Think for a minute. I invite you to this exercise. Even if you're a lawyer, I'd bet a bunch of this has escaped you. --
The government is taxing your right, indeed the necessity for you to make a living. --
Pause. Think. --
...
Is this something the founders ensured was enshrined as a principle in the Constitution? Remember that a great part of the frustration of the colonists with their sovereign (George III) was the heaping on of taxes - on items like paper for instance, that practically no one alive in those times could do without? The Boston Tea Party (1773) was the colonists' "Hell no!" to the tax on tea. It took three more years before the movement for independence from that crap was formalized in the Declaration. --
Homework: Step 1: Check out Article 1 Sec. 9 ยง 4 of the Constitution. It addresses "Capitation" tax, meaning a "head" tax, or a tax on individuals. This is a form of direct tax; "direct" is also a word used in the ยง. Do we think income tax is a direct tax? A capitation tax? /sarc/ If you don't understand the principle of apportionment you have a little more homework. It's helpful to figure some things out on your own to understand the intent, as any good educator would argue. :) --
Step 2: Check out the 16th Amendment and remember, Article 1 Sec 9 ยง4 was never repealed. --
So... which one rules? --
I highly recommend doing the deep dive. --
The income tax as implemented is unconstitutional. The problem with taking that argument to court is that the creation of the IRS was done by code. Codes and statutes are not "law". The word "law" is ubiquitous, used to reference the law of the land, our Constitution, as well as codes and statutes. The IRS code (U.S. Code Title 26) with its some 4 million words or something is a "legal" ploy. "Legal" refers to codes and statutes. "Lawful" refers to the law of the land. All courts except federal courts are administrative courts, administering adherence to or violations of codes and statutes. Guess which courts arguments about the income tax go to? The Constitution has no relevance in administrative courts. None. --
The income tax as elaborated in U.S.C. Title 26 is not lawful, and is enforced under color of law. --
I can only scratch the surface here of this fvckery that's been foisted on Americans. --
More homework: Go directly to the tax code (U.S.C Title 26. Many sources online). Read ยง7701(c). Right there on the page you will read a definition of "includes" and "including". What? We need a definition of the words "includes" and "including"? What are we, idiots? We don't know what these words mean? Well... can you make sense of the way the definition is worded? This is obfuscation to the finest. Not only have they made it practically undecipherable, but here's the kicker: what they've done is created a new legal ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฎ. When used (as the definition states) in any other definition of yet another new ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฎ (that all look ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐น๐ like common words) the use of "includes" and "including" do not have their common meaning. They are not ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฅ๐ด with the common meaning. --
While you're in ยง7701, take a gander at the use of "includes" and "including" in some of the other definitions - but only after you've figured out for certain what is meant by the new ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ด "includes" and "including". Fvckery. --
I'm not a lawyer. Happily. Not that there aren't some well-intentioned lawyers with good hearts (Hi, Mr. Childers ๐). But oh how they have manipulated our language with full intent to manipulate us.
The income tax is actually entirely avoidable, LEGALLY. 'They' don't want you to know this. Some people have figured it out. A minuscule minority. No great hit to the IRS's bottom line. More homework for you. Try this resource: https://losthorizons.com You can read the book (very dense, an exercise, some 250pp+ long) ๐ถ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐ถ๐๐๐: ๐โ๐ ๐น๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ข๐กโ ๐ด๐๐๐ข๐ก ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ก๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ด๐๐๐๐๐๐ for fre*e on the website. An excellent learning experience. --
Man, have I written a book here myself? Going now.
Pause. --
Think for a minute. I invite you to this exercise. Even if you're a lawyer, I'd bet a bunch of this has escaped you. --
The government is taxing your right, indeed the necessity for you to make a living. --
Pause. Think. --
...
Is this something the founders ensured was enshrined as a principle in the Constitution? Remember that a great part of the frustration of the colonists with their sovereign (George III) was the heaping on of taxes - on items like paper for instance, that practically no one alive in those times could do without? The Boston Tea Party (1773) was the colonists' "Hell no!" to the tax on tea. It took three more years before the movement for independence from that crap was formalized in the Declaration. --
Homework: Step 1: Check out Article 1 Sec. 9 ยง 4 of the Constitution. It addresses "Capitation" tax, meaning a "head" tax, or a tax on individuals. This is a form of direct tax; "direct" is also a word used in the ยง. Do we think income tax is a direct tax? A capitation tax? /sarc/ If you don't understand the principle of apportionment you have a little more homework. It's helpful to figure some things out on your own to understand the intent, as any good educator would argue. :) --
Step 2: Check out the 16th Amendment and remember, Article 1 Sec 9 ยง4 was never repealed. --
So... which one rules? --
I highly recommend doing the deep dive. --
The income tax as implemented is unconstitutional. The problem with taking that argument to court is that the creation of the IRS was done by code. Codes and statutes are not "law". The word "law" is ubiquitous, used to reference the law of the land, our Constitution, as well as codes and statutes. The IRS code (U.S. Code Title 26) with its some 4 million words or something is a "legal" ploy. "Legal" refers to codes and statutes. "Lawful" refers to the law of the land. All courts except federal courts are administrative courts, administering adherence to or violations of codes and statutes. Guess which courts arguments about the income tax go to? The Constitution has no relevance in administrative courts. None. --
The income tax as elaborated in U.S.C. Title 26 is not lawful, and is enforced under color of law. --
I can only scratch the surface here of this fvckery that's been foisted on Americans. --
More homework: Go directly to the tax code (U.S.C Title 26. Many sources online). Read ยง7701(c). Right there on the page you will read a definition of "includes" and "including". What? We need a definition of the words "includes" and "including"? What are we, idiots? We don't know what these words mean? Well... can you make sense of the way the definition is worded? This is obfuscation to the finest. Not only have they made it practically undecipherable, but here's the kicker: what they've done is created a new legal ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฎ. When used (as the definition states) in any other definition of yet another new ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฎ (that all look ๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐น๐ like common words) the use of "includes" and "including" do not have their common meaning. They are not ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฅ๐ด with the common meaning. --
While you're in ยง7701, take a gander at the use of "includes" and "including" in some of the other definitions - but only after you've figured out for certain what is meant by the new ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ด "includes" and "including". Fvckery. --
I'm not a lawyer. Happily. Not that there aren't some well-intentioned lawyers with good hearts (Hi, Mr. Childers ๐). But oh how they have manipulated our language with full intent to manipulate us.
The income tax is actually entirely avoidable, LEGALLY. 'They' don't want you to know this. Some people have figured it out. A minuscule minority. No great hit to the IRS's bottom line. More homework for you. Try this resource: https://losthorizons.com You can read the book (very dense, an exercise, some 250pp+ long) ๐ถ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐กโ๐ ๐ถ๐๐๐: ๐โ๐ ๐น๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ข๐กโ ๐ด๐๐๐ข๐ก ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ก๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ด๐๐๐๐๐๐ for fre*e on the website. An excellent learning experience. --
Man, have I written a book here myself? Going now.