o.O

Apparently asshattery abounds.

I wonder if the feds will find any angry civies in the woods as well. Gotta love what happens when you don't pay something that you don't legally have to pay, eh? Government sponsored terror for the win!

This is all because this guy is refusing to pay income tax? Good for him I wish him luck

I also wish him luck

Could be worse. If you don't pay a branch of Treasury $200 and cut down a small piece of wood or metal on the wrong common item, that branch of treasury will show up, knock your house over, kill you and your entire family. They'll also stomp your kitten and burn the rubble of what was once your home.

To make an example.

infowars.com = instant red flag... these people believe Bush masterminded the 9/11 attacks, and that there were no jet airliners involved.
not to mention the story itself is more than a little flaky... That's not how the law, PD, Government or the FBI work, at all.

these people believe Bush masterminded the 9/11 attacks, and that there were no jet airliners involved.
I believe you're confusing Alex Jones and the Watson Brothers with Jim Fetzer and some of the other Scholars for 9/11 Truth. As far as Alex and the boys are concerned, Bush had little to nothing to do the the panning or implementing of the attacks. He was/is an idiot puppet at best. And there were most definitely airplanes involved. The question is just to what degree (i.e. The Pentagon). Anyway, the bulk of Infowars' stuff are mirrors of mainstream media articles. If you have a problem with this information, you should take it up with the people that actually wrote the articles, like Associated Press.

That's not how the law, PD, Government or the FBI work, at all.
You are familiar with the concept of Moles and Compartmentalization, no? You only need a handful of people in key positions to make things happen. That, along with a "need-to-know" basis, and you can pull off some pretty crazy stuff.

Let me put it this way....

I have spent literally thousands of hours researching the facts, history and physics of the 9/11 incident and others, positively refuted hundreds of conspiracy theories, debated, argued and boxed with CTs ad-nauseam... and for all that, I realized that XKCD put it better than I ever had. http://xkcd.com/c258.html

As for the OP, I can garuntee it's a pack of lies. If it's an IT issue, they'd have outsourced to a collection agency. If they resisted and/or assaulted a collector, they would be arrested, and if they still resisted, they'd send in SWAT and the whole thing would be over in time for the six-o-clock news. LE is not afraid of some anarchist hick with a gun.

I wonder. I don't believe that Bush "masterminded" the 9/11 incident. He can't mastermind his way out of a brown bag. But I would be willing to believe that his administration had the evidence and refused to act on it.

I have no idea why he'd do this beyond that line from V for Vendetta about reminding everyone why we need them. Them being the fascist government.

I may be paranoid, but we aren't that far away from that in this country now.

Though I'd like to have more faith in our authorities than that. You know?

Except they also believe that the authorities are going to come in and kill them all. I don't really want to believe that would be a goal of any organized law inforcement agency, but after what happened at Waco.

Everyone's too jumpy.

They want to see the law that says they have to pay income taxes?
Well here it is, the Sixteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixtee.....s_Constitution
The Browns are either nut jobs or just attentions whores.

The film 'Freedom to Fascism' says that the 16th was not ratified legally. This is a moot point as the US has always had the right to collect taxes.

All arguments that claim taxes are unconstitutional are misinformed at best.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_ca.....endment_rights
Some claim that paying taxes violates freedom of religion. Under that assumption all laws violate said freedom. The 5th amendment argument is similarly flawed.

Note: Anyone who doesn't trust Wikipedia can verify the information else ware.

"Give unto Caeser what is Caeser's" So much for freedom of religion. Besides, one of the oft cited main weakness of the Articles of Confederation is the inability of the national government to tax.

The film 'Freedom to Fascism' says that the 16th was not ratified legally.
And Aaron Russo would be correct. Read this.
http://www.givemeliberty.org/featur.....otratified.htm

This is a moot point as the US has always had the right to collect taxes.
Well, if you read your own link, you would see that this is the case.

"Article I, section 2, clause 3 and Article I, section 9, clause 4 of the Constitution states that all direct taxes are required to be apportioned among the state's population. This essentially means that the dollar amount of direct taxes imposed on the taxpayers in any given state is required to bear a relationship to the total dollar amount of direct taxes imposed in the entire nation that is equal to the ratio of that state's population to the total population of the nation."

This means a % tax derived from your income is unconstitutional. The most that the Federal government can do is apportion a dollar amount that you must pay.
Now, this doesn't mean the States can't have their own % based income taxes, just that the Federal government can't.

I might add that in any event where State Constitutions disagree with the US Constitution, the USC holds sway as per "the supreme law of the land".
Yes, but when determining if there is a conflict, don't forget the 9th and 10th Amendments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_.....s_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_.....s_Constitution

And the US Constitution, not the individual States, has authority to determine where, when and how it may be amended.
Yes. Article V prescribes how amendments may come to be. It does include a manor for the States to initiate an amendment.
So while a single state cannot amend it, 3/4ths of them can.

If you would like to bring the 9th and 10th Amendments into it, please show how they support your case.
Any powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government, are reserved to the States or to the People themselves. Since the US Constitution only deals with what Congress can and can't tax (Article 1, Section 8), it leaves the States to tax pretty much whatever they please. The only exception being Article IV, which deals with the responsibilities the States have to each other. (e.g. a state can't charge more sales tax on an individual from another state)
My original point was simply that, regardless of whether the 16th Amendment was ratified, and regardless of whether Congress had the power to tax that way in the first place, the States have always had that power. That's all I was saying.

As for state-level process, the USSC has always held that intent is supreme over process, and has even overruled process in order to uphold intent.
Even if the intent of the legislatures violates their state constitution? Seems a bit arcane to me.
I don't recall ever seeing any Supreme Court case involving the unconstitutionality of a State's Constitution in regards to how it ratifies an amendment to the US Constitution. If you know of one, by all means, point it out to me.

From FindLaw: "The [Supreme] Court conceded that taxes on incomes from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' levied by this act were excise taxes and therefore valid."
You can call it whatever you want, it's still an unapportioned tax on income.

The argument that the 16th was never ratified is based entirely on typographical differences between the bills that were ratified at the State level, the actual meanings of which never changed ("State" not being capitalized, "income" instead of "incomes", etc).

Did you read the link I provided? I suggest you do so.
http://www.givemeliberty.org/featur.....otratified.htm

A few examples...

"The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. You've probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right - they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void."

"Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority."

"Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois."

As you can see, these are not trivial differences in punctuation and spelling.

The US Constitution provides the process for its own amendments. State Constitutions have no authority to amend this process, which is precisely what the Constitution of Tennessee and "twelve other states" attempted to do in this case.
The State Constitutions simply prescribed how their respective legislatures were to ratify, or if they even could, a proposed amendment to the US Constitution. This doesn't go against Article V, so I don't see a problem here.
On a side note, Congress has to okay the constitution of any state wanting to join the Union, save for those that were apart of the original colonies. Why would they okay constitutions they didn't like or would be perceived as unconstitutional?

...the USSC ruled that the income tax is not "direct", but "excise", and thus had always been a legitimate taxing power of Congress.
That was true, until 1895.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polloc....._%26_Trust_Co.

Neither did the 16th empower the federal government with any "additional" taxing authority; as already noted...
Yes, it did.
From the link above...
"The Court then went on to state the effect of the Sixteenth Amendment with respect to income taxes: the Sixteenth Amendment removed the requirement that those income taxes deemed to be direct in substance (e.g., taxes on income from property) be apportioned among the states according to population."

Well originally Federal income taxes were imposed to pay for the civil war but I'm guessing that it's rather easy to see from USA's foreign and domestic politics through the ages why they have kept it up even though the need for it was long gone. Which one is the cause and which is the effect is up to you to decide. :/

I think the income tax is annoying and they should replace it with some other tax that doesn't require me to fill out a tax form every year, but come on... they have to collect SOME form of tax, or else the government couldn't operate.

It would be nice if they collected less and used the money more efficiently... But it all just ends up right back in the economy anyway.

The income tax is used entirely to pay the federal reserve for interest on the money it prints for the government. None of the money actually goes to the government.

Also, the government as it is currently has no need for taxes given it's massive stock portfolio. The US government is the single largest investor in the US stockmarket, holding nearly 50% of all stocks.

Blah blah blah grr, RAR!
...I don't feel like participating in this rational argument today, it never goes anywhere anyways. ._.

But I think there are better easier ways of trying to change the world than getting people to write with lots of decorative text styles on the internet about one's tax evasion...

That article is written in a completely unproffessional way, and all the links and webpages given to support it are from un-verifiable websites :/ the Browns' webpage looks faked, badly, as well. I have to agree with the Captain on how this would be handled 'in real life'. Eh. On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

Wait, what I'm getting is this. These guys haven't payed a bunch of income taxes, so the feds are gonna kill them and their family all the while forcing neighbors out of the area? This sounds a little too far fetched, perhaps absurd. And just as farorenightclaw said, the entire article didn't seem to come off as serious. Their sources are biased against the government in general.

last time I read up on "you don't actually have to pay taxes" argument, it presupposed that whole "just compensation" clause -- if you don't receive anything from the government in the form of services, they don't have the right to demand to take taxes from your income. Here's the thing though, you can bet 100% the people in this little fantasy game are social security card holders (or at the very least have a SSN), which means they're participating in the system. Having that number assumes you're eventually going to use one of its services (which everyone undoubtedly does whether you consciously notice it or not) -- think of it like a membership fee.

Like someone else said before, these people they sent after them could be collectors, who were contracted out. When my family had a dispute with an insurance company over hospital claims (and straight out lies), they still wanted their money regardless of the legitimacy of it, so they hired collectors to try and take it. The technique of a collector is to basically harass you until you pay up, it's quasi-legal racketeering. At the first level, you'll pretty much just get a shitload of annoying phone calls.

I dunno what happens if the collectors decide to ratchet up the pressure to x, but perhaps the browns do. (In our case I believe the company eventually caved and the dispute went away)

"What happens when you refuse to pay income taxes in the USA?"

Harold Crick will come and visit you.

And yet back in 1992 the feds murdered two innocent people? What the hell, man?

That's why I oppose the authorities. They're corrupt. Even if they say they're not, deep down they know they are.

It's like the opposite of Freeperland. But, they decided to go for it. So, take it, you old folks. I don't make much and I still pay it out. I pay into the system I live under. Obey the social contract or deal with the realities of failure to do so.

It's not much of a social contract if you're under threat of death for not supporting it.

You can always make another one. There's lots of islands out there.

Mostly, I pay in to support infrastructure, tangible and intangible. That is, the copper and fiber wires that devliver stuff to me. Postal service. A flawed, if functional, government.

And I don't want my government being rliant on the stock market for income. That's like saying that you want them to take it to Vegas and split it all on 15, Black and 00.

Income tax does not go towards support of any infrastructure. Corporate income tax is spent entirely on the military, but personal income tax is spent on federal reserve interest.

The fact that the government owns more than 50% of all the stocks in the US and who knows how much overseas ensures that they will always profit. To see how much money the government is actually making look up CAFR. Each state publishes it each year and it shows the state income from all revenue sources.

They don't kill people for not paying taxes, they arrest them for tax evasion. Law enforcement may use guns if someone resists arrest.

If there was a loophole to get out of paying taxes no lawyer or corporation would ever pay taxes.

Don't buy into this sensationalist hype.

AS I understand it, the income tax is unconstitutional. Further, from what I understand, the government can enforce any law it wants to, regardless of whether it's constitutional or not. It's just the world we live in. Can't fight it; all we can do is take cover and wait for them to blow themselves up.