| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Tarapia Tapioco" |
| Date: |
30 Oct 2003 04:44:28 PM |
| Object: |
One Simple Question for the IRS |
Is the TITLE 26 Income Tax an
A) INDIRECT; or
B) DIRECT
tax.
If it is INDIRECT, it is avoidable. How is the current Income Tax
avoidable?
If it is DIRECT, it must be apportioned. When was the Income Tax
apportioned?
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: One Simple Question for the IRS |
30 Oct 2003 05:54:26 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 23:44:28 +0100 (CET), Tarapia Tapioco
<comesefosse@ntani.firenze.linux.it> wrote:
Is the TITLE 26 Income Tax an
A) INDIRECT; or
B) DIRECT
tax.
Indirect.
If it is INDIRECT, it is avoidable. How is the current Income Tax
avoidable?
Don't earn any money.
Isn't that easy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: One Simple Question for the IRS |
01 Nov 2003 07:37:17 PM |
|
|
On 31 Oct 2003 11:13:55 -0800, (Anthony) wrote:
agent86@justicemail.com wrote in message news:<n493qvo8ejj2hgnd9son97ib5jo9nlcqa2@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 23:44:28 +0100 (CET), Tarapia Tapioco
<comesefosse@ntani.firenze.linux.it> wrote:
Is the TITLE 26 Income Tax an
A) INDIRECT; or
B) DIRECT
tax.
Indirect.
If it is INDIRECT, it is avoidable. How is the current Income Tax
avoidable?
Don't earn any money.
Isn't that easy?
Unlike gas or cigarettes which you can live without, not earning any
money means you do not eat!
No it doesn't.
There is no way to avoid the income tax and live!
Yes, there is.
Is it a right or a privilege to earn income?
It's a privilege bucko....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale Eastman" |
|
| Title: Re: One Simple Question for the IRS |
02 Nov 2003 12:04:39 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 31 Oct 2003 11:13:55 -0800, (Anthony) wrote:
wrote in message news:<n493qvo8ejj2hgnd9son97ib5jo9nlcqa2@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 23:44:28 +0100 (CET), Tarapia Tapioco
<comesefosse@ntani.firenze.linux.it> wrote:
Is the TITLE 26 Income Tax an
A) INDIRECT; or
B) DIRECT
tax.
Indirect.
If it is INDIRECT, it is avoidable. How is the current Income Tax
avoidable?
Don't earn any money.
Isn't that easy?
Unlike gas or cigarettes which you can live without, not earning any
money means you do not eat!
No it doesn't.
There is no way to avoid the income tax and live!
Yes, there is.
Is it a right or a privilege to earn income?
It's a privilege bucko....
Just like the privilege the Jews living in Hitler's Germany had.
A privilege, by the way, that he rescinded.
--
On May 6, 2003, The IRS pushed their way into the home of Larken Rose
and seized $3,000 worth of the video Theft-By-Deception.
According to Mr. Rose, the IRS has vowed to never give the tapes back.
This is a First Amendment violation.
As of October 24, 2003, the IRS has still not indicted
or charged Larken Rose for the commission of any crime.
If you are within the Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford triangle
and are interested in viewing this video for free, buy yourself
some popcorn & soda, then Contact me by clicking this link:
mailto:dalereastman@sprintmail.com?subject=screenT-B-D
6 questions the IRS won't answer:
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/6Questions.html
All income is taxable right?
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/right.html
Why is the word "hormel" here?
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/misc/spamnot.htm to find out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: One Simple Question for the IRS |
02 Nov 2003 11:44:47 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 06:04:39 GMT, Dale Eastman
<dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote:
Is it a right or a privilege to earn income?
It's a privilege bucko....
Just like the privilege the Jews living in Hitler's Germany had.
A privilege, by the way, that he rescinded.
Say, Dale, when you were a truck driver, could you drive without
joining the Teamsters? For that matter, could you work without a
driver's license? And, I'm sure that you invoked your right to work
for more than 40 hours a week without overtime pay, didn't you?
Do you have the right to work as a "hitman"? or a heroin dealer? or
as a prostitute?
Why are there laws prohibiting and controlling child labor? Isn't it
their right to work if they want to?
And another thing, Dale, is voting a right or a privilege?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale Eastman" |
|
| Title: Re: One Simple Question for the IRS |
02 Nov 2003 01:31:45 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 06:04:39 GMT, Dale Eastman
<dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote:
Is it a right or a privilege to earn income?
It's a privilege bucko....
Just like the privilege the Jews living in Hitler's Germany had.
A privilege, by the way, that he rescinded.
Say, Dale, when you were a truck driver, could you drive without
joining the Teamsters?
Answer to non sequitur, yes.
For that matter, could you work without a
driver's license?
No. And neither can most U.S. citiizens.
The average length of a commute trip increased by 26% from 8.5 miles in
1983 to 10.7 miles in 1990 while the commute time increased by a
substantially lower rate of 10% during the same period.
<http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:NJs09udT0dQJ:www-cta.ornl.gov/npts/1990/fat/tab6_11.pdf+%22average+commute%22+distance&hl=en&ie=UTF-8>
And, I'm sure that you invoked your right to work
for more than 40 hours a week without overtime pay, didn't you?
Truck drivers are one group of employees exempt from the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Do you have the right to work as a "hitman"? or a heroin dealer? or
as a prostitute?
Non sequitur that doesn't even rate a reply.
Why are there laws prohibiting and controlling child labor?
Why are there laws attempting to keep children is school until the age
of at least 18? I heard a rumor it had something to do with the
competition with the labor unions.
Isn't it their right to work if they want to?
Yep. And I did work as a child.
And another thing, Dale, is voting a right or a privilege?
Non sequitur. Voting is a charade. Which crook do you want in office to
profit by peddling influence.
The President of the United States earns $400,000 a year.
http://www.govspot.com/know/presidentsalary.htm
In 1996 the presidential campaigns of Democrat Bill Clinton and
Republican Robert Dole spent a combined total of over $230 million,
nearly half on television advertisements. In addition, the Republican
and Democratic parties spent a combined total of over $30 million on
advertisements backing their candidates.
<http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761571294/President_of_the_United_States.html>
$260 million spent vying for a job that only pays $1.6 million in the 4
years of it's term.
--
On May 6, 2003, The IRS pushed their way into the home of Larken Rose
and seized $3,000 worth of the video Theft-By-Deception.
According to Mr. Rose, the IRS has vowed to never give the tapes back.
This is a First Amendment violation.
As of October 24, 2003, the IRS has still not indicted
or charged Larken Rose for the commission of any crime.
If you are within the Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford triangle
and are interested in viewing this video for free, buy yourself
some popcorn & soda, then Contact me by clicking this link:
mailto:dalereastman@sprintmail.com?subject=screenT-B-D
6 questions the IRS won't answer:
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/6Questions.html
All income is taxable right?
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/right.html
Why is the word "hormel" here?
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/misc/spamnot.htm to find out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: One Simple Question for the IRS |
02 Nov 2003 04:22:48 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 19:31:45 GMT, Dale Eastman
<dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote:
Say, Dale, when you were a truck driver, could you drive without
joining the Teamsters?
Answer to non sequitur, yes.
OK, what about those people who don't live in "right to work" states
and have to join a union in order to be employed? Isn't that an
infringement, enforced by the government, on their "right to work"?
For that matter, could you work without a
driver's license?
No. And neither can most U.S. citiizens.
Isn't that infringing on one's right to work?
<snip whatever it was that Dale inserted that had nothing to do with
the discussion>
And, I'm sure that you invoked your right to work
for more than 40 hours a week without overtime pay, didn't you?
Truck drivers are one group of employees exempt from the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
OK, what about everyone else? By limiting the workweek to 40 hours,
isn't the government infringing on their right to work?
Do you have the right to work as a "hitman"? or a heroin dealer? or
as a prostitute?
Non sequitur that doesn't even rate a reply.
You've made the claim that there is a "right to work". Can't one
choose a profession? Or can they only work in government approved
endeavors? Isn't this an infringement on their "right to work"?
Why are there laws prohibiting and controlling child labor?
Why are there laws attempting to keep children is school until the age
of at least 18?
Why didn't you answer the question, Dale?
I heard a rumor it had something to do with the
competition with the labor unions.
An informed populace is necessary for good government. It obviously
missed in your case. BTW, what would it have to do with competition
with labor unions? McDonalds isn't unionized to the best of my
knowledge. Most union trade schools welcome young people.
Isn't it their right to work if they want to?
Yep. And I did work as a child.
But only according to the law. Isn't that an infringement on their
"right to work?
And another thing, Dale, is voting a right or a privilege?
Non sequitur.
You do have trouble's with questions, don't you, Dale?
<snip the rest of Dale's babble>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tarapia Tapioco" |
|
| Title: Re: One Simple Question for the IRS |
31 Oct 2003 09:57:52 AM |
|
|
agent86 (Mad Max - the IRS thug) spews:
Is the TITLE 26 Income Tax an
A) INDIRECT; or
B) DIRECT
tax.
Indirect.
Hey, you got one right! Good for you!
If it is INDIRECT, it is avoidable. How is the current Income Tax
avoidable?
Don't earn any money.
Isn't that easy?
So, you're saying that "we the people" don't have the right to earn
a living?
Cite please!
[chuckle]
(Their lies have become so absurd that it is just sad.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul A. Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: One Simple Question for the IRS |
31 Oct 2003 10:20:52 AM |
|
|
"Tarapia Tapioco" <comesefosse@ntani.firenze.linux.it> wrote
So, you're saying that "we the people" don't have the right to earn
a living?
There isn't a Constitutional right to "earn a living". At least I don't see
those words there.
Define "earn a living". The tax is on the receipt of income. You can
receive income, owe tax, and never "earn a living".
--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, GA
-------------------
The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dale Eastman" |
|
| Title: Re: One Simple Question for the IRS |
02 Nov 2003 12:19:33 PM |
|
|
wrote:
BTW, where does it say that anyone has a "right" to earn a living?
BTW, where does it say that anyone has a "right" to breathe air?
--
On May 6, 2003, The IRS pushed their way into the home of Larken Rose
and seized $3,000 worth of the video Theft-By-Deception.
According to Mr. Rose, the IRS has vowed to never give the tapes back.
This is a First Amendment violation.
As of October 24, 2003, the IRS has still not indicted
or charged Larken Rose for the commission of any crime.
If you are within the Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford triangle
and are interested in viewing this video for free, buy yourself
some popcorn & soda, then Contact me by clicking this link:
mailto:dalereastman@sprintmail.com?subject=screenT-B-D
6 questions the IRS won't answer:
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/6Questions.html
All income is taxable right?
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/right.html
Why is the word "hormel" here?
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/misc/spamnot.htm to find out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: One Simple Question for the IRS |
02 Nov 2003 04:23:25 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 18:19:33 GMT, Dale Eastman
<dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote:
agent86@justicemail.com wrote:
BTW, where does it say that anyone has a "right" to earn a living?
BTW, where does it say that anyone has a "right" to breathe air?
So is breathing a right, Dale?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: One Simple Question for the IRS |
01 Nov 2003 07:47:15 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:45:12 GMT, Dale Eastman
<dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
See how simple it is?
BTW, where does it say that anyone has a "right" to earn a living?
And your view of the world has the government protecting the individuals
RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness how.
Emphasis is on the RIGHT TO LIFE.
Plot of land. Ha Ha Ha.
US. land mass: 3,618,770 square miles including Alaska and Hawaii.
Actually, according to the CIA factbook:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
land: 9,158,960 sq km
According to http://www.knipeland.com/land_use_&_land_loss.htm
The total land area of the United States is 3,540,558 square miles.
(For the current U.S. population, that is about 76 persons per square
mile of land area.)
Population 2000 census: 281,421,906
Projections for 2010: 340,000,000 to 380,000,000
Average # of people per square mile: 77.8
Projected Average # of people per square mile: 94 to 105 respectively.
But then why are you changing the subject?
You are clueless as to what's happening elsewhere.
And how do you know that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale Eastman" |
|
| Title: Re: One Simple Question for the IRS |
02 Nov 2003 12:08:19 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:45:12 GMT, Dale Eastman
<dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
See how simple it is?
BTW, where does it say that anyone has a "right" to earn a living?
And your view of the world has the government protecting the individuals
RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness how.
Emphasis is on the RIGHT TO LIFE.
Plot of land. Ha Ha Ha.
US. land mass: 3,618,770 square miles including Alaska and Hawaii.
Actually, according to the CIA factbook:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
land: 9,158,960 sq km
According to http://www.knipeland.com/land_use_&_land_loss.htm
The total land area of the United States is 3,540,558 square miles.
(For the current U.S. population, that is about 76 persons per square
mile of land area.)
Population 2000 census: 281,421,906
Projections for 2010: 340,000,000 to 380,000,000
Average # of people per square mile: 77.8
Projected Average # of people per square mile: 94 to 105 respectively.
But then why are you changing the subject?
You are clueless as to what's happening elsewhere.
And how do you know that?
Your comment about plots of land.
Your subject --> Plots of land.
I'm not changing your subject, I'm commenting on it.
Been reading your posts for better'n 6 months.
Just like I read the front page on the star or the enquirer just because
that trash is there when I'm at the checkout line. It's good for a few
chuckles.
--
On May 6, 2003, The IRS pushed their way into the home of Larken Rose
and seized $3,000 worth of the video Theft-By-Deception.
According to Mr. Rose, the IRS has vowed to never give the tapes back.
This is a First Amendment violation.
As of October 24, 2003, the IRS has still not indicted
or charged Larken Rose for the commission of any crime.
If you are within the Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford triangle
and are interested in viewing this video for free, buy yourself
some popcorn & soda, then Contact me by clicking this link:
mailto:dalereastman@sprintmail.com?subject=screenT-B-D
6 questions the IRS won't answer:
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/6Questions.html
All income is taxable right?
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/right.html
Why is the word "hormel" here?
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/misc/spamnot.htm to find out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: One Simple Question for the IRS |
02 Nov 2003 11:31:55 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 06:08:19 GMT, Dale Eastman
<dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote:
Your comment about plots of land.
Your subject --> Plots of land.
I'm not changing your subject, I'm commenting on it.
Then why don't you comment on the actual subject instead of wandering
off into never never land? Do you deny that one can avoid earning
income by living off the land?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale Eastman" |
|
| Title: Re: One Simple Question for the IRS |
02 Nov 2003 01:08:34 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 06:08:19 GMT, Dale Eastman
<dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote:
Your comment about plots of land.
Your subject --> Plots of land.
I'm not changing your subject, I'm commenting on it.
Then why don't you comment on the actual subject instead of wandering
off into never never land? Do you deny that one can avoid earning
income by living off the land?
Do you deny that there is not really enough land to go around?
Do you deny that without the nitrogen based fertilizers, crop yields
will drop from about 120 bushels per acre to 40 bushels per acre?
Do you deny that your proposal is unrealistic?
Do you deny that you still illegally misapply the income tax while
working at your job?
--
On May 6, 2003, The IRS pushed their way into the home of Larken Rose
and seized $3,000 worth of the video Theft-By-Deception.
According to Mr. Rose, the IRS has vowed to never give the tapes back.
This is a First Amendment violation.
As of October 24, 2003, the IRS has still not indicted
or charged Larken Rose for the commission of any crime.
If you are within the Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford triangle
and are interested in viewing this video for free, buy yourself
some popcorn & soda, then Contact me by clicking this link:
mailto:dalereastman@sprintmail.com?subject=screenT-B-D
6 questions the IRS won't answer:
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/6Questions.html
All income is taxable right?
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/right.html
Why is the word "hormel" here?
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/misc/spamnot.htm to find out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: One Simple Question for the IRS |
02 Nov 2003 04:27:12 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 19:08:34 GMT, Dale Eastman
<dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote:
agent86@justicemail.com wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 06:08:19 GMT, Dale Eastman
<dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote:
Your comment about plots of land.
Your subject --> Plots of land.
I'm not changing your subject, I'm commenting on it.
Then why don't you comment on the actual subject instead of wandering
off into never never land? Do you deny that one can avoid earning
income by living off the land?
Do you deny that there is not really enough land to go around?
That wasn't the question, Dale. Why did you change the subject?
Do you deny that without the nitrogen based fertilizers, crop yields
will drop from about 120 bushels per acre to 40 bushels per acre?
That has nothing to do with the discussion, Dale. Why did you change
the subject?
Do you deny that your proposal is unrealistic?
What proposal did I make, Dale? The question was how do you avoid
income taxes and still live. One can do that. Now why did you change
the subject? Perhaps because it's true that there are legal ways that
one can avoid income taxes? Other than the idiotic ways that you
propose, that is.
Do you deny that you still illegally misapply the income tax while
working at your job?
My job has nothing to do with applying the income tax, Dale. Have you
stopped beating your wife?
Do you have a job? Other than posting to Usenet, that is?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale Eastman" |
|
| Title: Re: One Simple Question for the IRS |
02 Nov 2003 05:08:36 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Your comment about plots of land.
Your subject --> Plots of land.
I'm not changing your subject, I'm commenting on it.
Then why don't you comment on the actual subject instead of wandering
off into never never land? Do you deny that one can avoid earning
income by living off the land?
Do you deny that there is not really enough land to go around?
That wasn't the question, Dale. Why did you change the subject?
To show the ignorance of your statement in context of world and US
population figures. Btw, I didn't change the plot of land subject you
opened the door to.
Do you deny that without the nitrogen based fertilizers, crop yields
will drop from about 120 bushels per acre to 40 bushels per acre?
That has nothing to do with the discussion, Dale. Why did you change
the subject?
To show the ignorance of your statement in context of actual crop
yields. If 100 million citizens followed your suggestion it would lead
to mass starvation without the trade required to purchase the anhydrous
ammonia required to pump nitrogen into the dirt to maintain the 120
bushels per acre yields. Btw, those yields are declining anyway.
Do you deny that your proposal is unrealistic?
What proposal did I make, Dale? The question was how do you avoid
income taxes and still live. One can do that.
By proposing "If you want to avoid paying income taxes, get yourself a
plot of ground somewhere and grow your own food and supply yourself with
all the necessities that you need from your land, something like our
rural ancestors did."
From:
Newsgroups: us.taxes,misc.taxes,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa
Subject: Re: One Simple Question for the IRS
Message-ID: <6l35qv8cav1u8g31es9f8l8gbol3n6robh@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:36:17 EST
Now why did you change the subject?
I didn't.
Oh my apologies for frivolously commenting on your comments with items
of tangental knowledge that DO APPLY to the subject YOU introduced.
Perhaps because it's true that there are legal ways that
one can avoid income taxes? Other than the idiotic ways that you
propose, that is.
This Lawyer went on the air of KCXL. He doesn't agree with you.
http://www.discoveryarchives.com/larken/larken16.ram
October 31, 2001 air date.
Do you deny that you still illegally misapply the income tax while
working at your job?
My job has nothing to do with applying the income tax, Dale.
So you assert.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Have you stopped imitating Paul Reubens a.k.a. Pee Wee Herman in Florida
movie theaters?
Do you have a job? Other than posting to Usenet, that is?
What's it to you?
"Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was
neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was
not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was
no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemoeller
Seems to bother you when I speak out.
But then, that's not surprising considering you are on the side that had
no problem with the 1st and 4th amendment violations of the rights of
Mr. Rose.
--
On May 6, 2003, The IRS pushed their way into the home of Larken Rose
and seized $3,000 worth of the video Theft-By-Deception.
According to Mr. Rose, the IRS has vowed to never give the tapes back.
This is a First Amendment violation.
As of October 24, 2003, the IRS has still not indicted
or charged Larken Rose for the commission of any crime.
If you are within the Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford triangle
and are interested in viewing this video for free, buy yourself
some popcorn & soda, then Contact me by clicking this link:
mailto:dalereastman@sprintmail.com?subject=screenT-B-D
6 questions the IRS won't answer:
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/6Questions.html
All income is taxable right?
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/right.html
Why is the word "hormel" here?
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/misc/spamnot.htm to find out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: One Simple Question for the IRS |
02 Nov 2003 06:16:59 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 23:08:36 GMT, Dale Eastman
<dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
That wasn't the question, Dale. Why did you change the subject?
To show the ignorance of your statement in context of world and US
population figures.
Which has nothing to do with whether taxes are avoidable by
individuals in the United States.
Btw, I didn't change the plot of land subject you
opened the door to.
That wasn't a subject of the discussion, Dale.
Do you deny that without the nitrogen based fertilizers, crop yields
will drop from about 120 bushels per acre to 40 bushels per acre?
That has nothing to do with the discussion, Dale. Why did you change
the subject?
To show the ignorance of your statement in context of actual crop
yields. If 100 million citizens followed your suggestion it would lead
to mass starvation without the trade required to purchase the anhydrous
ammonia required to pump nitrogen into the dirt to maintain the 120
bushels per acre yields. Btw, those yields are declining anyway.
Who said 100 million citizens would "follow my suggestions"? I made
no suggestions, Dale, I merely stated how an individual could avoid
paying income taxes and still provide food and sustenance. That was
the question after all.
Do you deny that your proposal is unrealistic?
What proposal did I make, Dale? The question was how do you avoid
income taxes and still live. One can do that.
By proposing "If you want to avoid paying income taxes, get yourself a
plot of ground somewhere and grow your own food and supply yourself with
all the necessities that you need from your land, something like our
rural ancestors did."
That wasn't a proposal, Dale. It was an answer to a specific
question.
Oh my apologies for frivolously commenting on your comments with items
of tangental knowledge that DO APPLY to the subject YOU introduced.
You're right, it was quite tangential and had nothing to do with the
discussion.
Perhaps because it's true that there are legal ways that
one can avoid income taxes? Other than the idiotic ways that you
propose, that is.
This Lawyer went on the air of KCXL. He doesn't agree with you.
And what exactly makes him right? Not that I even know what he said.
Do you deny that you still illegally misapply the income tax while
working at your job?
My job has nothing to do with applying the income tax, Dale.
So you assert.
Prove that it does, Dale.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Have you stopped imitating Paul Reubens a.k.a. Pee Wee Herman in Florida
movie theaters?
Run out of responses, Dale? Aren't you one of the ones who complains
when people resort to lame attempted insults?
Do you have a job? Other than posting to Usenet, that is?
What's it to you?
Nothing actually, Dale. But then it might explain why you aren't
worried about paying income taxes.
Seems to bother you when I speak out.
Really? Does that make you feel important, Dale? Does posting to
Usenet give meaning to your mediocre existence? You're but a flea on
the butt of a dog to anyone of significance.
But then, that's not surprising considering you are on the side that had
no problem with the 1st and 4th amendment violations of the rights of
Mr. Rose.
As you've been told many times, Rosie has recouse if he thinks his
rights have been violated. He apparently hasn't exercised them as
yet. If they were so terrible, one has to wonder why.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul" |
|
| Title: Re: One Simple Question for the IRS |
02 Nov 2003 06:47:21 AM |
|
|
<dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote:
And your view of the world has the government protecting the individuals
RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness how.
Emphasis is on the RIGHT TO LIFE.
Plot of land. Ha Ha Ha.
The income tax doesn't tax your land. Nor does it tax the fruit of your
land that you use personally. Nor does the income tax apply just because
you live, or because you give life. In fact, there are provisions in the
income tax that give a tax break because you live, and because you give life
(it's called the personal exemption). Have enough kids, and you'll never
owe any income tax.
--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
taxman at negia.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dale Eastman" |
|
| Title: Re: One Simple Question for the IRS |
02 Nov 2003 12:16:44 PM |
|
|
Paul wrote:
<dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote:
And your view of the world has the government protecting the individuals
RIGHT to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness how.
Emphasis is on the RIGHT TO LIFE.
Plot of land. Ha Ha Ha.
The income tax doesn't tax your land. Nor does it tax the fruit of your
land that you use personally. Nor does the income tax apply just because
you live, or because you give life. In fact, there are provisions in the
income tax that give a tax break because you live, and because you give life
(it's called the personal exemption). Have enough kids, and you'll never
owe any income tax.
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/utope/utope.html
--
On May 6, 2003, The IRS pushed their way into the home of Larken Rose
and seized $3,000 worth of the video Theft-By-Deception.
According to Mr. Rose, the IRS has vowed to never give the tapes back.
This is a First Amendment violation.
As of October 24, 2003, the IRS has still not indicted
or charged Larken Rose for the commission of any crime.
If you are within the Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford triangle
and are interested in viewing this video for free, buy yourself
some popcorn & soda, then Contact me by clicking this link:
mailto:dalereastman@sprintmail.com?subject=screenT-B-D
6 questions the IRS won't answer:
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/6Questions.html
All income is taxable right?
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/right.html
Why is the word "hormel" here?
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/misc/spamnot.htm to find out.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tarapia Tapioco" |
|
| Title: Re: One Simple Question for the IRS |
31 Oct 2003 09:12:05 AM |
|
|
PaulMaf (Another IRS goon) spews:
Is the TITLE 26 Income Tax an
A) INDIRECT; or
B) DIRECT
tax.
It is an indirect tax. But even if it were not, the distinction is immaterail
as applied to the income tax.
Cite please!
http://www.google.com/search?q=findlaw+brushaber
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
"And the far-reaching effect of this ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION will be made
clear by generalizing the many contentions.."
If it is INDIRECT, it is avoidable. How is the current Income Tax
avoidable?>
Avoidability IS NOT a distinguishing characteristic of an indirect tax.
Cite please!
http://www.google.com/search?q=indirect+tax+avoidable+avoidability
If it is DIRECT, it must be apportioned. When was the Income Tax
apportioned?>
The XVI Amendment REMOVES THE REQUIREMENT OF APPORTIONMENT from income taxes.
Cite please!
http://www.google.com/search?q=findlaw+brushaber
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
"And the far-reaching effect of this ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION will be made
clear by generalizing the many contentions.."
You are are moron!
[chuckle]
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
