Can't pay my taxes (Phil Naudi)

[wserra]

I will call Rev. Canada again

How about the stuff you posted concerning U.S. law? Abject bullshit, right?

[.]

Calling this idiot's BS abject is being too kind by at least half.

[Cpt Banjo]

"I abject!" (Chico Marx as Chicolini in Duck SDoup)

[rumpelstilzchen]

Nice to see you here Rumple You'll do as well here as you do over at the Ickes.....lol.

Maybe, maybe not.
However, I believe you may be in for a rough ride on here.
You see, I am of the opinion that the majority of posters on here (unlike on Icke's) actually understand law and are not nearly so gullible to be taken in by the type of bullshit that the likes of Menard spew. Standards here, I would say, are somewhat higher.
But, having said that, I look forward to you attempting to convince them otherwise.
A word of warning though: Be sure to have something to back up your claims with, otherwise I predict you will be given short shrift.

[Pottapaug1938]

Nice to see you here Rumple You'll do as well here as you do over at the Ickes.....lol.

Maybe, maybe not.
However, I believe you may be in for a rough ride on here.
You see, I am of the opinion that the majority of posters on here (unlike on Icke's) actually understand law and are not nearly so gullible to be taken in by the type of bullshit that the likes of Menard spew. Standards here, I would say, are somewhat higher.
But, having said that, I look forward to you attempting to convince them otherwise.
A word of warning though: Be sure to have something to back up your claims with, otherwise I predict you will be given short shrift.

I would delete the words in red.

[freedavep]

[quote="rumpelstilzchen"][quote="freedavep"]

You see, I am of the opinion that the majority of posters on here (unlike on Icke's) actually understand law and are not nearly so gullible to be taken in by the type of bullshit that the likes of Menard spew. quote]

Understand law you say ? These guy's actually think that you have an account with the Revenue Agency without your applying for one. An application is proof that you were the one who voluntarily instigated the whole relationship. You wanted benefits that Social Security / Insurance offers you so you went in and applied for the number. With the benefits come the obligations LIKE PAYING TAX ON INCOME, and I agree totally with that. But the idea that I'm obligated to pay for something that I'm not participating in is absurd......and even more absurd is the whole idea that the TV set and the 50 chickens I got for building Joe Smith's brick wall for him could ammount to "Income"......LoL.....LoL.

Honestly how can I pay my taxes if I don't use money ? Unfortunately the Government deals in Fiat Currency.......I don't.

No account......no money......NO TAXES.

btw- I feel sorry for those poor souls whose parents got them their SSN's at birth. They don't appreciate the voluntary nature of Social Security if they don't have to apply for it themselves.

They're doing it here in Canada too. You can apply for your child right on the Birth Certificate form. They pass it off as a bonus so you don't have to face a higher fee for the card when the kid turns 16......what a scam !

[Pottapaug1938]

Understand law you say ? These guy's actually think that you have an account with the Revenue Agency without your applying for one. An application is proof that you were the one who voluntarily instigated the whole relationship. You wanted benefits that Social Security / Insurance offers you so you went in and applied for the number. With the benefits come the obligations LIKE PAYING TAX ON INCOME, and I agree totally with that. But the idea that I'm obligated to pay for something that I'm not participating in is absurd......and even more absurd is the whole idea that the TV set and the 50 chickens I got for building Joe Smith's brick wall for him could ammount to "Income"......LoL.....LoL.

Honestly how can I pay my taxes if I don't use money ? Unfortunately the Government deals in Fiat Currency.......I don't.

No account......no money......NO TAXES.

btw- I feel sorry for those poor souls whose parents got them their SSN's at birth. They don't appreciate the voluntary nature of Social Security if they don't have to apply for it themselves.

They're doing it here in Canada too. You can apply for your child right on the Birth Certificate form. They pass it off as a bonus so you don't have to face a higher fee for the card when the kid turns 16......what a scam !

My Dear Troll:

I have yet to meet a Canadian who is gullible enough to believe that they have no obligation to pay taxes just because they don't have an account with your revenue people. I suspect that a lot of your questions fall under the "garbage in, garbage out" category. A typical example is the letter bannered by many of our tax deniers, showing that they don't have to pay taxes, when what they did is wrote to the IRS and asked if they had to pay taxes of they weren't a taxpayer. When the IRS said "of course not", the TDers then proclaimed that, since they were not taxpayers because (insert your favorite idiot hypothesis here), they don't have to pay taxes.

Social Security is not voluntary; and accepting or declining benefits under it has no bearing on one's tax obligations. Neither does the issue of whether or not you use something. To give but one example, I don't have children in the public schools; but since educated children are a benefit to society in general my taxes go to support them.

Your contention that "the TV set and the 50 chickens I got for building Joe Smith's brick wall for him [doesn't amount] to 'Income'" is also absurd. Your income is the value of the TV set and the chickens; and since your labor cost you nothing to buy, the gain you realize by performing the work is taxable -- in Canada and in the U.S.

Likewise absurd is your contention, "how can I pay my taxes if I don't use money?" Back in the early days of Massachusetts (and, for that matter, British North America and pre-1763 Quebec), actual money was scarce, and many people used the barter system (or sold their produce to a storekeeper who granted them credit for the value of the produce); but the tax collectors required actual money for payment of taxes, so everyone had to raise at least enough money so that they could do that. The fact that the mother country didn't provide us with enough hard cash for our needs had a lot to do with what went on, down here, after 1763.

I find it laughable at the way trolls like you come onto Quatloos with an initial post which seems striaght-on and noncommital; but soon they show their true tax denier colors. Many others have done it and failed; and now you have willingly placed yourself on this list.

It's bad enough to be a fool; but why proclaim the fact to the world like you are doing?

[freedavep]

My Dear Troll:

I have yet to meet a Canadian who is gullible enough to believe that they have no obligation to pay taxes just because they don't have an account with your revenue people. I suspect that a lot of your questions fall under the "garbage in, garbage out" category. A typical example is the letter bannered by many of our tax deniers, showing that they don't have to pay taxes, when what they did is wrote to the IRS and asked if they had to pay taxes of they weren't a taxpayer. When the IRS said "of course not", the TDers then proclaimed that, since they were not taxpayers because (insert your favorite idiot hypothesis here), they don't have to pay taxes.


So you admit there's such a thing as a "Non Taxpayer" (besides the one who simply doesn't file)


Social Security is not voluntary; and accepting or declining benefits under it has no bearing on one's tax obligations. Neither does the issue of whether or not you use something. To give but one example, I don't have children in the public schools; but since educated children are a benefit to society in general my taxes go to support them.

Of course Social Security is voluntary......hence the need for an application or your parents permission to issue a number. They can't just "Issue" a number to you against your wishes (although I'm sure they'd try and succeed with you) That's obvious. And just try to access your SS Benefits without a number.......go ahead......TRY. (You must think you're in China or something where they can just issue you anything against your will).

Your contention that "the TV set and the 50 chickens I got for building Joe Smith's brick wall for him [doesn't amount] to "Income" is also absurd. Your income is the value of the TV set and the chickens; and since your labor cost you nothing to buy, the gain you realize by performing the work is taxable -- in Canada and in the U.S.

Sorry, but my labour is a form of property just like Joe's chickens and we traded property for property it's not "Income". You probably think property as being "objects", tangible things that you can touch or hold......that's not the case at all.


Likewise absurd is your contention, "how can I pay my taxes if I don't use money?" Back in the early days of Massachusetts (and, for that matter, British North America and pre-1763 Quebec), actual money was scarce, and many people used the barter system (or sold their produce to a storekeeper who granted them credit for the value of the produce); but the tax collectors required actual money for payment of taxes, so everyone had to raise at least enough money so that they could do that. The fact that the mother country didn't provide us with enough hard cash for our needs had a lot to do with what went on, down here, after 1763.

Show me where I'm compelled to use Fiat Currency. And is this "Income Tax" you're referring to ? Was the Government deeming these "barters" as Income ?

I find it laughable at the way trolls like you come onto Quatloos with an initial post which seems striaght-on and noncommital; but soon they show their true tax denier colors. Many others have done it and failed; and now you have willingly placed yourself on this list.

It's bad enough to be a fool; but why proclaim the fact to the world like you are doing?


"Troll"....."Fool"......Name calling, the mark of a small man. Shame on you !

[Pottapaug1938]

My Dear Troll:

I have yet to meet a Canadian who is gullible enough to believe that they have no obligation to pay taxes just because they don't have an account with your revenue people. I suspect that a lot of your questions fall under the "garbage in, garbage out" category. A typical example is the letter bannered by many of our tax deniers, showing that they don't have to pay taxes, when what they did is wrote to the IRS and asked if they had to pay taxes of they weren't a taxpayer. When the IRS said "of course not", the TDers then proclaimed that, since they were not taxpayers because (insert your favorite idiot hypothesis here), they don't have to pay taxes.


So you admit there's such a thing as a "Non Taxpayer" (besides the one who simply doesn't file)

Typical troll distortion. That's not at all what I said. You become a "nontaxpayer" ONLY if your taxable income falls below the thresholds, AND you buy nothing subject to sales or excise taxes.


Social Security is not voluntary; and accepting or declining benefits under it has no bearing on one's tax obligations. Neither does the issue of whether or not you use something. To give but one example, I don't have children in the public schools; but since educated children are a benefit to society in general my taxes go to support them.

Of course Social Security is voluntary......hence the need for an application or your parents permission to issue a number. They can't just "Issue" a number to you against your wishes (although I'm sure they'd try and succeed with you) That's obvious. And just try to access your SS Benefits without a number.......go ahead......TRY. (You must think you're in China or something where they can just issue you anything against your will).

No, it's not voluntary. You require a SSN for many purposes; and I'm not going to waste my time enumerating them here. My wife doesn't pay into Social Security anymore only because she has a state-sponsored retirement system which fulfills the same function; but she will still collect SS benefits based on her earlier contributions.

Your contention that "the TV set and the 50 chickens I got for building Joe Smith's brick wall for him [doesn't amount] to "Income" is also absurd. Your income is the value of the TV set and the chickens; and since your labor cost you nothing to buy, the gain you realize by performing the work is taxable -- in Canada and in the U.S.

Sorry, but my labour is a form of property just like Joe's chickens and we traded property for property it's not "Income". You probably think property as being "objects", tangible things that you can touch or hold......that's not the case at all.

Wrong again. Your labor may be your "property"; but what did it cost you to buy that property? Your taxable income is based on the gain, or difference, between your cost basis in your labor and what you received in exchange for it. There is not one single court in my country or yours which has ever held differently without being overturned on appeal.


Likewise absurd is your contention, "how can I pay my taxes if I don't use money?" Back in the early days of Massachusetts (and, for that matter, British North America and pre-1763 Quebec), actual money was scarce, and many people used the barter system (or sold their produce to a storekeeper who granted them credit for the value of the produce); but the tax collectors required actual money for payment of taxes, so everyone had to raise at least enough money so that they could do that. The fact that the mother country didn't provide us with enough hard cash for our needs had a lot to do with what went on, down here, after 1763.

Show me where I'm compelled to use Fiat Currency. And is this "Income Tax" you're referring to ? Was the Government deeming these "barters" as Income ?

I don't know what the Canadian legal tender laws are; but down here Congress can declare FRNs to be lawful money and legal tender under Article I, Section 10 of our Constitution. The taxes to which I refer are all kinds; but I originally was thinking of the various town taxes paid by individuals to their town in the early years, or which they paid to the Crown when they imported certain items. The issue of whether the Government deemed these barters as income didn't exist at that point, since in the early years there was no income tax. Now, of course, the laws are different.

I find it laughable at the way trolls like you come onto Quatloos with an initial post which seems straight-on and noncommital; but soon they show their true tax denier colors. Many others have done it and failed; and now you have willingly placed yourself on this list.

It's bad enough to be a fool; but why proclaim the fact to the world like you are doing?


"Troll"....."Fool"......Name calling, the mark of a small man. Shame on you !

If you don't like the way that I address you, Snowflake, then too bad. I wasn't doing any "name calling"; I was giving my opinion of you and your posts. If you don't like being called a fool, then provide solid evidence, in the form of appellate court decisions currently in force, that prove me wrong.

[wserra]

So you admit there's such a thing as a "Non Taxpayer" (besides the one who simply doesn't file)

Sure. Under U.S. law, a citizen of another country who earns no U.S. income and avoids U.S. goods that require payment of taxes.

Of course Social Security is voluntary

Weasel words. Paying Social Security tax is not at all voluntary. Collecting Social Security benefits is voluntary.

They can't just "Issue" a number to you against your wishes (although I'm sure they'd try and succeed with you)

More weasel words. A Social Security number is required for use as a tax ID for everyone eligible. 26 U.S.C. § 6109(d). Do you believe that if you just hold your nose until you turn blue the govt can't touch you?

Sorry, but my labour is a form of property just like Joe's chickens and we traded property for property it's not "Income".

Wrong. "Appellant’s contention that the amounts he received from his employers constituted an equal, nontaxable exchanges of property rather than taxable income is clearly without merit." Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902, 906 (10th Cir. 1986). Many other cases say the same. Would you like to see some?

BTW, did you give up on the since-overruled Diefendorf case that didn't say what you claimed it did anyway?

You're not so good at this law thing, are you? Are you really a law student?

[Judge Roy Bean]

You see, I am of the opinion that the majority of posters on here (unlike on Icke's) actually understand law and are not nearly so gullible to be taken in by the type of bullshit that the likes of Menard spew.

Understand law you say ? These guy's actually think that you have an account with the Revenue Agency without your applying for one. An application is proof that you were the one who voluntarily instigated the whole relationship. You wanted benefits that Social Security / Insurance offers you so you went in and applied for the number. With the benefits come the obligations LIKE PAYING TAX ON INCOME, and I agree totally with that. But the idea that I'm obligated to pay for something that I'm not participating in is absurd......and even more absurd is the whole idea that the TV set and the 50 chickens I got for building Joe Smith's brick wall for him could ammount to "Income"......LoL.....LoL.

Honestly how can I pay my taxes if I don't use money ? Unfortunately the Government deals in Fiat Currency.......I don't.

No account......no money......NO TAXES.

No money, no life. Either that or you're simply another lying troll.

btw- I feel sorry for those poor souls whose parents got them their SSN's at birth. They don't appreciate the voluntary nature of Social Security if they don't have to apply for it themselves.

They're doing it here in Canada too. You can apply for your child right on the Birth Certificate form. They pass it off as a bonus so you don't have to face a higher fee for the card when the kid turns 16......what a scam !

Yep. SS is a scam. But there are so many people dependent on it that there's no practical way to turn it off without starving a few million elderly people.

There are some ancillary problems associated with not having a SSN - not the least of which is not being able to work for a legit company and having health insurance or disability coverage. Good luck with investing, too and of course banking is out of the question.

See, the further you wander off into the absurdity of alleging you don't participate in the system the more ridiculous your lies have to become. I know that because I know a few people who actually do live like that. It's not anywhere near as easy as your glib rehash of old TP arguments make it out to be.

[freedavep]

@ Pottapaug1938 Wow what a lot of hopping around and word gaming you just did with that last post. Reminds me of that pig "squealer" in George Orwell's "Animal Farm". If it's to be name calling then I guess I'll refer to you as PottyPig from now on....LoL.

However your post shows how you must dance around the real issues.

Typical troll distortion. That's not at all what I said. You become a "nontaxpayer" ONLY if your taxable income falls below the thresholds, AND you bouy nothing subject to sales or excise taxes.

Only when you your income falls below a certain threshold, eh ? You CAN'T pay without an account.....so you ARE NOT a taxpayer......and we're talking about "Income Tax" here not "Gasoline Tax" or "Sales Tax" so kindly and with some honour keep these taxes out of this. You're simply trying to mislead people with that one.

No, it's not voluntary. You require a SSN for many purposes; and I'm not going to waste my time enumerating them here. My wife doesn't pay into Social Security anymore only because she has a state-sponsored retirement system which fulfills the same function; but she will still collect SS base don her earlier contributions.

Yes it is voluntary.......you have to get out of bed, comb your hair, get dressed, go down to the office, walk up a flight of stairs, go to the girl at the desk and ask her for the application form, fill it out, read the declaration, SIGN IT, hand it back to her............and then the whole thing is still left up to someone else's discretion as to wheather or not you will receive a number which will entitle you to pay taxes and other contributions.........if they accept your application. The whole damn process is voluntary and absolute proof in court that YOU ASKED FOR IT. You can never claim the Government forced you into it. (you're probably one of those poor kids whose parents got it for them at birth)

The fact that you need a SS # for many purposes doesn't make it mandatory to have one. What law says they have the right to force a SS # onto anyone ? You have to apply for it. Although, if they attempt to assign one to you, your silence and subsequent use of the number will be deemed as consent

So your wife got a number,used it to contribute to the plan, stopped contributing at some point and will get SS Benefits upon retirement.........Well that PROVES it's mandatory then........

Wrong again. Your labor may be your "property"; but what did it cost you to bouy that property? Yout taxable income is based on the gain, or difference, between your cost basis in your labor and what you received in exchange for it. There is not one single court in my country or yours which has ever held differently without being overturned on appeal.

I have a plain white coffee mug that holds 500ml, I trade it with Joe for another "red" mug that holds 500ml..........It's equal value for equal value.....and I'm glad you agree that my labour is "property" cause it IS. You think that my right to use my body for labour (property) magically becomes "Income" because someone didn't charge me for that right ???......Huh ??? We're given the right to labour by God or by nature for our own survival and that right is backed up by the duty to not interfere with another's right to survival. The Government has that duty as well.

I don't know what the Canadian legal tender laws are; but down here Congress can declare FRNs to be lawful money and legal tender under Article I, Section 10 of our Constitution. The taxes to which I refer are all kinds; but I originally was thinking of the various town taxes paid by individuals to their town in the early years, or which they paid to the Crown when they imported certain items. The issue of whether the Government deemed these barters as income didn't exist at that point, since in the early years there was no income tax. Now, of course, the laws are different.

Once again we're talking about "Income Tax" here so I'll remind you to stop deceiving everyone reading this thread with talk about "the townsfolk paying the town taxes in the years before Income Tax" It's totally Irrelevant here.

As to the "Legal Tender" issue.......What do I or anyone else care what is deemed to be "legal tender" ? What law compells me ( obligates me) to use it if I don't want to ? The "legal tender" laws up here are pretty much the same as down there.......NO ONE IS OBLIGATED TO USE IT. Dealing in "legal tender" only brings you into the realm of "Income". Avoid "Income" and the Tax that goes with it.

And don't start pissing and moaning about Kentucky Fried Chicken and the GM Dealer only accept "Legal Tender"........it aint my f**king problem.

Get on point will you. Social Security is voluntary and without a SS account or a TIN you aren't a Taxpayer. Pottypig.

[Prof]

As a US lawyer, I know little or nothing about Canadian tax law, the Canadian equivalent of social security, and so forth (I know a good bit about Canadian insolvency law, but that is not the subject of this discussion). Therefore, I cannot contribute any observation about Canadian law to this discussion.

I can observe, however,cases originally cited apparently do not say what you say they do. I can observe that you seem obcessed with the idea that -- absent some sort of contract or agreement with the Canadian government, perhaps in the form of a Canadian social security number, you cannot be compelled to pay taxes.

This, I recognize, as more likely than not, the functional equivalent of "MDMVPBS." In other words, this looks like looney BS to me. The arguments make no sense, and I cannot imagine that Canadian law would recognize same, but, even if true, the theories have nothing to do with US law.

I can certainly tell you that your other theories have been tried in the US courts, as applied under US law, and all have failed in court opinion after court opinion. Not one of your arguments has been successful in a trial court or court of appeals, although, as far as I recall, none has made it to the Supreme Court of the US.

A batting average of .000 is pretty low. Further, if any of your theories were true when applied in the US, then I would certainly be using them, since I paid a federal tax bill last year that had six figures before the decimal.

Good luck in Canada. Does Canada send tax deniers to prison? Perhaps, before you try out your theories, you should attempt to determine how many years users spent in the pen. For example, Larken Rose and others in the US did not get really significant time, and, in exchange, those folks got room and board for a number of months or years. Of course, they still owed the taxes when they got out.

Good luck. Write and let us know how your life turns out.

[freedavep]

Weasel words. Paying Social Security tax is not at all voluntary. Collecting Social Security benefits is voluntary.

Weasel words ? The only weasel here is you. Of course Paying SS Tax is mandatory....IF YOU VOLUNTARILY APPLIED AND WERE ACCEPTED INTO THE PROGRAM[quote] Quit trying to deceive people with YOUR "weasel words"


More weasel words. A Social Security number is required for use as a tax ID for everyone eligible. 26 U.S.C. § 6109(d). Do you believe that if you just hold your nose until you turn blue the govt can't touch you?

Are you sniffing glue or something ?? (I think you've found a way to freebase the stuff)

"A SS number is required for use as a tax ID for everyone eligible"......hmmm Do you mean that without a SS number I don't have a Tax ID ? Why would I want a Tax ID ? If I'm careful I might be able to stop myself from going down to the office asking for an application reading and filling it out, signing the damn thing and submitting it for the Governments approval. Danm.....and I really wanted to pay taxes too !! (Are you trying to support my position here ???)

And what did you mean by "Eligible" ???




Wrong. "Appellant’s contention that the amounts he received from his employers constituted an equal, nontaxable exchanges of property rather than taxable income is clearly without merit." Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902, 906 (10th Cir. 1986). Many other cases say the same. Would you like to see some?

BTW, did you give up on the since-overruled Diefendorf case that didn't say what you claimed it did anyway?


The applicable word here is "employers" . The man was an employee which means he was probably working under a SS number.......well WAS HE ?? Trading your property for property IS NOT the same thing as being an "employee". Did this man willfuly and purposefully apply for a SS number ??

And the Deifendorf matter is applicable because of the Judges statement about property never being assesed or taxed in the United States. Was Deifendorf overturned because property IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN assesed and taxed in the United States ???......well was it ???

You're not so good at this law thing, are you? Are you really a law student

I beg to differ.......your comments just now pretty much proved my point. It's voluntary.

This "law thing" has more to do with the underlying principles that operate rather than these "weasel words" you come up with. An application is voluntary that's your Law Lesson for today.

Your new name is hereby "Weasel".

[freedavep]

Strong the wrong in Freep is.

As to Social Security is NOT voluntary in almost all situations. If you work, you will be taxed for it and when you retire, while you can defer receiving a benefit, eventually you have to start taking it.

Now, there are certain jobs/organizations that do not contribute to Social Security, and so its members do not qualify to get it in retirement - and one of the few situations where the employees are not being taxed to pay into Social Security. Most prominently are railroad workers and some teachers. HOWEVER, contributions are made in their name and when they retire, the money they receive is taxed - all if the money went in on a pre-tax basis, the gains if it went in on a post-tax basis.

As for not having a tax ID number, that can be so limiting when it comes to some things. It has to make it darned hard to get a passport, which means you never, ever get to travel abroad. Rules out joining the military too. And I think a lot of states require a TIN if you want a driver's license or ID card. In turn it means you cannot travel by air, and could be tough to travel by rail too. Might make the legal acquisition of guns rather difficult too.

So, while you could lead a completely cash life, it would be a mean, small, drab, dull, limited, little life. Go ahead if you want to try it, but do not expect anyone else to join you in your madness.

I'm tired today and sick of typing so I can't really respond to your post....but I noticed you mentioned "passports".

You don't need a SS # for one. You can fight it or you could opt for a world passport instead (they don't require a SS number). The WSA will issue one to you. Garry Davis has been doing this since the 40's

Cheers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PW34OD_geg

[wserra]

There are some posters to whom it is not worth responding. In his very first post, this guy learned Troll Lesson #1: don't cite anything, because, if you do, people can easily prove you wrong. After misciting an overruled Idaho case as dispositive of federal law, he learned his lesson, and hasn't bothered to cite anything since. For example:

Of course Paying SS Tax is mandatory....IF YOU VOLUNTARILY APPLIED AND WERE ACCEPTED INTO THE PROGRAM

Needless to say, he cites nothing in support of this non-existent qualification. In fact, if he could read he'd see that 26 USC 3101 - the statute that sets the employee part of the Social Secuity tax - imposes it "on the income of every individual". No hogwash about only those who "apply" and "were accepted". And 26 USC 3111 - the statute that provides for the employer part of Social Security - states that "there is hereby imposed on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ". No hogwash about only those individuals who "apply" and "were accepted".

But the actual law isn't compatible with the snake oil, so he makes shit up.

Enough. Anyone who doesn't see this can return to David Icke and his lizards.

[Pottapaug1938]

@ Pottapaug1938 Wow what a lot of hopping around and word gaming you just did with that last post. Reminds me of that pig "squealer" in George Orwell's "Animal Farm". If it's to be name calling then I guess I'll refer to you as PottyPig from now on....LoL.

Pottypig.

After whining about me calling you a fool, you stoop to calling ME names like this? Not only are you a fool, but you're a hypocrite.

I'm not going to dignify the rest of your post with a response, because that might imply that there is some merit in your arguments. Also, the fact that your points have been addressed and rebutted already by me and several others, to which you respond by typical Tax Denier weaving, evasion, distortion and outright lying makes it evident that I would have an easier time convincing Pauline Marois to become your next Governor General.

I will address one of your points, though. You talk about swapping your coffee cup for that of another. Well, for someone who whines about perceived irrelevancies in my posts, you just introduced a whopper. When you bought your coffee cup, you paid the purchase price for it, plus the relevant taxes; and so did your friend. If the cups were gifts, then the original purchasers did. If you did some work for your friend and got the coffee cup in payment -- sorry, but the value of that cup is technically income (although I can't imagine anyone who would bother reporting it).

[Arthur Rubin]

There are some posters to whom it is not worth responding. In his very first post, this guy learned Troll Lesson #1: don't cite anything, because, if you do, people can easily prove you wrong. After misciting an overruled Idaho case as dispositive of federal law, he learned his lesson, and hasn't bothered to cite anything since.

Actually, he cited is as dispositive of Canadian Federal law....

[LPC]

The Tax Protester FAQ addresses the claim that there is no law requiring a Social Security number, as well as the claims that the federal income tax only applies to people who have entered into contracts with the government, such as by applying for a Social Security number or by signing a Form W-4 (i.e., the federal withholding certificate).

[Imalawman]

I have actually represented people before the CRA. This is sort of like trying to convince the man who has sailed around the world that the earth is flat. The CRA has made my clients pay them even though they had only a US SSN. I've almost been successful in having them not pay Canadian tax, but based on actual law - not wishful thinking.

Moreover, I've also represented illegal aliens in this country that are trying to get "right" and they want to start paying tax. The IRS will take their money just fine, and assign them a TIN.

So an idiot can blather about theoretical nonsense, but its doesn't matter to the person that actually works in the trenches day in and day out and knows the reality of the situation.

I also noticed that now he's raised the whole labor = exchange of value tripe. Funny how tax protestors can't seem to settle on a particular theory.