-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How Many Of Your Rights Have Been Violated Today?
- Thread starter poncho
- Start date
poncho
Well-Known Member
Despite the propoganda, these folks try to claim the income tax is either:
(1) illegal (since Congress does not have the power to enact it...as oppossed to the thousands of other laws they have legally enacted); or
(2) that it is legal but does not apply to what we consider to be "income".
Seems to me the code pretty clearly defines "income" and it includes "compensation for labor" including U.S. sources of compensation. It also seems that Congress has been given the power to enact laws by the Constitution. The Court interprets the laws. The Executive enforces the laws.
By they way - Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
I am not sure why your web site references try to claim the income tax is illegal. Granted, in the past there was no income tax. And in the past all "taxes" were really tarrifs on foreign goods. And in the past, that was sufficient to provide for the running of these United States. I may not like it. It may not have existed until fairly recent history. But exist it does. Render to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's...
(1) illegal (since Congress does not have the power to enact it...as oppossed to the thousands of other laws they have legally enacted); or
(2) that it is legal but does not apply to what we consider to be "income".
Seems to me the code pretty clearly defines "income" and it includes "compensation for labor" including U.S. sources of compensation. It also seems that Congress has been given the power to enact laws by the Constitution. The Court interprets the laws. The Executive enforces the laws.
By they way - Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
I am not sure why your web site references try to claim the income tax is illegal. Granted, in the past there was no income tax. And in the past all "taxes" were really tarrifs on foreign goods. And in the past, that was sufficient to provide for the running of these United States. I may not like it. It may not have existed until fairly recent history. But exist it does. Render to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's...
poncho
Well-Known Member
And who is Ceasar in these United States...it's clear from the declaration of independence and countless court cases that We The People are the only soveriegn in this country, not our servant government. The key words here is the people's soveriegnty and servant government.
If all is as you say with the income tax, then it would just be a simple matter of the IRS and congress answering the questions that Bob Shults and Larken Rose have asked time in and time out. But, they never get answers. They get threats. Don't you at least find that a little odd?
Why is that we have to bring lawsuits against them to get simple answers?
If all is as you say with the income tax, then it would just be a simple matter of the IRS and congress answering the questions that Bob Shults and Larken Rose have asked time in and time out. But, they never get answers. They get threats. Don't you at least find that a little odd?
Why is that we have to bring lawsuits against them to get simple answers?
"We" the people, not "I" the people. I will not argue that most poeple in this country have abdicated their rights and responsibilities. However, the laws enacted by Congress - who is empowered by "we the people" to promote the general welfare - have enacted constitutional laws allowing the collection of taxes on labor (income).
My personal belief is that the tax code should be thrown in the trash and rewritten. I have difficulty believing it really requires thousands of pages rather than a dozen. It is obviously an unfair code in that it attempts to redistribute wealth (along with most of the social programs paid for by these taxes).
In the end Ceasar is the one(s) we vote into office to represent us. It is great to say that the power is with the people, but that has never been true in actuallity in our democratic republic and it never will be. Not as long as we elect other to represent us and enact laws on our behalf. Therefore, Ceasar is Congress, or the President, or the Supreme Court - depending on who is making, interepreting, or enforcing the law.
poncho
Well-Known Member
I've already posted on the Romans 13 debate. I don't wish to do it again soon. Here is the forum if you would like to read my posts.
web page
I agree that the tax code is extra long, and written in a foreign language (legaleaze) that even the tax professionals cannot figure out.
You didn't answer the questions. If the tax laws are legit, then why doesn't the IRS and congress just answer the questions that Bob Shults and Larken Rose along with countless others have asked? It seems like an easy simple thing...just show us the laws...point them out.
The only responses from them is threats and double talk. Don't you at least find this a little odd?
Why should we have to bring lawsuits against them to try and get simple answers that should pose no problem for them?
One more question...doesn't the first amendment give us a right to a redress of grievances and if so, why have we been denied this right by congress?
web page
I agree that the tax code is extra long, and written in a foreign language (legaleaze) that even the tax professionals cannot figure out.
You didn't answer the questions. If the tax laws are legit, then why doesn't the IRS and congress just answer the questions that Bob Shults and Larken Rose along with countless others have asked? It seems like an easy simple thing...just show us the laws...point them out.
The only responses from them is threats and double talk. Don't you at least find this a little odd?
Why should we have to bring lawsuits against them to try and get simple answers that should pose no problem for them?
One more question...doesn't the first amendment give us a right to a redress of grievances and if so, why have we been denied this right by congress?
Poncho,
Your first question was regarding the legality of the income tax. I posted copies of the tax code justifying its legality. You questioned the constitutionality of the code. I posted a copy of the appropriate constitutional provisions. Now you ask, if it is legal why won't they just answer our questions.
First, they have answered you questions by publishing the tax code. That is the law. It was passed by Congress. Second, it is not the responsibility of Congress to answer your questions regarding questions of law. It is the responsibility of the courts. Third, Congress empowered the IRS to administer the laws it has made regarding taxes (the tax code). The IRS then intereprets and implements the laws. Again, their function is not to answer your questions except as pertaining to your tax return. If you don't like the answer, they are not required to give you reasons. You may go to the courts for interpretation and redress. That is their function. That is why you must bring lawsuits.
The IRS is not the final word on interpreting the tax code. The federal court system, composed of the U.S. Tax Court, federal district courts, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and U.S. bankruptcy courts, all have the power to decide, on a case-by-case basis, how Congress intended the tax laws to be applied. If more than $50,000 is at stake, a taxpayer can appeal a Tax Court decision to a circuit court of appeal, and in rare cases to the U.S. Supreme Court.
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/ObjectID/AC7C25CA-0785-4A5D-B9523A9F215560A1/catID/2A0609A8-61F1-45AC-812194D5661BFE9F
Now, having said all of that, please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and have not studied law. But it is common sense. I may not like it, but I do live with it as long as it does not violate my faith.
Finally, the First Amendment does give you the right to redress a grievance. It is call the court system. Thus the reason, again, that you may go to tax court for a final interpretation of tax law as administered by the IRS. Redress does not mean the courts will take your side. It does not mean you are right. It does not mean you will win your case. It may mean all of those things or it may mean you are wrong, you will lose, and the court takes the side of the IRS.
Hope this answers all of your questions.
Your first question was regarding the legality of the income tax. I posted copies of the tax code justifying its legality. You questioned the constitutionality of the code. I posted a copy of the appropriate constitutional provisions. Now you ask, if it is legal why won't they just answer our questions.
First, they have answered you questions by publishing the tax code. That is the law. It was passed by Congress. Second, it is not the responsibility of Congress to answer your questions regarding questions of law. It is the responsibility of the courts. Third, Congress empowered the IRS to administer the laws it has made regarding taxes (the tax code). The IRS then intereprets and implements the laws. Again, their function is not to answer your questions except as pertaining to your tax return. If you don't like the answer, they are not required to give you reasons. You may go to the courts for interpretation and redress. That is their function. That is why you must bring lawsuits.
The IRS is not the final word on interpreting the tax code. The federal court system, composed of the U.S. Tax Court, federal district courts, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and U.S. bankruptcy courts, all have the power to decide, on a case-by-case basis, how Congress intended the tax laws to be applied. If more than $50,000 is at stake, a taxpayer can appeal a Tax Court decision to a circuit court of appeal, and in rare cases to the U.S. Supreme Court.
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/ObjectID/AC7C25CA-0785-4A5D-B9523A9F215560A1/catID/2A0609A8-61F1-45AC-812194D5661BFE9F
Now, having said all of that, please keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and have not studied law. But it is common sense. I may not like it, but I do live with it as long as it does not violate my faith.
Finally, the First Amendment does give you the right to redress a grievance. It is call the court system. Thus the reason, again, that you may go to tax court for a final interpretation of tax law as administered by the IRS. Redress does not mean the courts will take your side. It does not mean you are right. It does not mean you will win your case. It may mean all of those things or it may mean you are wrong, you will lose, and the court takes the side of the IRS.
Hope this answers all of your questions.
I am just "Thankful"
Thankful that I have rights.
Thankful that I have income to be taxed.
Thankful that I have social security and a retirement income.
Thankful that I live in this country!
And yes, I am old enough to remember the "good ole days". I prefer living in the current time.
Thankful that I have rights.
Thankful that I have income to be taxed.
Thankful that I have social security and a retirement income.
Thankful that I live in this country!
And yes, I am old enough to remember the "good ole days". I prefer living in the current time.
That's refreshing.
For me, the "good ole' days" were the 60's and 70's, when kids my age were still ridiculed for having black friends, when we still had to know where the nearest fallout shelter was, when destruction by global thermonuclear was was imminent, and, most importantly, when I had to get up to turn the TV off.
