Post: #1

I just read that Peter Schiff's father, Irwin Schiff, has been jailed for 12 years for not paying income tax. Like Peter, he's a hard money guy and sincerely believes the US constitution does not implicate having to pay an income tax. The guy is 85 years old, has never been convicted of any violent crime & is serving 13 years in total (one year extra for contempt of court).

Here Peter's being interviewed by Doug Casey on the matter.

I get that income tax, whether constitutionally sound or not, has to be paid. An inevitability of life today, but there is something very, very wrong if old men get jailed for years for honest dissent. Whenever anarchocapitalists & the like tell me the government is like a maffia, because they take whatever they want by threat of force, I shrug. Most civil servants fulfill contemptible & unnecessary jobs to be sure, but in the end they do it to feed a family, not conviction. (Also: governments do some useful stuff too -- yeah, they do, whatever libertarians may claim.)

This story does make me realize: when it comes to income tax the government really shows itself to be a bully of the worst sort. It should be possible for someone to object to income tax, in word and deed, without ending up in jail.

NB Peter mentions in the interview that his father is listed as a terrorist: an 85 year old man, objecting to income tax (with a good case, btw). Yup, typical terrorist. This also show anti-terrorist get abused big time to get rid of people the government finds a nuisance.

Thoughts?

Post: #2

IRS one Gov Agency you don't want to fuck with.

Post: #3

How can anyone form a legitimate opinion from that extremely biased interview? Doesn't even explain what actually happened.

Post: #4

RioNomad,

Sure, of course, you get a bias from Casey & Schiff jr. That's not the point, I tried to make.

I checked Schiff Sr.'s site http://www.paynoincometax.com & the fact of the matter is the guy's been jailed for over a decade.

It's more the principle: jail should be a place for violent people society has no use for, not kooky or grumpy old dudes.

Post: #5

I don't know, man.
It's tough to have much sympathy for these tax guys. There is a whole underground subculture of these "I don't have to pay tax" people. They have all these legal arguments about why it's unconstitutional, etc. And every one of these theories has been rejected over and over and over again, and they still persist in their bullshit. Wesley Snipes was a recent example of what can happen when you take this nonsense too far.

I'm tired of gun wackos, tax wackos, and entitlement wackos. They can all go pack sand.

My thoughts: on what planet do you think you shouldn't have to pay taxes?

Yeah, maybe the gov't came down hard on this guy. But the bottom line is that this guy got warning on top of warning on top of warning. And he was fanatical in his beliefs, and was encouraging others to dodge taxes as well. To those of us who pay a lot of taxes as middle class average Joes, his predicament does not elicit sympathy.

Post: #6

(11-30-2013 06:22 AM)Maciano Wrote:  RioNomad,

Sure, of course, you get a bias from Casey & Schiff jr. That's not the point, I tried to make.

I checked Schiff Sr.'s site http://www.paynoincometax.com & the fact of the matter is the guy's been jailed for over a decade.

It's more the principle: jail should be a place for violent people society has no use for, not kooky or grumpy old dudes.

Without knowing anything more than the first 5 minutes of that video, which doesn't explain shit, it seems he's not in prison for being a "kooky or grumpy old dude", but is in prison for tax evasion.

If you owe the government millions of dollars in taxes, and you don't pay, you may end up in prison.

I think it's unconstitutional that the drinking age is 21, or that I can't fuck 16 year old girls, but that doesn't mean I can ignore either law and not end up paying the consequences.

Post: #7

This is a great example that can serve as a parallel to 'men's rights preaching' and the sort of 'game' that is advocated by this forum.

The IRS has special penalties and a special vigilance for crushing people who are 'constitutional tax deniers' this guy decided that he was going to be 'the one' to prove the system wrong and crusade against it. Instead he was made an example of and destroyed with jail time (and tax penalties I assume..didn't read article).

All of this is for what? The current tax code allows for legal tax avoidance via business structures where someone who has the money to spend on accountants can reduce their tax burden to something that is irrelevant too their annual income. If he just worked the system, he would have been fine and let other people get ground up by the tax code.

Instead he decided to be the hero and take on the injustice of the system. White Knighting does not get rewarded. Subversive change is where its at.

Post: #8

(11-30-2013 04:57 AM)Maciano Wrote:  I get that income tax, whether constitutionally sound or not, has to be paid. An inevitability of life today, but there is something very, very wrong if old men get jailed for years for honest dissent. Whenever anarchocapitalists & the like tell me the government is like a maffia, because they take whatever they want by threat of force, I shrug. Most civil servants fulfill contemptible & unnecessary jobs to be sure, but in the end they do it to feed a family, not conviction. (Also: governments do some useful stuff too -- yeah, they do, whatever libertarians may claim.)

I liken people like this to mosquitos and other pests.

Yeah they're still animals trying to get by, but they're still pests worthy of erradication.

Governments do certain things well. But the government should be afraid of its people and find ways to encourage clandestine activities into the open(eg drug dealing, gambling) so it can be taxed accordingly. Are they bad? Yes, but stuffing them into the background creates more problems. The people who are inclined to gamble or abuse their bodies are going to do so regardless of what laws you have. Instead of creating a prison system that costs significantly more to operate while the clandestine activities continue inside of the prison means they aren't working.

The tax code of the US is an over complicated joke that is designed to protect huge corporate entities. The entire thing needs an overhaul especially for income tax. I find it repugnant that I get more take home pay from 65k instead of 85k a year. And no, i shouldn't have to do elaborate schemes to increase my refund. It shouldn't be held arbitrarily as a no interest loan to the government.

I also find it disgusting that the government uses Social Security as a "double tax". Yeah so they have to pay it out, but if you die the government keeps that money. Not to mention, they still throw that money into the operating budget.

We have a huge mess that needs cleaned up.

Post: #9

I object to non-violent first offenders getting prison terms.

Having been a lawyer in the system, I represented a guy with a long record who stabbed another guy who got a short probation. Everyday there are dangerous people walking, because the system does not care about the victims.

Then you have Leona Helmsley and Martha Stewart going to prison for highly-technical offenses, when they should have just paid fines or been acquitted (because most people would not have understood the crime). It's a bullshit theater meant to show the system is "fair" when it's not. Even rich bitches deserve justice.

Post: #10

I believe that Irwin Schiff was given a death sentence. When you're in your 70's and you get 10 years in federal prison it's a one way trip.

Post: #11

Made an example of to spook Peter his son. Peter has a lot of influence and reach and there are worse tax evaders they could offline after. Nothing but a trap would send a honest man in his 70s into the pit for the rest of his life, that isn't honest justice.

Post: #12

Lock him up.

Stupid tax protesters

Post: #13

(11-30-2013 10:34 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  I object to non-violent first offenders getting prison terms.

Having been a lawyer in the system, I represented a guy with a long record who stabbed another guy who got a short probation. Everyday there are dangerous people walking, because the system does not care about the victims.

Then you have Leona Helmsley and Martha Stewart going to prison for highly-technical offenses, when they should have just paid fines or been acquitted (because most people would not have understood the crime). It's a bullshit theater meant to show the system is "fair" when it's not. Even rich bitches deserve justice.

You have send people like Martha Stewart to jail or else they won't give a fuck about the law. Do you think a 100K fine or probation matters to her, fuck no. If she is sent to jail, that is incentive to obey the law.

Post: #14

(11-30-2013 12:10 PM)J.J. Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 10:34 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  I object to non-violent first offenders getting prison terms.

Having been a lawyer in the system, I represented a guy with a long record who stabbed another guy who got a short probation. Everyday there are dangerous people walking, because the system does not care about the victims.

Then you have Leona Helmsley and Martha Stewart going to prison for highly-technical offenses, when they should have just paid fines or been acquitted (because most people would not have understood the crime). It's a bullshit theater meant to show the system is "fair" when it's not. Even rich bitches deserve justice.

You have send people like Martha Stewart to jail or else they won't give a fuck about the law. Do you think a 100K fine or probation matters to her, fuck no. If she is sent to jail, that is incentive to obey the law.

A few banks have been hit with HUGE fines, and not one has gone to jail. JP Morgan Chase just paid 13 BILLION. I guess that's the cost of doing business?

Post: #15

(11-30-2013 12:10 PM)J.J. Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 10:34 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  I object to non-violent first offenders getting prison terms.

Having been a lawyer in the system, I represented a guy with a long record who stabbed another guy who got a short probation. Everyday there are dangerous people walking, because the system does not care about the victims.

Then you have Leona Helmsley and Martha Stewart going to prison for highly-technical offenses, when they should have just paid fines or been acquitted (because most people would not have understood the crime). It's a bullshit theater meant to show the system is "fair" when it's not. Even rich bitches deserve justice.

You have send people like Martha Stewart to jail or else they won't give a fuck about the law. Do you think a 100K fine or probation matters to her, fuck no. If she is sent to jail, that is incentive to obey the law.

Martha Stuart had nothing to do with taxes. Ever watch a police drama or documentary on TV? You get interviewed repeatedly, you forget or mess up some detail, now you've lied to the police and your a criminal (I can't remember what the fuck I did yesterday much less 6 months ago.)

In tax cases, the penalties and interest vastly exceed the amount of money you "saved" on taxes. You could have money sitting in an undeclared account, that you paid taxes for to earn, and have not made any gain from, and then lose all if it and more, for not declaring the account.

The US has moved very hard on tax evasion. They've even been able to force banks to break the laws of their own countries (Switzerland, UBS) Just last week they got the Caymens to sign on http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2...en-fatter/

I think the plan is to lock down the tax collection system, and then raise taxes significantly. This isn't something that can be discussed politically, but it has to be done to keep the spending rate up. May be 65-75% on the top bracket.

European countries, like France, they jack up their taxes and high earners leave. The US, they jack up taxes, you can't leave. You get to turn in your citizenship. And, not they've added a law that if you turned in your citizenship for tax reasons they get to keep taxing you.

In a different context its all very, very chilling. We have not seen anything like this since the Roman Empire.

But yeah, make sure you file your taxes and pay them every year. Your more likely to get away with killing people in many US cities.

Post: #16

(12-01-2013 10:23 AM)babelfish669 Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 12:10 PM)J.J. Wrote:  

(11-30-2013 10:34 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  I object to non-violent first offenders getting prison terms.

Having been a lawyer in the system, I represented a guy with a long record who stabbed another guy who got a short probation. Everyday there are dangerous people walking, because the system does not care about the victims.

Then you have Leona Helmsley and Martha Stewart going to prison for highly-technical offenses, when they should have just paid fines or been acquitted (because most people would not have understood the crime). It's a bullshit theater meant to show the system is "fair" when it's not. Even rich bitches deserve justice.

You have send people like Martha Stewart to jail or else they won't give a fuck about the law. Do you think a 100K fine or probation matters to her, fuck no. If she is sent to jail, that is incentive to obey the law.

Martha Stuart had nothing to do with taxes. Ever watch a police drama or documentary on TV? You get interviewed repeatedly, you forget or mess up some detail, now you've lied to the police and your a criminal (I can't remember what the fuck I did yesterday much less 6 months ago.)

In tax cases, the penalties and interest vastly exceed the amount of money you "saved" on taxes. You could have money sitting in an undeclared account, that you paid taxes for to earn, and have not made any gain from, and then lose all if it and more, for not declaring the account.

The US has moved very hard on tax evasion. They've even been able to force banks to break the laws of their own countries (Switzerland, UBS) Just last week they got the Caymens to sign on http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2...en-fatter/

I think the plan is to lock down the tax collection system, and then raise taxes significantly. This isn't something that can be discussed politically, but it has to be done to keep the spending rate up. May be 65-75% on the top bracket.

European countries, like France, they jack up their taxes and high earners leave. The US, they jack up taxes, you can't leave. You get to turn in your citizenship. And, not they've added a law that if you turned in your citizenship for tax reasons they get to keep taxing you.

In a different context its all very, very chilling. We have not seen anything like this since the Roman Empire.

But yeah, make sure you file your taxes and pay them every year. Your more likely to get away with killing people in many US cities.

Post: #17

We don't know all the facts and circumstances surrounding the sentencing of Peter Schiff's dad.

For federal criminal cases, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines controls. It is a complex regime, and a very strict one, as any lawyer who has represented criminal clients in federal court knows. A defendant is "scored" in a grid system that takes into account EVERYTHING: prior criminal history, amount of restitution (huge in this case, I'm sure), any aggravating or mitigating factors, etc., etc.

And this guy was not just a tax dodger. He was an ideologue who had developed a whole elaborate business on advising and encouraging people not to pay tax. And I'm sorry...but that just isn't going to fly. No government can tolerate that level of subversion. The reality is that in America the poor don't pay shit in taxes, and the rich don't pay much either. That burden falls on us, the middle class.

Now, do I think his sentence was on the harsh side? Probably, I'll grant you that. But the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are harsh, and we don't know all the factors involved.

Do I feel sorry for Peter Schiff? Yeah, I do.

But the bottom line as I see it is that this guy had chance after chance after chance to change course. The IRS, from my experience, is not this big, bad, evil institution. (The NSA may be another matter). They give people warnings, chances, and bend over backwards to work with taxpayers who have delinquent bills. So part of me wants to say to this guy:

OK, asshole, you thought it was so cute to have your little theories about how tax is unconstitutional?
You thought it was so funsy-wunsy to thumb your nose at everybody and play the martyr?
You think it's OK to use the goods and services of a society and not pay anything for them?
Well, guess what, dickhead. How about an indictment coming your way. And now you can think about that for the next ten years.

Post: #18

Aren't the tax courts in most cases totally reversed from the norm- that the assumption is that you're guilty until proven innocent? The burden of proof rests on you, not the IRS. It's pretty fucked up.

An income tax is really the most subversive and nefarious of all taxes. It's as Ron Paul said a few years ago- once you have an income tax the assumption is that the government owns all your income, and what you get to keep is by the good graces of the state. We saw this proven true just recently in France where there was a 100% income tax for a year.

But nevertheless, the tax protester arguments have been rejected without fault. Engaging in them is just a celebration of foolery at this point.

Post: #19

I've never understood the argument that the gov't doesn't have the right to collect taxes. The Constitution was amended specifically to provide for this possibility (The Sixteenth Amendment):

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."

But I agree that the US tax code is a disaster and should undergo radical simplification. All subsidies, deductions, tax breaks should be eliminated. There should only be three tiers: 15 pct, 25 pct, 35 pct. Investment income should have only two tiers: 15 pct, 35 pct.

This would change America overnight. No more lobbyists (no tax breaks or subsidies to lobby over). No more tax lawyers. The IRS could go from employing 100,000 people to 100. All the tax accountants, tax lawyers, lobbyists---really smart people who make a living from rent-seeking vis-a-vis the tax code---would have to actually go do useful things that provide value.

Which is part of the reason this will never happen.

Post: #20

(12-01-2013 11:54 AM)Libertas Wrote:  Aren't the tax courts in most cases totally reversed from the norm- that the assumption is that you're guilty until proven innocent? The burden of proof rests on you, not the IRS. It's pretty fucked up.

An income tax is really the most subversive and nefarious of all taxes. It's as Ron Paul said a few years ago- once you have an income tax the assumption is that the government owns all your income, and what you get to keep is by the good graces of the state. We saw this proven true just recently in France where there was a 100% income tax for a year.

But nevertheless, the tax protester arguments have been rejected without fault. Engaging in them is just a celebration of foolery at this point.

Tax court burden depends on the material coming into the case. If the person on trial has never filed anything then the burden is on them, if they have filed returns acted within the tax system then the IRS has to prove why their returns are wrong.

Post: #21

(11-30-2013 06:56 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I don't know, man.
It's tough to have much sympathy for these tax guys. There is a whole underground subculture of these "I don't have to pay tax" people. They have all these legal arguments about why it's unconstitutional, etc. And every one of these theories has been rejected over and over and over again, and they still persist in their bullshit. Wesley Snipes was a recent example of what can happen when you take this nonsense too far.

I'm tired of gun wackos, tax wackos, and entitlement wackos. They can all go pack sand.

My thoughts: on what planet do you think you shouldn't have to pay taxes?

Yeah, maybe the gov't came down hard on this guy. But the bottom line is that this guy got warning on top of warning on top of warning. And he was fanatical in his beliefs, and was encouraging others to dodge taxes as well. To those of us who pay a lot of taxes as middle class average Joes, his predicament does not elicit sympathy.

Income Tax in the US was only brought in to pay off the interest on the loans given to the government by the Fed. i.e. the people of America are forced to pay money to a private company via the means of government. Hospitals, roads, education, all that stuff people think their Income Tax pays for.... NONE of it is paid for by Income Tax.

Post: #22

(12-01-2013 11:11 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  We don't know all the facts and circumstances surrounding the sentencing of Peter Schiff's dad.

For federal criminal cases, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines controls. It is a complex regime, and a very strict one, as any lawyer who has represented criminal clients in federal court knows. A defendant is "scored" in a grid system that takes into account EVERYTHING: prior criminal history, amount of restitution (huge in this case, I'm sure), any aggravating or mitigating factors, etc., etc.

And this guy was not just a tax dodger. He was an ideologue who had developed a whole elaborate business on advising and encouraging people not to pay tax. And I'm sorry...but that just isn't going to fly. No government can tolerate that level of subversion. The reality is that in America the poor don't pay shit in taxes, and the rich don't pay much either. That burden falls on us, the middle class.

Now, do I think his sentence was on the harsh side? Probably, I'll grant you that. But the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are harsh, and we don't know all the factors involved.

Do I feel sorry for Peter Schiff? Yeah, I do.

But the bottom line as I see it is that this guy had chance after chance after chance to change course. The IRS, from my experience, is not this big, bad, evil institution. (The NSA may be another matter). They give people warnings, chances, and bend over backwards to work with taxpayers who have delinquent bills. So part of me wants to say to this guy:

OK, asshole, you thought it was so cute to have your little theories about how tax is unconstitutional?
You thought it was so funsy-wunsy to thumb your nose at everybody and play the martyr?
You think it's OK to use the goods and services of a society and not pay anything for them?
Well, guess what, dickhead. How about an indictment coming your way. And now you can think about that for the next ten years.

Just watch this:

Post: #23

^^^
Vendetta:
The problem here is that this video is mixing a ton of separate issues. I have no doubt that our gov't is headed for authoritarianism, if we're not there already. I don't doubt that our gov't bends and breaks the law on a regular basis every day. I grant you all that.

All I'm saying is this: anyone who thinks you can run a government without collecting taxes from its citizens is not living in the real world. Governments have been taxing their citizens for 5000 plus years, from the days when you had to give a portion of your harvest to Sargon I of Akkad.

Post: #24

(12-01-2013 12:20 PM)randomForest Wrote:  I've never understood the argument that the gov't doesn't have the right to collect taxes. The Constitution was amended specifically to provide for this possibility (The Sixteenth Amendment):

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."

But I agree that the US tax code is a disaster and should undergo radical simplification. All subsidies, deductions, tax breaks should be eliminated. There should only be three tiers: 15 pct, 25 pct, 35 pct. Investment income should have only two tiers: 15 pct, 35 pct.

This would change America overnight. No more lobbyists (no tax breaks or subsidies to lobby over). No more tax lawyers. The IRS could go from employing 100,000 people to 100. All the tax accountants, tax lawyers, lobbyists---really smart people who make a living from rent-seeking vis-a-vis the tax code---would have to actually go do useful things that provide value.

Which is part of the reason this will never happen.

It was never fully ratified....

Congress ability and powers to tax are in section I and Article 8:

Quote:The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises
This power is considered by many to be essential to the administering of government. As argued under the Articles, the lack of a power to tax renders government ineffectual. Typically, the power is used to raise revenues for the support of government. But, Congress has employed the taxing power in uses other than solely for the raising of revenue, such as:

regulatory taxation — taxing to regulate commerce;[10]
prohibitive taxation — taxing to discourage, suppress, or even exterminate commerce;[11] and finally,
tariffs — taxing as a means of protectionism.[12]

In 1922, the Supreme Court struck down a 1919 tax on child labor in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.,[13] commonly referred to as the "Child Labor Tax Case". The Court had previously held that Congress did not have the power to directly regulate labor, and found the law at issue to be an attempt to indirectly accomplish the same end. This ruling appeared to have been reinforced in United States v. Butler,[9] in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the processing taxes instituted under the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act were an unconstitutional attempt to regulate state activity in violation of the Tenth Amendment. However, despite its outcome, Butler affirmed that Congress does have a broad power to tax, and to expend revenues within its discretion.

Income tax was never part of that. The amendment that was supposed to introduce Income tax was never fully ratified.

There is the issue of this case:

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
240 U.S. 1

Which it states that the 16th Amendment gives Congress no new taxing powers, implying that it can tax revenues. But there is confusing shit about how Congress and the Feds talk about how this is extracted and confusing shit about tender, debts and transactions can only be transacted in legal tender which the USA does not even have any more since it blew up the Gold Standard in the 70's. The Govt can't collect and steal the unconstitutional monopoly money you transacted with you employer.

Its a lot easier here in Canada. Our Govt didn't miss a step and put in plain language that we are tax whores to the Queen from the get go. That shit is in plain language in the old British North America Act (1867):

Quote: Section 91 of the Constitution says the federal government can raise money "by any mode or system of taxation." Section 92 says the provinces can impose "direct taxes within a province" to raise revenue for provincial purposes. As a result, while federal and provincial taxing powers overlap, the federal government can levy both indirect and direct taxes, including income tax.

They weren't sleeping on that shit, rape and peonage was listed from day one. The only way out of it is to declare sovereign status on your own which is a painful and long process in which to relinquish your "legal" "societal" rights and become a natural sovereign citizen (like the Queen of England).

Post: #25

(12-02-2013 01:20 AM)kosko Wrote:  Income tax was never part of that. The amendment that was supposed to introduce Income tax was never fully ratified.

An amendment only needs 75 percent of the states for full ratification. Ratification by the necessary 36 of the then existing 48 states was completely by February 3, 1913 (thanks Delaware!). The amendment is fully, completely ratified and thus the law of the land.

I've read Benson, too---he's a fraud.

Deal with it.