I don't happen to have a link handy. But it is a movie about how the Federal Reserve was made illegally back in 1913, it was voted against twice, but the second time it was voted down, it was created anyways.
It goes into how there is no law that states you must pay Federal Income Tax returns. And it has a story in there about this one jewish family who was raided, never brought up on charges, always paid their taxes, and never got their stuff back.
I was wondering about IRS raids, has anyone been raided or charged?
[ February 19, 2007, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: Alex Johansen ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Amazon.com link. Looks conspiracy theory-ish, but since the Fed really is a very, very bad thing, there might be some good stuff in it anyway.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:there is no law that states you must pay Federal Income Tax returns.
This is a lie. Many people repeat it out of ignorance, but the makers of a movie like this who repeat it are either intentionally lying or being so reckless in their disregard for the truth that I treat them as lying.
quote:26 USC 1: There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . who is not a married individual a tax determined in accordance with the following table...
This tired canard needs to go. The paranoia that keeps it alive is disturbing.
As to the federal reserve act, look up Act of December 23, 1913, ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, codified in part at Chapter 3 of title 12 of the United States Code, 12 U.S.C. § 221 et seq., is a 1913 act of Congress that created the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States of America in the congressional record.
[ February 19, 2007, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:It goes into how there is no law that states you must pay Federal Income Tax returns.
Tax returns are how the government assesses taxes. So if you're making enough to be taxed, you do have to file one.
quote:I was wondering about IRS raids, has anyone been raided or charged?
My aunt, who is a CPA (although she doesn't have many clients now, she is disabled and sick), has told me about people who were raided in the 80s. (Apparently the State of California was worse about it than the Feds, though.) But apparently they don't do many raids anymore; they're working very hard on being "friendly" (although they're still stinkers; if you owe the IRS and want to have a Christmas for your children, take out what you're going to need in cash. I have heard SO many stories about people's accounts getting drained right on time to not have Christmas for their kids, even when they've been "working with" an agent who "promised" it would not be done if they had been making payments, which they had.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The people who made it are ignorant, liars, or both. The law explicitly requires the payment of taxes and creates penalties for those who do not pay their taxes. I link to some of those places, as well as a court judgement that lays the smackdown on tax evaders, in this thread: http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/ubbmain/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=047069;p=0&r=nfx Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Good grief, SchoolHouse Rock even had a segment on the history of US tax laws! SchoolHouse Rock doesn't lie. Posted by Alex Johansen (Member # 9090) on :
huh......
well there is a 50,000 dollar reward if you cna find the law that says you must file for federal income tax.
its a voluntary law.
and there are many movements out there that want the IRS to show them a law saying they MUST pay it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Did you read the links?
Posted by Alex Johansen (Member # 9090) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Amazon.com link. Looks conspiracy theory-ish, but since the Fed really is a very, very bad thing, there might be some good stuff in it anyway.
Why is the Fed a bad thing?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Whoever, with intent to defraud the United States— . . . Refuses to pay any tax imposed by this chapter, or attempts in any manner to evade or defeat the tax or the payment thereof . . . shall, for each such offense, be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
The definition for defraud includes all intentional non-payment. Penalties != voluntary.
However, I could never collect. The people who offer the reward are probably lying for their own gain, because the presence of these laws is painfully obvious. If I point out this law, they'll cite a court case they like to cite (which actually found the opposite of what they say -- I'm referring to a specific court case that comes up a lot, but I can't remember the name offhand), or start arguing the constitutional amendment allowing income taxes wasn't properly ratified (it was).
Saying that something people hate is all a big conspiracy is a great way to sell books, talk series, et cetera. People who follow the advice of these people go to jail and face large fines (such as the ones specifically laid out by the law I quote above).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:huh......
well there is a 50,000 dollar reward if you cna find the law that says you must file for federal income tax.
Please. There isn't a statute that says "you must file for federal income tax.
quote:its a voluntary law.
It's not a voluntary law. All from the link I posted way up above:
quote:26 USC 1: There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . who is not a married individual a tax determined in accordance with the following table...
quote:26 U.S.C. § 63, defines “taxable income” to mean “gross income minus the deductions allowed” by chapter 1 of the Code, so now we need to know what “gross income” is. So we turn to section 61 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 61, which provides the critical definition:
quote:26 U.S.C. § 61
[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items; (2) Gross income derived from business; (3) Gains derived from dealings in property; (4) Interest; (5) Rents; (6) Royalties; (7) Dividends; . . .
So, between sections 1, 61, and 63, we see that the tax code passed by Congress imposes a tax on your taxable income, which includes all your income, from whatever source derived, less the deductions allowed by the tax laws. So the tax laws do impose a tax on you.
Section 6151 of the code, 26 U.S.C. § 6151, says:
quote:[W]hen a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return).
So according to this section, if you are required to file a tax return, you are required to pay the tax owed, to pay it at the time you file your return, and to pay it to the internal revenue officer with whom you file the return.
But who says you’re required to file the return? Turn back to section 6012(a) of the code, 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a), which provides:
quote:Returns with respect to income taxes * * * shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount * * *.
Of course, these say "shall" not "must," so I'm sure they'll weasel out of their obligation.
quote:and there are many movements out there that want the IRS to show them a law saying they MUST pay it.
It's been done. Many times.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
To put this in a spot of perspective, there's also a reward of 250000 (if I recall right) for proving that evolution has occurred, to the satisfaction of Kent Hovind. (Or was it Ken Ham? Anyway.) No doubt you find this just as easy to show as I do, so why not go and collect?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
And gornisht helfen doesn't mean "nothing will help you". It means "it's no use". Or "there's nothing to be done". Maybe Russo didn't know that, but it fits in with the rest of his dishonesty about the income tax. Yes, the income tax is a bad thing. But it's the law, whether he (or I) likes it or not.
He kept harping about the Supreme Court ruling that says the 16th Amendment didn't give the government any new ability to tax. But he left out the part where they explained that meant that they already had the power to tax individual incomes. All the 16th Amendment did was get rid of the apportionment requirement.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Hah.
quote:Russo's promotional materials state that the film was shown at "Cannes" in France. As of July 31, 2006, the web site (at www.freedomtofascism.com) states:
America: Freedom to Fascism Opens to Standing Ovations at Cannes!
The international audience at Cannes as well as the European media has been fascinated by Russo’s fiery diatribe against the direction America is heading
According to a New York Times article by David Cay Johnston on July 31, 2006, however, the film was not "on the program" at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival itself; Russo actually rented an inflatable screen and showed the film on the beach at the town of Cannes during the time of the film festival. The New York Times article states: "Photographs posted at one of Mr. Russo's Web sites depict an audience of fewer than 50 people spread out on a platform on the sand."
STANDING OVATION, guys. At CANNES.
This movie's totally big time stuff. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And gornisht helfen doesn't mean "nothing will help you". It means "it's no use". Or "there's nothing to be done". Maybe Russo didn't know that, but it fits in with the rest of his dishonesty about the income tax. Yes, the income tax is a bad thing. But it's the law, whether he (or I) likes it or not.
He kept harping about the Supreme Court ruling that says the 16th Amendment didn't give the government any new ability to tax. But he left out the part where they explained that meant that they already had the power to tax individual incomes. All the 16th Amendment did was get rid of the apportionment requirement.
You support a national sales tax I'm guessing/wondering?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
If a tax is necessary, then yes, I support the FairTax. It'll make taxation visible, which is something we don't have now. People honestly think they're only paying like 20-30% of their income to the government. They have absolutely no idea how much more they pay in the form of embedded taxes in everything they buy.
If people start to see how much they're really paying in tax, maybe it'll get them pissed enough to do something about it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Like vote for Democrats?
I agree with you on the FairTax. Everything I've seen about it leads me to believe it is preferable to what we have now, plus it would eliminate the illusion of corporate taxes.
It's going to be a long, long time though before a tax ISN'T necessary.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"the illusion of corporate taxes"
What does this mean?
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: "the illusion of corporate taxes"
What does this mean?
The corporate income tax is passed onto consumers as higher prices/less innovation, employees as lower wages or benefits, and investors as lower dividends. Corporations aren't individuals, so they don't just stick their profits in a box under their mattress until they turn 65 and retire.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As an aside, 'Facism' would be the practice of discriminating based on the prettiness of faces. The ideology which was presumably intended is 'Fascism'.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avatar300:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: "the illusion of corporate taxes"
What does this mean?
The corporate income tax is passed onto consumers as higher prices/less innovation, employees as lower wages or benefits, and investors as lower dividends. Corporations aren't individuals, so they don't just stick their profits in a box under their mattress until they turn 65 and retire.
That's pretty much what I meant, if that answers your question Dag.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks, Avatar and Lyrhawn. I'm not sure how much I buy that - income tax is in much the same way "passed on" to employers, because ultimately the purchasing power of an income is what is used by potential employees to evaluate a job offer.
If corporate taxes go up, prices will go up somewhat and wages will be likely rise more slowly, and profits will go down. However, if income tax rises, then wages will increase more quickly lowering profits. The dividend aspect is actually where it's clear that the corporate tax isn't illusory, because their effective tax rate is much higher than regular income.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Thanks, Avatar and Lyrhawn. I'm not sure how much I buy that - income tax is in much the same way "passed on" to employers, because ultimately the purchasing power of an income is what is used by potential employees to evaluate a job offer.
That's why I wouldn't have answered the way they did. The main issue is that taxes are passed along to consumers directly as higher prices. Raise corporate taxes by 10%, and you're going to see roughly a 10% increase in prices.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's what I meant orginally when I said illusion of corporate taxes.
The rest sounded plausible.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
They are not passed on entirely directly as higher prices. Proportional taxes change the shape of the supply curve, meaning only a part gets passed on as higher prices (I think most estimates I've seen range from 1/3 to 2/3, with a high variability depending on the product and such). The rest is situated in suppliers (and their employees) being worse off for not being able to pursue optimum production, and consumers being worse off due to, besides having to pay more, being able to purchase fewer than the optimum number they would purchase otherwise.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)