
Tax,
> > > which the Constitution refers to as duties, imposts, and excises and
> which
> > > must be geographically uniform in order for them to be constitutional.
> > >
> > > The founders had just won independence from a tyrannical king and were
> > > concerned about giving any government too much power including any
> > > opportunity to impose any kind of direct tax, without apportionment.
> > > Apportionment means that before the Government can impose any type of
> > direct
> > > tax, it first must decide how much money it needs to collect in any
> given
> > > year. Then it must apportion the tax among the the various states
based
> > > upon the populations of those states.
> > >
> > > In two seperate Supreme Court cases, Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust
> > Co.,
> > > 157 U.S. 601, and Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1, the
> > court
> > > ruled that direct taxes were unconstitutional.
> > >
> > > In the 16th Amendment, it states "The Congress shall have power to lay
> and
> > > collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without
> > > apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any
census
> > or
> > > enumeration." But, the qualifying phrase in this amendment, that
> denotes
> > > the fact that it only applies to corporate profits which is the "on
> > incomes,
> > > from whatever source derived."
> > >
> > > In the IRS code, Section 61 it states that "any person made liable
for
> > any
> > > tax" must pay said tax. The word "person" is this case means
> corporation.
> > > This is what the phrase in the 16th amendment, "income, from whatever
> > source
> > > derived", refers to -- corporate profits.
> > >
> > > With further research, in reference to that Section 61, and the
> statement
> > > that income from whatever source derived is taxable, if further
examined
> > it
> > > would show that the original source of that statement comes from the
> 1939
> > > Tax Code Section 22. The source of the statement comes from Title 26
> Part
> > > 519, which refers to a tax treaty with Canada. In another words, all
> > income
> > > from whatever source derived in Canada is taxable.
> > >
> > > Just the facts folks, just the facts.
> > >
> > > Lamont Cranston
> > > "who knows what evil lurks"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
|