Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down

Author Topic: FSP and Free Talk Live connection  (Read 18687 times)

Keyser Soce

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1256
Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
« Reply #45 on: September 18, 2008, 07:02:15 pm »

Really? Well if you can show the law and prove that you will get a lot of money. Contact We The people Foundation and just show them the law and bingo you've earned a quick 100 Grand!

 
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”


I think we're all familiar with the ongoing debate about the the constitutionality and legality of a tax on one's labor. Hence, it is not Ceasar's.

The fundamental problem--and I wish tax protestors would wake up and smell the coffee--is that the U.S. income tax is both constitutional and legal.
Whether it's right that the income tax is constitutional or legal is a totally different question. On that, I think most of us are in agreement.

I doubt they'd pay me $100K for telling them to look at section one of the Internal Revenue Code.

BD and Seth, would you say that you know more about the tax code than a forensic accountant and former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent (Joe Bannister), a CPA and 7 year IRS agent (Sherry Jackson) and a 10 year IRS agent (John Turner) who all disagree with your position?

They and others have collectively written volumes to support their positions. Have you bothered to read these or do you just assume that these credentialed and well read folks gave up lucrative careers to face possible imprisonment because oops.... they overlooked that section of code you could easily point to.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY, JURISDICTION, AND LIABILITY
 

The Code sections that the IRS cites as their authority to tax virtually everyone's income (Sections 1, 6001, 6011, and 6012) do not say that everyone is liable for the income tax - only that one must file a return IF one is liable.


For Americans, including the self-employed, the only tax form authorized under the sections referred to above is Form 2555, titled "Foreign Earned Income," not Form 1040, as Americans have been led to believe.
 

The only Code sections that establish liability for the income tax or the withholding of it refer to nonresident aliens, foreign corporations, and their withholding agents, who are required to file a 1040 return (26 USC sections 7701, 1441, 1442, 1443, and 1461).


Wages of most citizens have never been intended by law to be subject to the income tax. Earlier editions of the Code made it much clearer that wages and salaries were not gross income. Successive editions of the Code, while saying the application of the law has not changed, have been gradually and cleverly modified by the legislative attorneys who codify the law, e.g., by reorganizing sections so that their numbers change, then deleting footnotes and references to make it difficult to trace the law back to corresponding sections in earlier versions.


Code section 6020(b), that the IRS invokes when it assesses income tax on individuals who have not filed a Form 1040, does not authorize them to assess income tax on individuals.


Wages of most Americans are not, by law, subject to the income tax. Although wages are income, they do not meet the formal legal definition for inclusion as "Gross Income" from which the tax is calculated.


Delegation Orders from the IRS Commissioner to IRS employees, which  authorize them to prepare and sign tax returns for persons who are required to file, but did not, do not include Forms 1040 or 2555 on the list of authorized returns.

 
The Internal Revenue Manual says that IRS criminal investigators are authorized to enforce criminal statutes applicable to taxes for U.S. citizens residing in foreign countries and non-resident aliens subject to federal income tax filing requirements.  There is no mention of citizens living and earning their money in the U.S.  Why not?


`     The Manual says the Criminal Investigation Division is under the direction of the international branch of the IRS, headed by the Assistant Commissioner International.  Again, there is no discernible authority to investigate Americans who live and earn their money in the 50 states.  Again, why not?

 

       The regulations implementing the statutes governing tax liens and levies are under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, not the Internal Revenue Service.


IRS revenue officers are authorized by law to conduct only civil enforcement under Subtitle E (pertaining to alcohol, tobacco, and firearms taxes), not under Subtitle A (income taxes).  No one can show anywhere in the Code, nor has it ever been published in the Federal Register, where revenue officers are authorized to investigate alleged income tax liabilities of citizens who live and earn money within the 50 states.  Why not? Letters sent by revenue officers concerning 1040 returns are without authority of the law.


There is no law that Americans must have a social security number.  An employer who is participating in the social security program is required to give a W-4 to each worker, but is not required to get it back, and the worker is not required to fill it out and give it back, unless the worker wants to participate in social security.  Absent a W-4, an employer is not authorized by law to take money out of a worker's pay for employment taxes.

 
According to Sections 1.1441-5 of the Code of Federal Regulations and IRS instructions (Publication #515), if a worker submits, in duplicate, a statement of U.S. citizenship (a simple letter will do) the employer/withholding agent is relieved of duty to withhold taxes from money paid to that worker.  The withholding agent, no matter where located, then is to send one copy of the statement to the IRS Philadelphia Service Center (not to their own regional center); Philadelphia is the International Service Center, and withholding only applies to aliens or foreign income.

 
« Last Edit: September 18, 2008, 07:04:02 pm by Keyser Soce »
Logged
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain

Ferg

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 155
    • Pelican Institute for Public Policy
Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
« Reply #46 on: September 18, 2008, 07:34:04 pm »

After listening to yesterday's FTL, I'm not entirely I want to be associated with the show.  MJS (post right above this one), excellent post.
Agreed. The view expressed was saddening and cold to say the least.
Logged

Roycerson

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 304
Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
« Reply #47 on: September 18, 2008, 07:35:22 pm »

Thanks everyone for being so friendly. I listened to an episode of free talk live and left a message on their message boards. To shorten a long story I basically got beaten up because I think that crack dealers should go to prison. I know that this Free State Project doesn't support any specific political view but if I join something I want to share common views. Would most people in the Free State Project look at me as a bad person for wanting a crack dealer free state?

I am for the legalization of marijuana.
That would most likely make you a constitutionalist, not a bad thing.


No it wouldn't.  There's nothing in the constitution about federal control of possession or sale of chemicals.


Magentarose:

"protection of life, liberty and property"  

If regulating crack is protection of life then so is regulating twinkies.  How far do you want to go with that?
Logged
He who is slow to believe anything and everything is of great understanding, for belief in one false principle is the beginning of all unwisdom....Anton LaVey

Jitgos

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 42
Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
« Reply #48 on: September 18, 2008, 08:08:52 pm »

After listening to yesterday's FTL, I'm not entirely sure I want to be associated with the show.  Ian basically came right out and said he thought infanticide is acceptable because a person that can't take care of themselves is like a flea or a tick and he "doesn't care what science has to say" on the matter.  Perhaps this is where libertarians get the wrap of being selfish and immature.  I classify that as downright evil.  So much for the non-aggression principle.  Ian also got really upset and emotional about the whole thing and didn't seem to be reasoning at all.   

MJS (post right above this one), excellent post.

I understand what you're saying, but it's no reason to disassociate in my opinion. Mark was there to debate a more reasonable approach. He's "the show" too. Debate about fringe ideas is a huge, interesting part of the show. I consider myself a voluntaryist, but this issue is one of a couple lingering sticking points I have. They've talked about this more in depth before. Is neglect murder? The parent has not initiated force on the child. Just left the child alone. If the debate ended there it would sound really cruel and crazy.

The fact is this happens occasionally right now, today, in the current system we live in. What if I want to have a child and home birth without ever informing the government and then let the child die. This could be happening now and no one would know. So the free market would not promote or really allow this to happen any more than it does today. In fact, I would argue it would likely happen far less because similar to Marks idea people could legally sell their kid. I can see some people still having an abortion because they don't want to carry to birth, but once the baby has already been born it would take a total nutcase to let the child die when they could easily sell the child. Of course, anyone who would ever let a child die is a nutcase anyway.

It comes down to remembering freedom is not going to be a utopia, but simply a far better society than we have today.
Logged

mudshark

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
« Reply #49 on: September 18, 2008, 08:26:00 pm »

After listening to yesterday's FTL, I'm not entirely I want to be associated with the show.  Ian basically came right out and said he thought infanticide is acceptable because a person that can't take care of themselves is like a flea or a tick and he "doesn't care what science has to say" on the matter.  Perhaps this is where libertarians get the wrap of being selfish and immature.  I classify that as downright evil.  So much for the non-aggression principle.  Ian also got really upset and emotional about the whole thing and didn't seem to be reasoning at all.

As much as I wasn't looking to be negative here, particularly on my first post, that's pretty harsh.
perhaps you should listen to that again because that is not what was being conveyed in that argument. point being that, when all the red herrings are taken out of the equation, regardless of what science or anyone else's religion has to say about it, the decision is that of the person who's own body is sustaining and/or hosting that being, and their own personal beliefs or non-beliefs. and no, I'm not an atheist. I just refuse to participate in the collectivist two-minutes hate as a means of behavioral modification. as an additional point, Mark was the one who initiated the flea/tic scenario, of which Ian later corrected him on as not being a legitimate comparison because they weren't human. freedom ultimately requires an open mind, just as your own freedom of association allows you the liberty to place judgment on those that don't fit into your own personal belief system, it doesn't give anyone the right to force their beliefs on another.

Anyway, it's good to be here. 8)
Logged

sj

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3554
    • The Ridley Report
Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
« Reply #50 on: September 18, 2008, 08:45:16 pm »

Anyway, it's good to be here. 8)

Good to have ya  ;D

I won't disassociate with the show, but I also don't want people to assume that those types of views represent free staters in general.  I know I know...get my own show.

Freedom requires responsibility.  The idea that a parent can morally just drop their toddler off on the side of a road is not a philosophy I want attributed to me.
Logged
Moved?  Email Moved@FreeStateProject.org to let them know where you landed, and to get your mover number.

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
« Reply #51 on: September 18, 2008, 09:37:54 pm »

BD and Seth, would you say that you know more about the tax code than a forensic accountant and former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent (Joe Bannister), a CPA and 7 year IRS agent (Sherry Jackson) and a 10 year IRS agent (John Turner) who all disagree with your position?

They and others have collectively written volumes to support their positions. Have you bothered to read these or do you just assume that these credentialed and well read folks gave up lucrative careers to face possible imprisonment because oops.... they overlooked that section of code you could easily point to.

I can't speak for Seth.

But compared to three IRS agents and a CPA or two, I would be fairly confident saying that. In my own experience, I'd estimate about 85% (or 90... or more) of IRS agents have no idea what the Code says. I've found a lot of them don't even read it when an issue comes up with regard to a specific code section.

The Code sections that the IRS cites as their authority to tax virtually everyone's income (Sections 1, 6001, 6011, and 6012) do not say that everyone is liable for the income tax - only that one must file a return IF one is liable.

See Section 6151.

The only Code sections that establish liability for the income tax or the withholding of it refer to nonresident aliens, foreign corporations, and their withholding agents, who are required to file a 1040 return (26 USC sections 7701, 1441, 1442, 1443, and 1461).

See Section 6151.

Wages of most citizens have never been intended by law to be subject to the income tax. Earlier editions of the Code made it much clearer that wages and salaries were not gross income. Successive editions of the Code, while saying the application of the law has not changed, have been gradually and cleverly modified by the legislative attorneys who codify the law, e.g., by reorganizing sections so that their numbers change, then deleting footnotes and references to make it difficult to trace the law back to corresponding sections in earlier versions.

Yes, Congress intended to steal your money. They knew what they were doing. And they enjoy spending it too.

Code section 6020(b), that the IRS invokes when it assesses income tax on individuals who have not filed a Form 1040, does not authorize them to assess income tax on individuals.

Right. 6020(b) says that if you don't file you return, the Secretary will file your return for you. Now that your return is filed, your tax is due.

Wages of most Americans are not, by law, subject to the income tax. Although wages are income, they do not meet the formal legal definition for inclusion as "Gross Income" from which the tax is calculated.

Section 61 of the Code defines "gross income" as "all income from whatever source" derived. Wages are income. Hence, it's includable in your gross income.

The Internal Revenue Manual says that IRS criminal investigators are authorized to enforce criminal statutes applicable to taxes for U.S. citizens residing in foreign countries and non-resident aliens subject to federal income tax filing requirements.  There is no mention of citizens living and earning their money in the U.S.  Why not?

Because it's fairly obvious that the IRS can legally enforce U.S. laws against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil?

The Manual says the Criminal Investigation Division is under the direction of the international branch of the IRS, headed by the Assistant Commissioner International.  Again, there is no discernible authority to investigate Americans who live and earn their money in the 50 states.  Again, why not?

I am not aware of that statement in the Manual. Please direct me to that passage. Are you sure the section you're taking it from doesn't relate only to international investigations?

The regulations implementing the statutes governing tax liens and levies are under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, not the Internal Revenue Service.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The IRS regs are in 26 CFR (and they're still there). The BATF regs are in 27 CFR. Maybe someone made an unfortunate typo.

There is a section in 26 CFR that refers to 27 CFR. From time to time, the IRS and BATF try to seize the same property. The mention of BATF in 26 CFR addresses that issue.

IRS revenue officers are authorized by law to conduct only civil enforcement under Subtitle E (pertaining to alcohol, tobacco, and firearms taxes), not under Subtitle A (income taxes).  No one can show anywhere in the Code, nor has it ever been published in the Federal Register, where revenue officers are authorized to investigate alleged income tax liabilities of citizens who live and earn money within the 50 states.  Why not? Letters sent by revenue officers concerning 1040 returns are without authority of the law.

The first part doesn't make sense. Secondly, "no one can show"? Read 6020(b).

There is no law that Americans must have a social security number.  An employer who is participating in the social security program is required to give a W-4 to each worker, but is not required to get it back, and the worker is not required to fill it out and give it back, unless the worker wants to participate in social security.  Absent a W-4, an employer is not authorized by law to take money out of a worker's pay for employment taxes.

See Section 3402.

---
I can go on and on. And if that's necessary, a new thread should really be started.
Logged

Jitgos

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 42
Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
« Reply #52 on: September 18, 2008, 09:43:54 pm »

Anyway, it's good to be here. 8)

Good to have ya  ;D

I won't disassociate with the show, but I also don't want people to assume that those types of views represent free staters in general.  I know I know...get my own show.

Freedom requires responsibility.  The idea that a parent can morally just drop their toddler off on the side of a road is not a philosophy I want attributed to me.

First of all, get your own show! :)

Voluntaryism is not a complete philosophy of morals. Many many things are or at least are considered immoral that would be completely permissible in a pure voluntaryist society. It's the voluntaryist position that it shouldn't be punishable by law because of the principle and/or from a utilitarian point of view because of the unintended consequences. People who were known to have done this could possibly be punished far more in a voluntaryist society than the one we live in now due to ostracism. Unless the person wants to make his own food, create his own electricity, and find his own clean water he better not commit an act that is seen in the community as completely immoral. Today, if caught, the person would be sent to prison where he would get bathing, food, the latest hollywood movies, a bed at night, and then released to be free once again.

Okay I think between my two posts I've given the best argument I can think of... like I said this is a bit of a sticking point for me too.
Logged

mudshark

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
« Reply #53 on: September 18, 2008, 09:45:34 pm »

Logged

rossby

  • Director of Development
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4801
Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
« Reply #54 on: September 18, 2008, 09:57:07 pm »

After listening to yesterday's FTL, I'm not entirely sure I want to be associated with the show.  Ian basically came right out and said he thought infanticide is acceptable because a person that can't take care of themselves is like a flea or a tick and he "doesn't care what science has to say" on the matter.  Perhaps this is where libertarians get the wrap of being selfish and immature.  I classify that as downright evil.  So much for the non-aggression principle.  Ian also got really upset and emotional about the whole thing and didn't seem to be reasoning at all.   

MJS (post right above this one), excellent post.

I actually agree with Ian on that point. Science really has nothing to say on the matter. It's a matter of values. If it's how one feels about the thought of a baby dying, I hope one would feel similar about killing other mammals who experience pain the same way we do. If one doesn't cringe at the same thought of a cow being turned into delicious steak, I smell hypocrisy.

It's really not fair attribute the traits of "selfishness" and "immaturity" to him. Selfishness, what's wrong with that? Human beings are selfish creatures--who happen to be very generous from time-to-time. To some extent or another, we're all here because we implicitly understand the selfless individual is a frequently abused ideal. So far as immature, doesn't follow either. I think it takes a lot of reflection to get to that point. I commend him for speaking his mind.

And--regardless of his opinion--doesn't mean everyone is going to start killing babies left and right...
Logged

Keyser Soce

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1256
Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
« Reply #55 on: September 18, 2008, 09:59:12 pm »


---
I can go on and on. And if that's necessary, a new thread should really be started.

I could also and you're right, that would be another thread. I have no intention of starting such a thread because there's not enough benefit to me to justify taking the time. It was only my intention to not let the blanket statements go uncontested for the benefit of others who may be interested.
Logged
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man; brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
« Reply #56 on: September 18, 2008, 11:11:10 pm »

After listening to yesterday's FTL, I'm not entirely I want to be associated with the show.  Ian basically came right out and said he thought infanticide is acceptable because a person that can't take care of themselves is like a flea or a tick and he "doesn't care what science has to say" on the matter.  Perhaps this is where libertarians get the wrap of being selfish and immature.  I classify that as downright evil.  So much for the non-aggression principle.  Ian also got really upset and emotional about the whole thing and didn't seem to be reasoning at all.

As much as I wasn't looking to be negative here, particularly on my first post, that's pretty harsh.
perhaps you should listen to that again because that is not what was being conveyed in that argument. point being that, when all the red herrings are taken out of the equation, regardless of what science or anyone else's religion has to say about it, the decision is that of the person who's own body is sustaining and/or hosting that being, and their own personal beliefs or non-beliefs.

This.

And this is why my position on abortion is what I’d describe neither as fitting into the pro-life nor pro-choice sides of this debate: The baby has an absolute right to life. And the mother has an absolute right to do whatever she wants to her own body—including removing anything therefrom, such as a fetus. Ultimately this dilemma will be solved when medical technology reaches the point where a fetus can be raised outside the mother’s body regardless of how prematurely it’s birthed: It’ll no longer be necessary for pro-choicers to abort an unwanted fetus, nor will it be necessary for pro-lifers to force a woman to carry to it to term.
Logged

J’raxis 270145

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1955
  • DILIGE·QVOD·VIS·FAC
    • Jeremy J. Olson
Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
« Reply #57 on: September 18, 2008, 11:19:34 pm »

Voluntaryism is not a complete philosophy of morals. Many many things are or at least are considered immoral that would be completely permissible in a pure voluntaryist society.

It's the voluntaryist position that it shouldn't be punishable by law because of the principle and/or from a utilitarian point of view because of the unintended consequences. People who were known to have done this could possibly be punished far more in a voluntaryist society than the one we live in now due to ostracism. Unless the person wants to make his own food, create his own electricity, and find his own clean water he better not commit an act that is seen in the community as completely immoral. Today, if caught, the person would be sent to prison where he would get bathing, food, the latest hollywood movies, a bed at night, and then released to be free once again.

I consider the Non-Aggression Principle—the basis of voluntaryism—to be a complete philosophy of morality.  At least, to me, the idea of morality means those things that a person can actually be forced to do or not do, and the NAP is clear that the only time force may be used is in response to aggression (unsolicited force). Any other uses of force are thus unsolicited and therefore by definition aggression, and thereby immoral.

If you want to use the word immoral to describe other things—things that you merely disagree with, to which you’d respond with ostracism—be my guest, but I think it’s sloppy semantics.
Logged

sj

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3554
    • The Ridley Report
Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
« Reply #58 on: September 18, 2008, 11:20:17 pm »

After listening to yesterday's FTL, I'm not entirely I want to be associated with the show.  Ian basically came right out and said he thought infanticide is acceptable because a person that can't take care of themselves is like a flea or a tick and he "doesn't care what science has to say" on the matter.  Perhaps this is where libertarians get the wrap of being selfish and immature.  I classify that as downright evil.  So much for the non-aggression principle.  Ian also got really upset and emotional about the whole thing and didn't seem to be reasoning at all.

As much as I wasn't looking to be negative here, particularly on my first post, that's pretty harsh.
perhaps you should listen to that again because that is not what was being conveyed in that argument. point being that, when all the red herrings are taken out of the equation, regardless of what science or anyone else's religion has to say about it, the decision is that of the person who's own body is sustaining and/or hosting that being, and their own personal beliefs or non-beliefs.

This.

And this is why my position on abortion is what I’d describe neither as fitting into the pro-life nor pro-choice sides of this debate: The baby has an absolute right to life. And the mother has an absolute right to do whatever she wants to her own body—including removing anything therefrom, such as a fetus. Ultimately this dilemma will be solved when medical technology reaches the point where a fetus can be raised outside the mother’s body regardless of how prematurely it’s birthed: It’ll no longer be necessary for pro-choicers to abort an unwanted fetus, nor will it be necessary for pro-lifers to force a woman to carry to it to term.

My comment wasn't about abortion (though I'm against that too).  It was about infanticide, which is what Ian was talking about.
Logged
Moved?  Email Moved@FreeStateProject.org to let them know where you landed, and to get your mover number.

Russell Kanning

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 3539
    • We must be the change we wish to see in the world.
Re: FSP and Free Talk Live connection
« Reply #59 on: September 19, 2008, 04:21:37 am »

The baby has an absolute right to life. And the mother has an absolute right to do whatever she wants to her own body—including removing anything therefrom, such as a fetus.
It looks like your absolute rights might be in conflict ... maybe they are not so absolute.

Quote
Ultimately this dilemma will be solved when medical technology reaches the point where a fetus can be raised outside the mother’s body regardless of how prematurely it’s birthed: It’ll no longer be necessary for pro-choicers to abort an unwanted fetus, nor will it be necessary for pro-lifers to force a woman to carry to it to term.
people will still hurt each other with new technology

maybe babies have the absolute right to be born on time in the most natural healthy way. ;)
Logged
The NH Underground - "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi
New Hampshire Free Press - The Nonviolent Revolution Starts Here

"Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces." -- Etienne de La Boetie, The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up