Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler Deals thread

I can promise you that any tax that was truly voluntary would not get paid by me.

However, I wouldn't risk skipping out on required taxes just to save a few bucks now and pay for it later with jail, fines, or both.

I demand that you all stop this right now and post only deals on this thread!!! Or else I will unsubscribe from it!! That will teach you all a lesson!!

Thanks for posting that resource, John. I started watching the documentary Cam linked to and it generated many questions. All of the court cases featured in the documentary in which the income tax-avoiding defendants were victorious were jury cases. One in particular found for the defendant because the judge could or would not provide them with a law (or laws) giving the I.R.S. authority to compel the defendant to pay or face consequences. It certainly gives the tax protesters ammunition even if they are in the wrong.

Thank you for educating me, John.

Excellent link! It is well written and very entertaining (only a side effect, but an appreciated one)!

John, I did make note in my last post that there had been numerous (22 from my research) court cases by the Supreme Court that have ruled on the legality of the income tax. But, we are talking about a corrupt Supreme Court that makes rulings in the vested interests of the rich and powerful; the most notable one being Bush vs. Gore. The justice system works from the top down, and those of the very top, are the most questionable individuals in society. Fundamentally, I don't believe that any society, but more importantly its current structure, should be presided over by a group of people that have little or nothing in common with whom their supposedly making decisions for. For clarification purposes, that's my take on the Supreme Court, and the joke that it is.

Regarding your link-I've read some of it and will make a concerted effort to get through the entire article, as well as doing more research via other sources, which I have since reading your post. You've got my attention and consideration for accepting your affirmative constructive.

I have a rather strong criticism for the article in the link, however. The very first sentence is a ridiculous ad hominem attack (referring to tax protesters as "fanatics, idiots, charlatans, and dupes"). Direct insults like this by anyone, I believe, destroy the validity of the partial, or full, point that they may make. But I don't find his adjectives surprising, considering the profession and how SOME develop an ego that pontificates an air of superiority. Also, I did a quick search of his name, and came up with a web site that he's constructed which solely deals with the "idiots" that he deplores. It's obvious that he's vehemently opposed to anyone that merely questions income tax. Not that this is a bad thing, everything could be factual, but if one was truly objective, the website and material posted on it is consonant with a website that questions the legality of income tax. Ultimately, everything stated, and all of the sources, should be investigated to see if they are true, rather than accepting them as such (I will be the first to admit that I am guilty of not investigating everything I read or see, but I do, more often than not). The website is, after all, one person's research and opinion. and just because he's an attorney at law, doesn't mean he should be given a free pass; just as I wouldn't believe an ounce of what is spat out of Alan Dershowitz's (a fraud) mouth.

As a result of the research that I have done, I'll change my opinion to "I really don't know". I do have a strong belief (not an understanding) that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified, so it is technically unconstitutional, and it's the arm of the law, along with a corrupt system that ultimately makes those that qualify, have to pay (legally, many people don't have to pay income tax). I've also learned that tax avoidance (similar to tax evasion) is perfectly legal, and apparently used by some of the richest corporations- link .

I do have a question for you though- has/is (historically) the role of the supreme court been to define the law through their judgments instead of interpret the constitutionality of law? So, the way it works is that "they" said income tax is constitutional, and whether it is true or not, it becomes pseudo-constitutional by power of judicial precedent?

I didn't post a response to try to garner more replies and continue this subject, but rather to let you know that I have changed my opinion, if only to "sitting on the fence". The beauty of this forum is that we can all have intelligent discussions without holding a beef toward someone (at least I hope that's the case). I also want your thoughts on my question, because I don't truly know how the Supreme Court works.

Thanks,
Cam

Not true. Facts are facts regardless of what language they are delivered in.

Fair enough, J.P. To correct my record, what I was trying to say is that I think resorting to character assassinations does little for someone's cause, and actually harms it.

Agreed, although I suspect that the effect depends on which side of the cause you're on.

For those that agree with him, it will be more likely to reinforce their beliefs ("Yeah! Woohoo! Preach it, brother!"). See: dittoheads.

For those that are opposed, it more likely angers them and reinforces their opposition ("What a jerk! He's wrong AND a jerk!").

The neutral/undecided pack is where it gets interesting - they could be affected in any way: turning for, against, or remaining neutral.

Yep. I've just learnt that resorting to disparaging remarks in a debate or discussion is counterproductive. I constantly call out people on YouTube. Yes, it might sound silly, but it bothers me when I'm watching a lecture by a prolific scholar, and he doesn't believe in name calling or anti this or that. Yet, people will still resort to the exact opposite to what said scholar abhors; even though they are on the same side.