Do we have to pay income tax?
- Thread starter Daxtrader
- Start date
this was all played out on 33 fun filled pages already... beat them to the chase:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...=97653&perpage=6&highlight=taxes&pagenumber=1
Guess you missed this.....
"There are lots of tax protesters who have won cases against the IRS, such as John Cheek, Lloyd Long, and Vernice Kuglin."
No. There are a handful of people who have avoided criminal (but not civil) penalties by convincing a jury that they were too stupid or delusional to understand the tax laws and their violations were not âwillful,â but no one has ever won against the IRS in a civil tax collection case........
No I took a look at the videos.
I suspect these guys will say that there is no statute that requires a certain class of people (say employees or business owners) to pay an income tax because that class is not part of the group specifically mentioned in the "taxing" statute.
If you can prove them wrong - end of story.
If not. We will have a to research the laws regarding interpretations of statutes.
I am a lawyer and years ago I wrote briefs on statutory interpretation so that part wont be too hard.
I will be away for a week starting tomorrow hopefully this will be fully developed when I get back.
I suspect these guys will say that there is no statute that requires a certain class of people (say employees or business owners) to pay an income tax because that class is not part of the group specifically mentioned in the "taxing" statute.
If you can prove them wrong - end of story.
If not. We will have a to research the laws regarding interpretations of statutes.
I am a lawyer and years ago I wrote briefs on statutory interpretation so that part wont be too hard.
I will be away for a week starting tomorrow hopefully this will be fully developed when I get back.
I believe the 16th Am says something like " income from whatever source derived" . This has been interpreted to mean everyone.
The problem is that the deniers don't agree, based on their beliefs of something else, based on what they want to hear, balh, blah, blah.
Here's the table for a single guy -
Schedule X â Single
-If taxable income is over-- But not over-- The tax is:
$0 $7,550 10% of the amount over $0
-$7,550 $30,650 $755 plus 15% of the amount over 7,550
$30,650 $74,200 $4,220.00 plus 25% of the amount over 30,650
-$74,200 $154,800 $15,107.50 plus 28% of the amount over 74,200
-$154,800 $336,550 $37,675.50 plus 33% of the amount over 154,800
-$336,550 no limit $97,653.00 plus 35% of the amount over 336,550
The problem is that the deniers don't agree, based on their beliefs of something else, based on what they want to hear, balh, blah, blah.
Here's the table for a single guy -
Schedule X â Single
-If taxable income is over-- But not over-- The tax is:
$0 $7,550 10% of the amount over $0
-$7,550 $30,650 $755 plus 15% of the amount over 7,550
$30,650 $74,200 $4,220.00 plus 25% of the amount over 30,650
-$74,200 $154,800 $15,107.50 plus 28% of the amount over 74,200
-$154,800 $336,550 $37,675.50 plus 33% of the amount over 154,800
-$336,550 no limit $97,653.00 plus 35% of the amount over 336,550
Ha ha ha ha....
Fully developed into a flame war.....
Simple Denial
The most obvious strategy is simple, or outright, denial. This is the basic technique of maintaining that something is true/not true despite all evidence to the contrary. It is usually encapsulated in slick slogans that can be mindlessly repeated until they take on the characteristics of some fundamental "truth". They are in fact, the kind of "big lie" that distorts reality and oozes its way into human consciousness effortlessly.
Evasion and Displacement
In this strategy, the fundamental or essential issue is ignored by focusing on a "red herring" issue that may be quite similar to the real problem; but strikingly misses the real point.
"Affect Storm" or Exaggerated Emotional Responses
This is a hyperemotional response to anything that threatens the veneer of denial or that questions the motivations of the denier.
Ad hominem is responding to an argument by attacking your opponent rather than addressing the argument itself.