What law requires you to pay taxes?

[Grok]

I don't know a thing about Canada.

[Hostile]

Feel free to correct me, Grok. As you undoubtedly will but as you sign it upon employment you are signing it to your employer to withhold your money. This is not to say that -you- are obligated to pay income tax but then what if your employer is? Is there a law that requires your company to pay taxes? I believe there is and by signing a withholding form you are more so signing a form to contribute towards your employers corporate taxes...

Now, hopefully you're following me because in that case, you're more or less just signing a form that your employer requires you to sign among employment. You can also correct me if I'm wrong but in which case if having failure to comply with your employer's requirement will then have you just not be able to receive employment....

I'd recommend referencing your group if you don't know the answer because I would also like a reference to where it's stated that a corporation is required to pay taxes (if any, as that would be backup this entire statement.) I hope you can understand now why I would not want to consider the path that lawyers take in life, basing such things off technicalities from one event to the next is far to meticulous for my preference.

[Grok]

I will answer that this evening.  For now, read this letter about one trial in progress.

Witnesses Needed For Lynne Meredith Trial

Lynne is currently battling the IRS & DOJ in her criminal tax trial in southern California.
We are passing along her plea for additional defense witnesses that have
successfully "beaten" various aspects of IRS enforcement actions....
We urge anyone that can attend the trial to do so.
.
From: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 9:50 PM
Subject: Lynne Meredith Urgent Request!

Dear Fellow Freedom Lovers:

As you are probably aware, I am in the middle of an IRS trial in Los
Angeles, California.  Joe A. Izen (who won the Troesher case, the
Dahstrom case, as well as the recent Dixon case proving hundreds of
millions of dollars of fraud by the IRS) is representing me.
He was very expensive to retain but has proved to be well worth it.

The prosecution is just finishing their case and we start our defense, a
week from tomorrow.  It will probably run for two weeks.

We have had GREAT success with the prosecution witnesses and with Joe's
brilliance, turned them into witnesses for us.

The judge has been very fair with us and has given us a tremendous
amount of latitude to present our 'good faith belief'.

We are bringing in the IRS supervisors who signed the, "We agree that
you are not legally required to file a tax return" and the "Pure trust
is a nontaxable organization, with no filing requirements or EIN
requirements"!!!  This will be a first!

I have a VERY big favor to ask some of you who would like to help me
take this opportunity to inflict a huge blow to this IRS tyranny!

I need witnesses who have had SUCCESS in standing up to the IRS.  I.e.
success with trusts, success in removing liens, success in getting back
the "you are not legally required to file letters"  etc., etc.  If you
could find it in your heart to testify, or know anyone, it would be for
just one day and I will pay all flight and hotel expenses to bring you
to Los Angeles.  The dates will be from March 30, 31 through the first
week in April.

WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO GET A FULL ACQUITTAL ON APRIL 15!!!

I know getting on a witness stand can be a little scary but even scarier
is what will happen to America if do not all take a stance against this
tyranny.

I know there are many of you who would love to tell your side of the
story and get questions answered.  THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY!

If you have had success with the IRS and could testify PLEASE e-mail me
at:
[email protected] or [email protected].  You can also phone
me at (562-592-9077 EXT 110 (that extention will ring at my desk.)  I
need to hear from you ASAP!

PLEASE forward this to everyone on your list.

TOGETHER WE CAN TAKE BACK AMERICA!!!  LET'S JOIN TOGETHER AND KICK SOME
VULTURE BUTT WITH THE FIRE OF THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The trial is being held at 312 North Spring - Los Angeles - 2nd Floor,
Crtrm 3, Judge Dean D. Pregerson. 9AM - 5PM, Tuesday - Thur. and 8:15
AM - 2:00 PM Friday.

Love and Liberty!
Lynne Meredith

[Adron]

Well, it seems that your constitution doesn't allow the federal government to collect taxes out of people's income, and so that's another reason to rewrite it. Simple

[Grok]

Actually no.  The taxes that companies pay are way more than adequate to fund this country's needs.  They simply will spend as much as they have, and then some, so extra money or less money does not change anything.

[Adron]

That's possible I suppose. They could perhaps switch to taxing companies based on how much their employees make, that way they'd get the effect they want of taxing depending on how much people make, and yet avoid taxing the people themselves.

[Grok]

That's possible I suppose. They could perhaps switch to taxing companies based on how much their employees make, that way they'd get the effect they want of taxing depending on how much people make, and yet avoid taxing the people themselves.

Interestingly, they're doing the inverse of that already.  By taxing corporate profits, if more wages are paid to employees this reduces profit, and thus taxes.  Lower wages result in higher profits and more taxes.

So you're saying if profits are low due to higher wages, raise taxes!

[Adron]

Interestingly, they're doing the inverse of that already.  By taxing corporate profits, if more wages are paid to employees this reduces profit, and thus taxes.  Lower wages result in higher profits and more taxes.

So you're saying if profits are low due to higher wages, raise taxes!

Not quite - with no personal income tax, a company could simply pay very high wages to its owners, nullifying the profit and completely evading tax. To counter that, you need a tax base that is more dependent on how much money circulates in the company, or even better, how financially strong the company is. How generous wages the company pays to its employees is likely to be a rather good indication of that.

[Grok]

Ah, companies that hire exceptional employees should be taxed higher than companies that hire employees who can do nothing but ruin their business.

I don't see how it could be workable.  Are you are proposing wage scales for certain levels of education, duties, skills, intelligence, productivity of a worker?  Or should companies only hire the crappiest employees for a given position to reduce wages and thus taxes, but with a corresponding reduction in innovation and output?

Your premise is that individuals should pay taxes.  Only if you agree with that do you get into figuring out how to work it through the company.  So if we grant your premise, then we should just have those employees pay income taxes, rather than doing weird calculations at the company level.

[Adron]

No, my premise is that tax should be based on productivity - if there's a single genius producing lots of neat stuff alone that could be taxed perhaps as much as a company with 10 or more hamburger flippers simply because the genius is worth so much more and produces so much more valuable output.

[MyndFyre]

So just as long as you don't fill out the form, you don't owe them anything and can not be charged for tax evasion?

#3 - The 16th amendment's clauses on individual wages were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1939.

Please provide me with a link to this particular ruling.  It seems impossible for the Supreme Court to declare part of the Constitution as unconstitutional.  This is part of the checks-and-balances system; the legislature and States have the final authority to modify the Constitution, and once an Amendment is part of the Constitution, the Supreme Court's only job is to decide whether or not a law is or is not Constitutional.  A part of the Constitution cannot be "unconstitutional," because it is plainly part of the Constitution.

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I see nothing here prohibiting the legislature from taxing anything -- corporate entity or individual -- and I certainly see the grant of authority to the Legislature to levy taxes on any entity or individual with or without any "enumeration."

[Telos]

After not much searching regarding the governments position on this contention I found this page

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106502,00.html

It cites case law as well as explaining exactly why you are required by law to pay taxes I would like to know how givemeliberty contends with that

Its not in URL tags because your forum cant read them correctly

[Grok]

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106502,00.html

Answers to both of your questions are being put together, with references to source material.

[Dark-Feanor]

Have you ever heard of TAX LAWYERS? I come from a family of all lawyers, and we have huge tax lawbooks. You say, that there is no law saying that there can be income taxes? Ever heard of the constitution? Here is the sixteenth amendment, passed in 1913.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

This ammendment was pased, so that a graduated income tax could be used, in order to help the poor.

So, if the constitution says there should be an income tax, then there is. If you are not talking about income taxes, but are talking about other forms of taxis (terrifs, sales tax, w/e):

Section 8 of the rights of congress:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[MyndFyre]

Have you ever heard of TAX LAWYERS? I come from a family of all lawyers, and there are huge lawbooks. You say, that there is no law saying that there can be income taxes?

The existence of such as these does not prove the existence of a law.