But Ned says, all federal taxes are voluntary!

[Ned Netterville]

On a web page entitled THE TAX PROTESTER FAQ, tax lawyer Dan Evans argues that the federal income tax is not voluntary; that "This is a corruption of statements made by the IRS, the courts, and Congress to encourage taxpayer compliance with the tax laws, without the need for legal action against taxpayers." (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#voluntary). In support of his position, Mr Evans cites comments in 17 federal court cases including two from the supreme court.

On the other hand, and on another web page, Illegal-Tax Protester Ned Netterville, calling for a boycott against paying federal taxes as a means of ending the war in Iraq, states unequivocally, "In the United States today, federal taxes, like military service, are voluntary." (http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/Page.html) In support of his call, Mr. Netterville quotes 16 comments by Jesus of Nazareth from the gospels.

So the question for Quatloosians is who is right? Dan and the judges, or Ned and Jesus?

[Imalawman]

On a web page entitled THE TAX PROTESTER FAQ, tax lawyer Dan Evans argues that the federal income tax is not voluntary; that "This is a corruption of statements made by the IRS, the courts, and Congress to encourage taxpayer compliance with the tax laws, without the need for legal action against taxpayers." (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#voluntary). In support of his position, Mr Evans cites comments in 17 federal court cases including two from the supreme court.

On the other hand, and on another web page, Illegal-Tax Protester Ned Netterville, calling for a boycott against paying federal taxes as a means of ending the war in Iraq, states unequivocally, "In the United States today, federal taxes, like military service, are voluntary." (http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/Page.html) In support of his call, Mr. Netterville quotes 16 comments by Jesus of Nazareth from the gospels.

So the question for Quatloosians is who is right? Dan and the judges, or Ned and Jesus?

Both depending on how you look at it. Almost all laws are voluntary and can be ignored. Murder laws are voluntary in nature. I choose to abide by those laws. So, Jesus (as incorrectly portrayed by Ned) and Ned are right - hey, don't send in your money - it's your choice.

However, Dan is correct in pointing out that voluntary doesn't mean "free to ignore without any consequences". So, go ahead, choose to ignore the income tax laws. It won't save you when the IRS comes calling for the money though. Interest and penalties can be a bitch.

[Agent Observer]

The answer is to take your meds dude.

[Quixote]

Dan and the judges are right. Ned is wrong. In Jesus's only statement concerning taxes he said pay them.

[Joey Smith]

Dan, the Judges, and Jesus.

It is quite pious to believe that one is the only correct interpreter of scriptures, especially when motivated solely by the greed of not paying one's fair share (or at least some part thereof). Wrapping the greed of not paying taxes in the Bible is not cool dude, not cool at all.

[Dr. Caligari]

So the question for Quatloosians is who is right? Dan and the judges, or Ned and Jesus?

If you are asking what the law is, Congress and the judges decide.

If you are asking what the law should be, then, if you are a Christian, what Jesus said would be important. I am not a Christian, so perhaps I shouldn't speak to that issue, but I have observed that most professing Christians do not seem to agree with your interpretaions of Jesus's saying on the subject of taxes. But, in any event, even if you were right, that would not affect what the law in the United States actually is.

[Disilloosianed]

Ok, I admit...I went and read the site, thinking, "DID Jesus actually say anything about taxes besides 'Render unto Casear...'"

And just as I thought....no.

Ned, you can make your point that the war is unjust and that Christ would be against it without making up stories. None of those quotes have anything to say about taxation. One makes reference to a tax collector, but that would be it.

[rachel]

Dan, the Judges, and Jesus.

It is quite pious to believe that one is the only correct interpreter of scriptures, especially when motivated solely by the greed of not paying one's fair share (or at least some part thereof). Wrapping the greed of not paying taxes in the Bible is not cool dude, not cool at all.

You are such an idiotic dipshit joey!
There is no greed by not paying taxes on your labor.
Jesus said to not swear oaths (Matt 5: 33-37).
Here in America the courts numberous times have ruled there are two(2) citizenships classes since the ratification of the 14th amendment.
These two citizens are different in that each has different rights and privileges and responsibilities.
One is taxed his labor the other is not.
26CFR1.1-1(c) is not a state citizen. What 26CFR1.1-1(c) is a person who is either or was a slave or someone who swears an oath saying he is a statutory "U.S. citizen" and thus giving/granting jurisdiction over him and thus rendering to ceasar. The code says you must a pay the statutory tax as a "U.S. citizen". It does not say that about state citizens. Nowhere do read in title 26 the People of the United States of America are liable.
And to complete that incomplete statement, Jesus said render to ceasars what is ceasars and render to the Father what is the Fathers.

[Dezcad]

Dan, the Judges, and Jesus.

It is quite pious to believe that one is the only correct interpreter of scriptures, especially when motivated solely by the greed of not paying one's fair share (or at least some part thereof). Wrapping the greed of not paying taxes in the Bible is not cool dude, not cool at all.

You are such an idiotic dipshit joey!
There is no greed by not paying taxes on your labor.
Jesus said to not swear oaths (Matt 5: 33-37).
Here in America the courts numberous times have ruled there are two(2) citizenships classes since the ratification of the 14th amendment.
These two citizens are different in that each has different rights and privileges and responsibilities.
One is taxed his labor the other is not.
26CFR1.1-1(c) is not a state citizen. What 26CFR1.1-1(c) is a person who is either or was a slave or someone who swears an oath saying he is a statutory "U.S. citizen" and thus giving/granting jurisdiction over him and thus rendering to ceasar. The code says you must a pay the statutory tax as a "U.S. citizen". It does not say that about state citizens. Nowhere do read in title 26 the People of the United States of America are liable.
And to complete that incomplete statement, Jesus said render to ceasars what is ceasars and render to the Father what is the Fathers.

Since everyone covered who was right, I'll say who is not right - Rachel......

[rachel]

Dan, the Judges, and Jesus.

It is quite pious to believe that one is the only correct interpreter of scriptures, especially when motivated solely by the greed of not paying one's fair share (or at least some part thereof). Wrapping the greed of not paying taxes in the Bible is not cool dude, not cool at all.

You are such an idiotic dipshit joey!
There is no greed by not paying taxes on your labor.
Jesus said to not swear oaths (Matt 5: 33-37).
Here in America the courts numberous times have ruled there are two(2) citizenships classes since the ratification of the 14th amendment.
These two citizens are different in that each has different rights and privileges and responsibilities.
One is taxed his labor the other is not.
26CFR1.1-1(c) is not a state citizen. What 26CFR1.1-1(c) is a person who is either or was a slave or someone who swears an oath saying he is a statutory "U.S. citizen" and thus giving/granting jurisdiction over him and thus rendering to ceasar. The code says you must a pay the statutory tax as a "U.S. citizen". It does not say that about state citizens. Nowhere do read in title 26 the People of the United States of America are liable.
And to complete that incomplete statement, Jesus said render to ceasars what is ceasars and render to the Father what is the Fathers.

Since everyone covered who was right, I'll say who is not right - Rachel......

Just more socialism hearsay!

[LPC]

In support of his call, Mr. Netterville quotes 16 comments by Jesus of Nazareth from the gospels.

I disagree with your interpretation of the gospels.

See http://a-thin-place.blogspot.com/2007/0 ... tance.html for my explanation.

[Agent Observer]

You are such an idiotic dipshit joey!
There is no greed by not paying taxes on your labor.
Jesus said to not swear oaths (Matt 5: 33-37).
Here in America the courts numberous times have ruled there are two(2) citizenships classes since the ratification of the 14th amendment.
These two citizens are different in that each has different rights and privileges and responsibilities.
One is taxed his labor the other is not.
26CFR1.1-1(c) is not a state citizen. What 26CFR1.1-1(c) is a person who is either or was a slave or someone who swears an oath saying he is a statutory "U.S. citizen" and thus giving/granting jurisdiction over him and thus rendering to ceasar. The code says you must a pay the statutory tax as a "U.S. citizen". It does not say that about state citizens. Nowhere do read in title 26 the People of the United States of America are liable.
And to complete that incomplete statement, Jesus said render to ceasars what is ceasars and render to the Father what is the Fathers.

Well, at least Rachel's title is right, "Captain," and so is the icon of a boat. I think, perhaps, it would be more analogous of Rachel's beliefs, however, if the picture was of the Titanic. After all, anyone who "captains" an argument as dumb as that, deserves to "go down with the ship."

[rachel]

You are such an idiotic dipshit joey!
There is no greed by not paying taxes on your labor.
Jesus said to not swear oaths (Matt 5: 33-37).
Here in America the courts numberous times have ruled there are two(2) citizenships classes since the ratification of the 14th amendment.
These two citizens are different in that each has different rights and privileges and responsibilities.
One is taxed his labor the other is not.
26CFR1.1-1(c) is not a state citizen. What 26CFR1.1-1(c) is a person who is either or was a slave or someone who swears an oath saying he is a statutory "U.S. citizen" and thus giving/granting jurisdiction over him and thus rendering to ceasar. The code says you must a pay the statutory tax as a "U.S. citizen". It does not say that about state citizens. Nowhere do read in title 26 the People of the United States of America are liable.
And to complete that incomplete statement, Jesus said render to ceasars what is ceasars and render to the Father what is the Fathers.

Well, at least Rachel's title is right, "Captain," and so is the icon of a boat. I think, perhaps, it would be more analogous of Rachel's beliefs, however, if the picture was of the Titanic. After all, anyone who "captains" an argument as dumb as that, deserves to "go down with the ship."

So what do you think the court is saying here:

"Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment. If, then, there is a difference between the privileges and immunities belonging to a citizen of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizen of the State as such the latter must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested; for they are not embraced by this paragraph of the amendment." Slaugterhouse cases

Now where do you think their(state citizens) security and protection rests mr. smarty pants?
I doubt you could really answer the question, but try anyway if you can.

[Agent Observer]

I doubt you could really answer the question, but try anyway if you can.

Your questions have been answered numerous times by numerous people on this forum. The fact is, you are too delusional to even attempt to reason with, so, no, I'm not going to waste my time explaining what so many others have already spelled out for you.

[Doktor Avalanche]

I doubt you could really answer the question, but try anyway if you can.

Your questions have been answered numerous times by numerous people on this forum. The fact is, you are too delusional to even attempt to reason with, so, no, I'm not going to waste my time explaining what so many others have already spelled out for you.

But by responding you have negated any possibility of not dignifying anything Rachel says with a response.

[tracer]

I don't think Rachel fully grasps the meaning of the 1st sentence in Amendment 14.

You know, the one that says you're a U.S. citizen, and a State citizen, at the same time...

[Doktor Avalanche]

I don't think Rachel fully grasps the meaning of the 1st sentence in Amendment 14.

You know, the one that says you're a U.S. citizen, and a State citizen, at the same time...

Multi-tasking isn't her strong suit.

[grixit]

On a web page entitled THE TAX PROTESTER FAQ, tax lawyer Dan Evans argues that the federal income tax is not voluntary; that "This is a corruption of statements made by the IRS, the courts, and Congress to encourage taxpayer compliance with the tax laws, without the need for legal action against taxpayers." (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#voluntary). In support of his position, Mr Evans cites comments in 17 federal court cases including two from the supreme court.

On the other hand, and on another web page, Illegal-Tax Protester Ned Netterville, calling for a boycott against paying federal taxes as a means of ending the war in Iraq, states unequivocally, "In the United States today, federal taxes, like military service, are voluntary." (http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/Page.html) In support of his call, Mr. Netterville quotes 16 comments by Jesus of Nazareth from the gospels.

So the question for Quatloosians is who is right? Dan and the judges, or Ned and Jesus?

Jesus is not one of our lawmakers. He has a right to his opinion, we have the right to ignore him. Of course he could always throw a tanturm. Or change the words on all the copies of the law.

Ned has the same right, okaly dokaly.

[iplawyer]

So what do you think the court is saying here:

"Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment. If, then, there is a difference between the privileges and immunities belonging to a citizen of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizen of the State as such the latter must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested; for they are not embraced by this paragraph of the amendment." Slaugterhouse cases

Now where do you think their(state citizens) security and protection rests mr. smarty pants?
I doubt you could really answer the question, but try anyway if you can.

The whole entire quote is irrelevant. The Slaughterhouse cases were overturned by amendments to the Constitution. Get a grip, Rachel, you are just wrong.

[jg]

"Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution"...

What is being said is that the court is going to consider (in the opinion) is the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States and the citizen of the state, respectively, are. But, it is only a citizen of the United States that has protection under the 14th amendment of the Constitution.

That is, the citizen of the state that is not also a citizen of the United States does not get any protection from the 14th amendment of the Constitution.

It seems clear, so why do you ask?