Well, be my guest. Anyone can cook up a video to say just about anything. If it works for them, more power to them. Unfortunately, U.S. prisons contain their share of tax evaders.
Incorrect. They can and will arrest you. I know from personal experience. I have a friend who owns a roofing company here locally. Been in business for twenty years and always paid taxes. Very nice gentleman, a good friend, never had any issues with the law. His business, like many roofing businesses, depend on natural disasters such as tornados and most especially, hail storms. Hail storms bring big business and we get plenty in our part of the country. But for the three years straight, a few years ago, we had no hail...no nothing. His business was going down the drain, literally. He withheld paying taxes for two years straight and owed in excess of two hundred thousand dollars. They came after him. Arrested him. He got out on bail but at trial was convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to one year in prison. He got out in July of this year and he still has fines to pay (probably the rest of his life, as big as they are). Don't think you can't be arrested, that you can't lose your home, personal belongings, etc. Those big IRS sales that offer luxuary and sports cars that people attend to get great deals are the direct result of the IRS seizing property of people who do not pay their taxes. It's not worth the trip. Don't think that because you are young and can conquer the world, that you somehow are smarter than hundreds of thousands of trained lawyers and individuals before you. You are not. None of us are. Pay the tax, or pay the price.
I don't want people to misunderstand what I'm saying. What I'm not saying : - You can avoid taxes and life will be just fine What I am saying : - According to ex IRS exployees, a variety of lawyers and US congressmen tax on your labor is in volation of the consitution. Not EVERY tax - just the federal tax on money you earn for your labor
But there was a constitutional amendment to allow tax on all income. If there is a constitutional amendment specifically to allow it, how can it be in violation of the constitution?
Okay, first of all I would like to apologize for not having watched the video as of my last post. In my defense, I was setting up my computer so that I would be able to watch the video. Secondly, in the first two minutes of watching the video I recognized brain washing techniques that I personally find to be abhorrent, and shut the video off in under 10 minutes so as not to be exposed to any more. There may be supporting evidence for the initial summary later in the video, but I chose not to watch any more than I had to in order to get the basic idea. Third, I did a quick search and found that as of the time of the announcement, 36 states had ratified the amendment. If one uses the -current- number of states (50) as the starting point for their calculations, as to the threshold for what was the required number of states, that is 1 state shy if you round down, but 2 shy if you round up for how many states are required. However, at that point in time, there were only 48 states, making 36 the required threshold for ratification. More states followed in ratification after that announcement, leaving only 3 states that did not ratify, making the total 45 out of 48 (which, even if you calculate from the current total of 50 states is more than enough). Further, the announcement occurred on Febuary 25th, exactly 2 months after Christmas. I’m not sure how long the Christmas break for the legislative session back then was, but I can’t imagine it was over 2 months long. An excerpt that I found is listed below. The sixteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Sixty-first Congress on the 12th of July, 1909, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 25th of February, 1913, to have been ratified by 36 of the 48 States. The dates of ratification were: Alabama, August 10, 1909; Kentucky, February 8, 1910; South Carolina, February 19, 1910; Illinois, March 1, 1910; Mississippi, March 7, 1910; Oklahoma, March 10, 1910; Maryland, April 8, 1910; Georgia, August 3, 1910; Texas, August 16, 1910; Ohio, January 19, 1911; Idaho, January 20, 1911; Oregon, January 23, 1911; Washington, January 26, 1911; Montana, January 30, 1911; Indiana, January 30, 1911; California, January 31, 1911; Nevada, January 31, 1911; South Dakota, February 3, 1911; Nebraska, February 9, 1911; North Carolina, February 11, 1911; Colorado, February 15, 1911; North Dakota, February 17, 1911; Kansas, February 18, 1911; Michigan, February 23, 1911; Iowa, February 24, 1911; Missouri, March 16, 1911; Maine, March 31, 1911; Tennessee, April 7, 1911; Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it earlier); Wisconsin, May 26, 1911; New York, July 12, 1911; Arizona, April 6, 1912; Minnesota, June 11, 1912; Louisiana, June 28, 1912; West Virginia, January 31, 1913; New Mexico, February 3, 1913. Ratification was completed on February 3, 1913. The amendment was subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, March 4, 1913; New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected it on March 2, 1911). The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah. I cannot post links, but hopefully you can use the above exerpt to find the exact page.
What brainwashing techniques ? I didn't notice them. Perhaps I'm so numb due to the very overt brainwashing on TV that I failed to spot the more subtible varieties. Either way I found the video compelling for two reasons : 1. The IRS refuses to clearly state what law requires you to pay taxes. 2. The video features several IRS employees who initially thought there was such a law, researched the issue and found themselves to be in error. The video also features a slew of lawyers and a congressman who concur that the IRS does not have the power they'd like you to believe.
Okay, so do you agree that there is a constitutional amendment ALLOWING for the use of Income tax? Can we put that part of this discussion to rest, and discuss these two most recent points of yours? In any case, the use of white text on a black background, paired with someone reading the words, especially when the words fade in and out, or slooowly scroll from the top of the screen, or their arrival is punctuated by an imposing sound effect is a relatively subtle brainwashing technique. It is also used to program people who go to work at Walmart. I have a friend that worked at Walmart, hated their stuff, but would involuntarily jump to the defense of Walmart with phrases RIGHT out of the training videos... then blink, back down, and agree with the person they just disagreed with. Oh, and don’t get me wrong, I am a Walmart shopper. Simply for the savings on products I’d buy elsewhere, and the convenience of having two of them really close to me, so I’m not a “Hate on Wwalmart†fanatic.
I'm not a believer of 'brainwashing', personally; well, not according to how the APA defines it. It's a relatively new term, made in the 50's. The APA (American Psychological Association) has no censesus on this issue. They've done many reviews on 'coercive persuasion theory', especially when it's geared toward cult-following. I remember reading from Dr. Margaret Singer opinions, in comparison to others, whom believe her theory isn't put through enough 'scientific rigor'. I'm much more inclined to favor the general view of the APA that...there still needs to be more research to validate this as true. That's why I'm hesistant to believe there's someone actually brainwashing people on a youtube video.
The movie isn't bad, but I wish instead of interviewing Schiff, who is in jail for the 4th time, they would invite somebody who actually succeeded. I am sure Schiff is sincere and all, but it's obvious his arguments don't work in court. Why not interview, say, Joe Bannister instead, a former IRS agent who got into tax protesting and won against IRS in court? There is nothing unconstitutional about Internal Revenue Code, the problem with it is that it's not a law. It's an internal code of US government and only applies to government employees, which IRS agrees with, sort of. It's evidenced by the fact that they keep sending refunds to people who file their taxes using this argument. (IRS did try to sue Peter Hendrickson, who pioneered this theory, but it didn't even go to court, Dept Of Justice dropped their support of the case) And what about 14 million Americans who don't have SSN? They can't even file income tax in the first place, it's a required field. Not a single one of them pays income tax, and not a single one is in jail. So much for 'everyone has to pay taxes' argument.
Illegal immigrants or otherwise? Some do pay taxes through a rather new policy [forgot the name]. The IRS doesn't seem to like the idea of involving themselves too much into that issue,...for some reason. Even though they have millions of people registered under illegitamate numbers or duplications. Although I'm assuming some of these businesses owners could get jailed for various reasons:tax evasion, non-compliance with federal laws concerning regulations on workers. I'm not sure any of that is actually done, though. Most of these people are using them for proof of their time present in the states....in case a form of amnesty comes. ----------------------------------------------------- I agree with you. People that promote an evasion of taxes are usually unsuccessful. I know of no proven method, personally. And the government would be in a shitload of trouble if there was one. I really hope one day that we'll have this system regress--as it's destructive, but I don't think mass non-compliance is reputable means to the end.
Otherwise. The law doesn't require anyone to have a number Tax evasion is illegal by definition. We are talking about tax avoidance rather than tax evasion. There is a few methods, maybe half a dozen or so, that work and were proven in court. The system doesn't collapse only because they are obscure, some only apply to specific cases, some require considerable effort (like living without SSN), and are lost in a sea of thousands of 'tax protester' methods that were defeated in court. I think the main reason few people can avoid taxes is mindset. We are all trained to think that 'everyone has to pay taxes'.
I'm assuming the disposition of these 'tax avoiders'...is that they're well-off? I can't work my way through that wall of language. The tax-code is huge. I'm assuming if you have the cunning or dollars, you could avoid quite a bit of it. Not too certain about the 'no ss' thing. But what do I know!?
Sorry but this is not true. You pay taxes if you work (provided your employer takes them out by law). All the valid SSN allows you to do is file for a possible return. Since people that don't have a SSN most likely don't have a high end job with a good salary, they most likely would get a return and not have to pay in. The government wins. Also, people on the lower end, especially ones without SSN's get double taxed in a way. Since they have little to no discretionary income, they have to spend all of thier money on needed items for life. Less food, which is not taxed, all other life supporting purchases have a sales tax. Hence, income is taxed, then they have to spend the remaining money to stay alive, this amount is also taxed. The government wins.
People who are eligible to get a return don't opt out of the system. It's usually those who make decent living and owe taxes. Also. "high end job with a good salary" is a rarity. It's much easier to make good money in private business than in employment (especially if you are not sending half of your earning to IRS). It doesn't matter whether you owe money or are eligible for refund, you still need SSN to file taxes. Internal Revenue Code defines "processible form" as one that has name, address, and number. People sent letters to IRS asking if they can file taxes without SSN and were told that they wouldn't be processed. You may have to get driver's license from a state that issues them without SSN if you live in one that doesn't, and will have to cash checks through one of those 'quick check' places because banks won't open you an account. It's clearly not everyone, but it works fine for some
I agree, I was taking it more from the standpoint of people who can't get a SSN. If you dont have a SSN you can also get a PIN to out in place of the SSN. Dont you need a SSN/work visa to legally get a job? I really couldn't imagine not having a SSN, everything I have financially, both personally and through my business has required my SSN.
Technically no, the law doesn't require anyone to have SSN to work in the US. But you'll have hard time convincing most employers of it. IRS hates it, their instructions are worded to imply that SSN is required to work. There is way to get a job without SSN but I didn't really look into it, since I am self-employed. Something to do with getting judgement from Equal Opp. Employer department. I don't think it'd be easy but there are people around who work corporate jobs without SSN Sure, it's not for everyone. That's why 95%+ of people have a number. I considered opting out, and the only problem I couldn't solve is that my largest client pays by wire transfer. They won't send me check by snail mail. Otherwise I might be out of the system. But I didn't get SSN for my daughter when she was born. There are still loopholes and ways to avoid taxes if you have SSN, just not too many of them and not necessarily applicable to everyone' situation
Now that I think about it... Why don't I register a business under my wife's name, have this client send wire transfers to her bank account, and pay taxes on that amount only? Hmmm...
Well I'm not sure but having 2 different businesses names for the same business and shuffling money around might get you in trouble. I'd at least talk to one of your tax lawyers about it first.
You're right, I don't think I am going to pull the trigger just yet. I have a young wife and 2 kids and spending a few years in jail is not on my to-do list