| |
To all the various Columnists, TV, and Radio personalities that frequently decry the new taxes to be levied, or the tax reductions to be reversed by the current Administration, please understand that there is a fundamental error in your arguments. While you deplore the end of recent tax cuts and warn of future increases, leading to a horrendous national debt, you are "assuming the legality and legitimacy" of these tax impositions. That is a fundamental error.If I could make a point as well as do all of you, I would explain most importantly about the Constitution. Many of us have read it, and a few even carry a copy, but fewer still, understand it, as the words must be understood in context, and that context is not a part of the document. For example, the Constitution instructs the Congress that: "No Capitation or direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or enumeration as herein before ordered to be taken." ---- Definition: A capitation is a fee or payment of a uniform amount charged to each person. The Federal Income Tax is a direct tax and does not conform to the Constitutional requirement for proportionality. It is therefore, NOT Constitutionally legal. This creates a funny paradox.
For example, if the Congress were to legally levy a direct tax it must necessarily be the same amount whether paid by a millionaire, pauper, or common laborer. Obviously, there would seem to be some gross unfairness about such a tax. The wealthy man being able to pay without noticing, while the laborer might give up a half-year's wages to meet the same obligation, not to mention a poor man who would never meet his obligation though in virtual slavery to his debt.
Considering this unpleasant possibility, the People have allowed the Congress to pass a more seemingly fair tax that is graduated, that is it is, proportional to the earnings of the taxpayer but not to the population as required. Such a proposal meets with much less resistance, even while ignoring the fact that the so-called Income Tax is unconstitutional --- that it does not meet the requirement of uniformity. So what? Sock it to the Rich! --- Why do otherwise? --- Wouldn't the alternative be much worse?Well maybe not. When we reconsider the history, we realize that the only way the Direct Tax could legally have been levied was for the Executive Branch to instruct the House of Representatives as to the amount of its budgetary needs and the House with concurrence from the Senate and a sign-off by the President, pass a Tax, an obligation on the part of each State to raise and provide to the Federal Government an amount from each State which would be proportional to the population of that State. --- Thus NO State would be carrying an "unfair" tax burden.
How that money would be raised within any State, is a matter for the State's legislature and its own People to decide. Sounds fair doesn't it? Also legal. If the correct procedure were to be followed, can you imagine the wild debate that would ensue ---- if each State legislature chose to challenge the amount demanded by the Federal government? Well, that, friends, is how the Republic and the System of Checks and Balances, was intended to work. You do have a voice!
We should not forget that the Congress also had numerous means of raising revenue thru "indirect" taxes. The Constitution simply limited the power of the Federal government to directly take the people's money without their informed consent. Whether to pay any indirect tax is a matter of personal discretion. If I don't use the phone, buy gasoline, or hundreds of choices, I can limit what I give to the Federal Government. The illegal Federal Income Tax represents roughly 40% of Federal revenue. The other 60% is more than enough.
Today, the IRS, a non-governmental agency, runs the biggest scam in the history of any nation, -- by distorting the truth, -- by ignoring the Constitution and -- by ignoring the various Supreme Court findings that the Federal Income Tax can only be "voluntary," that is to say, -- by ignoring that payment or non-payment is optional, -- by ignoring requests for clarification under the FOIA, and -- by intimidating people into parting with roughly a trillion dollars of their money each year, for a spendthrift Congress to use in perpetuating itself in a luxury of perquisites. You can do something about it.
>>> Exercise your right to Not volunteer. <<<
The IRS receives third party notices (W2s, 1099s) declaring that you have received taxable income. The IRS assumes that you have volunteered and acquiesced in the payment of this tax. If you would rather not pay this tax, it is necessary to declare, that you wish to exercise your option to not volunteer to pay the tax.
The simplest way is to prepare a Form 1040 reporting that you have "zero taxable income" on each line item and adding a codicil, a note to the effect that you are exercising your option to Not Volunteer, and therefor have no taxable income as defined in the Constitution and the Supreme Court decisions. You may wish to reinforce this statement by quoting the referenced laws.
The IRS may send you a bill for the amount they have "assumed" that you owe. Always respond to such notices, because a failure to respond will be assumed by a tax court to be evidence of your failure to comply. Your response should of course, reiterate your legal position on the matter. Sooner or later the IRS is obliged to respect the law and your rights.
|
