Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


Recommended Posts

it's tax season... again. this year is especially fun, as I got a strange letter from the IRS stating that my 2008 tax return has been changed due to passing a new tax law that allows them to go back to 2008 and say I owe them money.


fuck all.


anyways, I stumbled upon this today when I googled "can you tax a plant?"


My observations on the nature of theft are in fact very conservative (not in the political sense), rather than extreme. What you may be taking issue with is that I refuse to simply stipulate that the state or some other prefered entity is exempt from examination by the same standard we logically use to judge all other actions. This creates a double standard the sole purpose of which is to give pretense to the illusion that theft is not theft if we like the theif...


The process is the very same we use to identify plants. We take the criteria for a given plant family, then narrow this to the specific type of plant. If the plant in question meets all of those criteria, then we recognize that as the particular type of plant.


The sad fact is that many people are unwilling to emply this very basic element of sound reasoning when it comes to certain aspects of our lives, including government actions. We note the definition of theft: The involuntary taking of property from its rightful owner. Then we note the nature of taxation. It is involuntary (no matter what the IRS pretends, we have no choice). It is certainly a taking of property. Finally there is no room for doubt that property belongs to its owner, not to the ones taking it.


Therefore logically and necessarily taxation is indeed theft. Nothing extreme about this at all, rather this is rudimentary, or perhaps even remedial logic..






plus I heard about that dude who won vs the IRS.... stating that there is no law on the books, back then or presently, that says you have to pay income tax.


The United States Constitution strictly forbids a direct unapportioned tax on the wages and salaries of American citizens.The United States Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Income Tax is a tax on profits and gains, not on labor and wages.


but even that is wrong I guess...


as disputed by the 16th amendment here

The courts have ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment allows a direct tax on "wages, salaries, commissions, etc. without apportionment."


then there's the wiki page for tax conspiracy tin foil hats here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_conspiracy_arguments




fucka tax. discuss.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

"... we note the nature of taxation. It is involuntary (no matter what the IRS pretends, we have no choice)..."


The IRS pretends that taxes are voluntary?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ncome tax law: an overview


In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified. It empowered Congress to tax "incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The Internal Revenue Code is today embodied as Title 26 of the United States Code (26 U.S.C.) and is a lineal descendant of the income tax act passed in 1913, following ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. While some states do not have an income tax (Nevada), all residents and all citizens of the United States are subject to the federal income tax. Not everyone, however, must file a return. The requirements for filing are found in 26 U.S.C. § 6011. As the largest contributor, its purpose is to generate revenue for the federal budget. In 1985 for example, the government collected over $450 billion in income tax from a total of $742 billion in total internal revenue receipts. The funds collected are essential for the shaping and preservation of a free market economy.


Some terms are essential in understanding income tax law. "Gross income" can be generaly defined as "all income from whatever source derived;" a more complete definition is found in 26 U.S.C. § 61. Other important definitions like "taxable income" and "adjusted gross income" can also be found in Chapter I of Title 26. These terms are not fixed nor should anyone be confident in understanding their true meaning after a cursory reading because their imputed definitions change with time. The Supreme Court, through case law, demonstrates the changing meaning of taxable income.


Individuals are not the only ones required to file income tax returns. Corporations do as well. While they are subject to may of the same rules as are individual taxpayers, they are also covered by an intricate body of rules addressed to the peculiar problems of corporations.


Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary


A tax on an individual or a corporation's net income after deductions for various expenses and payments, such as charitable gifts or business expenses. There is a federal income tax and most states assess income tax but at a lower rate than the federal government.

Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...