What Do You Think Of This Vid About Taxes?

[Jimmy James]

Watch this, and let's discuss.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=freedom+fascism

[ChexNFX]

Little long for right now. Don't have the time for 2 hours tonight, maybe tomorrow.

[Xhad]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this still unmentioned 23 minutes into this documentary? I don't know, because that's way too long for them to get around to something that obvious. I have better things to do than listen to the rest of this.

[Pog0]

[ QUOTE ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this still unmentioned 23 minutes into this documentary? I don't know, because that's way too long for them to get around to something that obvious. I have better things to do than listen to the rest of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

They talk about the 16th amendment a lot, and I'm only 40 minutes in.

It doesn't sound like this applies to poker though, because the 'illegal tax' they talk about applies to taxing 'labor and wages' while it's legal to tax 'profits and gains'

Making money from poker sounds like it falls into the second category.

Very interesting video though... how about other countries?

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
They talk about the 16th amendment a lot, and I'm only 40 minutes in.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Only" 40 minutes? Wouldn't that be like making a documentary against evolution and taking "only" 40 minutes to talk about survival of the fittest or inheritance of genetic traits?

The only reason I know of to delay something that obvious for that long is because: A: They're inept, in which case I have to wonder what else they're excluding, or B: Their case is flimsy and they have to wait that long to get to the meat of their argument because your more likely to have let your guard down if you had any skepticism. Either way I've been hearing this argument for years and was never able to see it presented convincingly.

[Pog0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They talk about the 16th amendment a lot, and I'm only 40 minutes in.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Only" 40 minutes? Wouldn't that be like making a documentary against evolution and taking "only" 40 minutes to talk about survival of the fittest or inheritance of genetic traits?

The only reason I know of to delay something that obvious for that long is because: A: They're inept, in which case I have to wonder what else they're excluding, or B: Their case is flimsy and they have to wait that long to get to the meat of their argument because your more likely to have let your guard down if you had any skepticism. Either way I've been hearing this argument for years and was never able to see it presented convincingly.

[/ QUOTE ]

The onus is not on them to prove that the IRS has no right to take your money. But we've just grown so accustomed to doing what we're told that we haven't stopped to question it. Ask the government to cite a law stating that we are required to pay income taxes, and they come up empty handed.

You must have misunderstood my only 40 minutes comment. I responded to your comment while watching the documentary and I was at the 40 minute mark. They definitely weren't avoiding the 16th amendment.

Also, only the first half of the film is about income taxes. It goes into much more frightening issues as it progresses.

I was about to go to bed and then I happened to click on this link. I've been captivated ever since and I'm not even American.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
The onus is not on them to prove that the IRS has no right to take your money.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's them vs. the government, no it isn't. If it's them trying to pull me over to their way of thinking, yes, it is. I'm not trying to fine them for tax evasion, but I am trying to say "Tax protestors have been around for about half a century, so you'd better start addressing the obvious arguments before I decide you're no more credible than the others and turn you off."

[ QUOTE ]

You must have misunderstood my only 40 minutes comment. I responded to your comment while watching the documentary and I was at the 40 minute mark.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I understood your point that eventually they start getting to actual arguments. My point was that the first 23ish minutes was nothing but fluff and hadn't even begun to address the most obvious arguments; again, if you're going to come out and say that something generally accepted as truth isn't true, you're going to have to get to the point. Conspiracy theories, including specifically tax protesters, pop up so often that I need a good reason to treat this one with any more credibility than his predecessors.

[Russ Fox]

I don't have time to watch a video put on by tax protestors. I suggest that anyone who wants to believe such snake oil salesmen first look at the Tax Protestor FAQ. (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html) Find the argument they bring up and you'll see the legal response.

The US Tax System is unfair towards gamblers, but it's the law.

-- Russ Fox (EA)

[I_C_ALL]

We The People was an organization long ago (10-15 years ago) that went around the country preaching this...

Their arguements were many and sounded great at the time....
One of their arguements is that "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect tax" and the IRS was not Congress. They also argued on how the value of money (cost to produce minus "stated" value of money) was supposed to be profits for the people, and instead is profit for a number of foreign banks. They claimed the Federal Reserve was actually owned/controlled by a number of foreign banks.

Like I said, made for interesting reading and appeals to the conspiracy theorist in all of us.

Haha... Just googled the name of the book. Talk about bringing back memories. For all you conspiracy theorist. 15+ years and still going strong...
http://www.livetaxfree.com/howto.htm

[Poker Shaman]

Perhaps Wesley Snipes (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/17/wesleysnipes.indicted.ap/index.html) could enlighten us on this issue?

--Poker Shaman

[SlapPappy]

That's some crazy [censored] man. Thanks for the post Jimmy.

[NapoleonDolemite]

Did Wesley Snipes send you this?

[briton]

I watched the whole thing and think everyone should.

Thanx for the post

[jlkrusty]

I watched the whole 2 hour video. The video's presentation on the legality of the income tax is highly misleading and much is taken out of contest. Nevertheless, I do agree that the income tax system is unfair and burdensome. Also, the video does have some other interesting stuff in it (on topics outside of the income tax).

The video takes court statements out of context: one court said that the 16th amendment did not give Congress new power's to tax income. That's a bit misleading because the court believed Congress always had the right to tax income--therefore no new power was given. What the court believed was that 16th amendment removed the burdensome obstacles of apportioning tax depending on whether it was a direct or indirect tax.

The video also suggests that since 1913, the Supreme Court has never stated that income tax was constitutional. However, pursuant to Tax Protester FAQ (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#repeal) the Supreme Court has held it constitutional:

As recently as 1991, the Supreme Court referred to arguments that the federal income tax was unconstitutional as "surely frivolous." Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991).

Anyhow, if you want the other side of the story, you should read the Tax Protester FAQ (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#repeal) site.

That all said, I strongly believe the income tax code is unfair, burdensome, and wasteful. We should try to get it changed, simplified, or abolished altogether. I have often argued in favor of abolishing the income tax, and instituting a national sales tax. However, our current politicians will never get there. If anything, our politicians will only make the tax code more complicated and burdensome.

Politicians from both parties are fostering beauracracy. We need some real change and need politicians who think outside the box. Most of those politicians are hard to get elected. If America would wake up, we'd start electing independent politicians (e.g. libertarians or other independents), or those few Republican or Democrat politicians that fight for serious change. The main two parties would start to realize that Americans are tired of the rhetoric, and would hopefully start to listen to the American people.

For this to happen, however, America must wake up! We must stop living in apathy! We must stop settling for as things are. We must stop voting for our team (Republican vs. Democrat) and start voting for persons who will actually try to put an end to the suffocating beauracracy.