Tax AVOIDANCE is lawful and completely honorable. Tax EVASION is illegal.
The payment of taxes is not a moral oblication, and "fair share" is not a legal term. It is used to intimidate and confuse people.
"The legal right of an individual to decrease or ALTOGETHER AVOID his/her taxes by means which the law permits cannot be doubted" Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465
---------- Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 157 US 429 (1895)
This decision states that it is unconstitutional to impose the income tax on the interest and dividends, on the deposits of U.S citizens, in U.S. banks, because that would be a Direct Tax WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT, which is not authorized, and is, in fact, prohibited by the Constitution.
Excerpts from the decision:
"...Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon someone else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes..."
and;
"...Subsequently, in 1869,.... The question arose whether the law which imposes such a tax upon them was constitutional. The opinion of the Attorney General thereon was requested by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Attorney General, in reply, gave an elaborate opinion advising the Secretary of the Treasury that no income tax could be lawfully assessed and collected upon the salaries of those officers who were in office at the time the statute imposing the tax was passed, holding on this subject the views expressed by Chief Justice Taney. His opinion is published in Volume XIII of the Opinioin of the Attorney General, at page 161. I am informed that it has been followed ever since without question by the department supervising or directing the collection of the public revenue..."
and;...A tax upon one's whole income is a tax upon the annual receipts from his whole property, and as such falls witin the same class as a tax upon that property, and is a direct tax, in the meaning of the Constitution....
and;...We have unanimously held in this case that, so far as this law operates on the receipts from municipal bonds , it cannot be sustained, because it is a tax on the powers of the States, and on their instrumentalities to borrow money, and consequently repugnant to the Constitution....it follows that, if the revenue from municipal bonds cannot be taxed because the source cannot be, the same rule applies to revenue from any other source not subject to the tax; and the lack of power to levy any but an apportioned tax on real and personal property equally exists as to the revenue therefrom. Admitting that this act taxes the income of property irrespective of its source, still we cannot doubt that such a tax is necessarily a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution. In England, we do not understand that an income tax has ever been regarded as other than a diect tax. In Dowell's History of Taxation and Taxes in England, given, and an income tax is invariably classified as a direct tax..
and, even in dissent:...that personal property, contracts, obligations, and the like, have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of direct tax. The United States Constitution provides Congress the power to lay and collect taxes directly only as long as it is apportioned with regard to the census or enumeration."
---------- Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US 1 (1916)
The Brushaber decision determined that since the provisions of Article I of the Constitution were not repealed, they are still in full force and effect. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, BOTH specify that Direct taxes MUST BE APPORTIONED (to the state governments for collection). The Court ruled that:
Why are geeks so gullible?
Scientists can't come to agreement that there is "Global Warming" (tm), yet we're all supposed to react and respond? WTF ever happened to intellect?
Eight years ago, I got into an argument with a nonlawyer acquaintance about the Second Amendment. The Amendment, this person fervently announced, clearly protects an individual right. Not so, I argued to him, thinking him to be something of a blowhard and even a bit of a kook.
Three years ago, I discovered, to my surprise and mild chagrin, that this supposed kook was entirely right. In preparing to teach a law school seminar on firearms regulation (one of the only about half a dozen such classes that I know of at U.S. law schools), I found that the historical evidence -- much of which I set forth verbatim in the Appendix -- overwhelmingly points to one and only one conclusion: The Second Amendment does indeed secure an individual right to keep and bear arms.
"The Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by
an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly
obligatory upon all." --George Washington
The Constitution was designed to "create" and "limit" the powers of our central government.
It was designed to be a shield between the free people of this land and their public servants (aka elected representatives).
It is not the purpose of The Constitution to define the rights of "We The People". The first ten ammendments were added despite the protests of many drafters of both The Declaration and The Constitution, in the end it was decided to mention those ten rights specifically so that they could never be violated.
It is not subject to (re)interpretation as our language and the meaning of words becomes more vague.
Perhaps most importantly, It is not the purview of either of the three branches of government created by The Constitution to assign it any meaning other than that clearly intended by the people of that time and age who created it.
Geeez, You're just a frickin symphony of mixed metaphors...
Understand and hear this clearly now, any of you who identify as LIBERAL are SOCIALISTS. Period.
Socialism is a ludicrous and broken ideology.
Many of you reading this have likely been taught precious little if anything about WHO WE ARE as American's and why our system of self-rule has not imploded and turned us completely into serfs.
Neither of these horseshit gangs of career opportunists (thieves, political parties, whatever...) are any good at all for those remaining freedom loving Constitutional Conservatives (or Federalists) who love and defend the basis of our Constitutional Republic.
The more time we spend bitching amongst ourselves about LEFT and RIGHT, the more damage is done to our Constitution and our way of life. Wake up you lazy mother-fuckers and learn!
Knowledge about who we are is the only thing that will keep us free. I reccommend anyone who wants to get a leg up on this, purchase and devour "Original Intent" by David Barton.
I fail to understand the naysayers...
I've used the core (of this) OS on mission-critical x86 hardware since the P133.
I love linux, and am typing this from a linux system, but I would love to run OSX on my x86 hardware...
It's perhaps the only thing that would finally get me to abandon OpenBSD and Linux which I currently use for various different purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
Tax AVOIDANCE is lawful and completely honorable.
.... The question arose whether the law which imposes such a tax upon them was constitutional. The opinion of the Attorney General thereon was requested by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Attorney General, in reply, gave an elaborate opinion advising the Secretary of the Treasury that no income tax could be lawfully assessed and collected upon the salaries of those officers who were in office at the time the statute imposing the tax was passed, holding on this subject the views expressed by Chief Justice Taney. His opinion is published in Volume XIII of the Opinioin of the Attorney General, at page 161. I am informed that it has been followed ever since without question by the department supervising or directing the collection of the public revenue..."
...A tax upon one's whole income is a tax upon the annual receipts from his whole property, and as such falls witin the same class as a tax upon that property, and is a direct tax, in the meaning of the Constitution....
...We have unanimously held in this case that, so far as this law operates on the receipts from municipal bonds , it cannot be sustained, because it is a tax on the powers of the States, and on their instrumentalities to borrow money, and consequently repugnant to the Constitution. ...it follows that, if the revenue from municipal bonds cannot be taxed because the source cannot be, the same rule applies to revenue from any other source not subject to the tax; and the lack of power to levy any but an apportioned tax on real and personal property equally exists as to the revenue therefrom.
...that personal property, contracts, obligations, and the like, have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of direct tax. The United States Constitution provides Congress the power to lay and collect taxes directly only as long as it is apportioned with regard to the census or enumeration."
Tax EVASION is illegal.
The payment of taxes is not a moral oblication, and "fair share" is not a legal term. It is used to intimidate and confuse people.
"The legal right of an individual to decrease or ALTOGETHER AVOID his/her taxes by means which the law permits cannot be doubted" Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465
----------
Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 157 US 429 (1895)
This decision states that it is unconstitutional to impose the income tax on the interest and dividends, on the deposits of U.S citizens, in U.S. banks, because that would be a Direct Tax WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT, which is not authorized, and is, in fact, prohibited by the Constitution.
Excerpts from the decision:
"...Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon someone else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes..."
and;
"...Subsequently, in 1869,
and;
and;
Admitting that this act taxes the income of property irrespective of its source, still we cannot doubt that such a tax is necessarily a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution.
In England, we do not understand that an income tax has ever been regarded as other than a diect tax. In Dowell's History of Taxation and Taxes in England, given, and an income tax is invariably classified as a direct tax..
and, even in dissent:
----------
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US 1 (1916)
The Brushaber decision determined that since the provisions of Article I of the Constitution were not repealed, they are still in full force and effect. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, BOTH specify that Direct taxes MUST BE APPORTIONED (to the state governments for collection). The Court ruled that:
If you live in CA and you haven't already bought at least one, it's almost too late already!
To punish success is the Liberal (socialist) way...
What are they going to do when they finally realize that television is already dead and buried, rendered inert and without value?
Why are geeks so gullible?
Scientists can't come to agreement that there is "Global Warming" (tm), yet we're all supposed to react and respond? WTF ever happened to intellect?
Testimony of Eugene Volokh on the Second Amendment, Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Sept. 23, 1998.
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/beararms/testimon .htm
Eight years ago, I got into an argument with a nonlawyer acquaintance about the Second Amendment. The Amendment, this person fervently announced, clearly protects an individual right. Not so, I argued to him, thinking him to be something of a blowhard and even a bit of a kook.
Three years ago, I discovered, to my surprise and mild chagrin, that this supposed kook was entirely right. In preparing to teach a law school seminar on firearms regulation (one of the only about half a dozen such classes that I know of at U.S. law schools), I found that the historical evidence -- much of which I set forth verbatim in the Appendix -- overwhelmingly points to one and only one conclusion: The Second Amendment does indeed secure an individual right to keep and bear arms.
"The Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all." --George Washington
The Constitution was designed to "create" and "limit" the powers of our central government.
It was designed to be a shield between the free people of this land and their public servants (aka elected representatives).
It is not the purpose of The Constitution to define the rights of "We The People". The first ten ammendments were added despite the protests of many drafters of both The Declaration and The Constitution, in the end it was decided to mention those ten rights specifically so that they could never be violated.
It is not subject to (re)interpretation as our language and the meaning of words becomes more vague.
Perhaps most importantly, It is not the purview of either of the three branches of government created by The Constitution to assign it any meaning other than that clearly intended by the people of that time and age who created it.
Where did you study law bro?
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land!
Defend it or take a hike, Mike....
Understand and hear this clearly now, any of you who identify as LIBERAL are SOCIALISTS. Period.
Socialism is a ludicrous and broken ideology.
Many of you reading this have likely been taught precious little if anything about WHO WE ARE as American's and why our system of self-rule has not imploded and turned us completely into serfs.
Neither of these horseshit gangs of career opportunists (thieves, political parties, whatever...) are any good at all for those remaining freedom loving Constitutional Conservatives (or Federalists) who love and defend the basis of our Constitutional Republic.
The more time we spend bitching amongst ourselves about LEFT and RIGHT, the more damage is done to our Constitution and our way of life. Wake up you lazy mother-fuckers and learn!
Knowledge about who we are is the only thing that will keep us free. I reccommend anyone who wants to get a leg up on this, purchase and devour "Original Intent" by David Barton.
I fail to understand the naysayers... I've used the core (of this) OS on mission-critical x86 hardware since the P133. I love linux, and am typing this from a linux system, but I would love to run OSX on my x86 hardware... It's perhaps the only thing that would finally get me to abandon OpenBSD and Linux which I currently use for various different purposes.
Anyone *that cracked* ought to have first put a piece of hardware between themselves and the outside world.
And why aren't these so-called ISP's recommending them for their customers, doing a bulk purchase or something?
Harumpf!
-Mel Brooks