Can BITCOINs Defeat IRS Tax Thieves?

[Pottapaug1938]

I guess bobhurt was raised in the "debate consists of ducking other peoples' questions, and repeating your own fantasies time and time again until they grow tired of you and stop trying to smarten you up" school of intellectual discourse.

Of course, the subsets "intellectual discourse" and "bobhurt" have no overlap....

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
More to the point, why would any self-respecting Quatloosian, so eager to reject tax protester arguments and a plethora of patriot myths, so readily swallow hook, line, and sinker the obvious fraud that Obama has any kind of US citizenship. ...

In some part because the fraud isn't as obvious as some would like to believe, but mostly because the question is moot - there is no mechanism outside impeachment to remove a sitting president and that is an impossibility for the foreseeable future. It's the equivalent of the looney crowd who still thinks Bush stole the presidency from Gore.

The whole birfer thing doesn't pass my "so what?" test, not to mention the fact that so many of the proponents are so far out on the fringe that they are either political bigots or they lack credibility.

We have bigger problems.

[Judge Roy Bean]

A word of warning - the bobhurt site may have malicious content despite Bob's assurances that the problem was from a cached version of the site.

Details:

Web page:
http://bobhurt.com/

Description:
Access to the web page was blocked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
The web page is on the list of websites with potentially dangerous content.

This may or may not be an active threat. I will leave it to the webhick-level experts to do more robust analysis and address the issue, but for now, our network propeller head won't modify the parameters and depending on the protection you use, you may be exposing your system.

[notorial dissent]

Of course, the subsets "intellectual discourse" and "bobhurt" have no overlap....

One might also include the sets of "reality" and "rationality" as well where there is equally no overlap.

[wserra]

It's the equivalent of the looney crowd who still thinks Bush stole the presidency from Gore.

Well, that one did go to a 5-4 Supreme Court.

Yes, I realize it's not that simple, and God knows I don't believe that "Bush stole the presidency from Gore". But I also don't believe that Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), is on the same level as birf.

[LPC]

More to the point, why would any self-respecting Quatloosian, so eager to reject tax protester arguments and a plethora of patriot myths, so readily swallow hook, line, and sinker the obvious fraud that Obama has any kind of US citizenship.

I think that there are a few tax nuts who are crazy only when it comes to taxes.

However, most are like bobhurt, and are crazy about practically everything.

[Duke2Earl]

However, most are like bobhurt, and are crazy about practically everything.

Just think about the possibilities when one is not bound to actual reality. You can have a custom made bespoke world that fits your crazy like a hand made glove. It all fits together, don't 'ya know? Hate Obama?... well, even if he was elected he doesn't qualify to be President. Hate income taxes?... the courts are corrupt and it's unconstitutional under the "real" constitution. Hate the government?... every person gets to read and interpret the "real" laws the way they choose.

Once you go wacky, one size fits all.

[notorial dissent]

And when you're not too tightly wrapped to begin with and have at best a tenuous grip on reality like babbling Bobby, it's just that much easier.

[Cathulhu]

Speaking as a Lightning Hedonist in the Mystic Order of Arachnid Vigilance, the nigh-invulnerable one also said, "Gravity is a cruel mistress", and my personal fave Tick quote, "Ninjas. They're wacky."

Spoon!

[Harvester]

Anyone want a bitcoin... gratis?

[bobhurt]

There are at least two types of idiots in the world: those who believe that a "direct tax" is any tax that is imposed and collected directly, and those who believe that a direct tax can NOT be collected directly, but must be apportioned and collected through the states. It's one of those rare cases in which seemingly opposite views are BOTH wrong.

You keep missing the point. Sure, the IRS may collect a direct tax directly from the taxpayer. However, Congress must apportion it according to population, and that means everybody who pays would pay precisely the same amount of money. The 16th Amendment didn't change that reality. But the IRS treats it like a direct tax anyway,

[notorial dissent]

No, Bob, it is you that keeps missing the point.

What part of

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.

don’t you get?

The 16th allows for a tax on INCOMES, and it strikes down any requirement of apportionment or regard for census that might otherwise be required, so it doesn't matter what type of tax, direct or indirect, it might be otherwise considered to be. As long as it is on INCOMES, IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!!

Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend??

[bobhurt]

What part of the 16th amendment don't I understand? I've heard that same question from USDC magistrates and judges, and I've never understood their thinking processes. They seemed intentionally obtuse.

Did you see any provision in the 16 Amendment for repealing the apportionment clauses of Article I? I didn't. So that means,as the Supreme Court ruled, the 16th amendment's removal of apportionment from Congress' power to tax incomes thereby moved income tax into the indirect tax category like excises, for all direct taxes operate (and ONLY indirect taxes don't operate) by the rule of apportionment. What part of that do YOU not understand?

Furthermore, as the Supreme Court ruled, the income tax does NOT tax incomes because incomes constitute PROPERTY, and any tax on property, the court said, is a direct tax. Instead, income tax applies to an event, activity, happening, or occurrence for which the derived income merely provides a means of measuring the amount of tax due from the persons made liable for payment. What part of THAT don't you understand?

If the IRS treats it as a direct tax, it must be apportioned. If apportioned, everyone who pays the tax pays the same amount. If not apportioned, then Congress must define the revenue taxable event, happening, activity. or occurrence that makes one liable for paying it. Where have you seen such definitions? Subtitle F maybe?

Who has the authority and duty to withhold the income tax from a stream of income?

What law specifically makes one liable for the tax imposed?

As nearly as I can tell no US citizen domiciled, residing, and earning income in the US has any income tax liability for that income. But of course, the tax code is so hopelessly convoluted that nobody seems to understand it perfectly. How many disagreements have you had with your own colleagues over it's meanings?

[notorial dissent]

What part of the 16th amendment don't I understand? I've heard that same question from USDC magistrates and judges, and I've never understood their thinking processes. They seemed intentionally obtuse.
Only because you weren’t paying attention and already had your mind made up. Every one else whose IQ is above room temperature seems to have no problem with it.

Did you see any provision in the 16 Amendment for repealing the apportionment clauses of Article I? I didn't. So that means,as the Supreme Court ruled, the 16th amendment's removal of apportionment from Congress' power to tax incomes thereby moved income tax into the indirect tax category like excises, for all direct taxes operate (and ONLY indirect taxes don't operate) by the rule of apportionment. What part of that do YOU not understand?

without apportionment among the several States,
and without regard to any census or enumeration

Seems to be pretty specific in that it exempts the INCOME TAX from the above. It did no such thing, they simply said that as of the 16th, it DOESN’T matter. That’s why they call it an Amendment, it amends/changes the constitution in some fashion, in this case it changes the treatment of taxes on incomes.

Furthermore, as the Supreme Court ruled, the income tax does NOT tax incomes because incomes constitute PROPERTY, and any tax on property, the court said, is a direct tax. Instead, income tax applies to an event, activity, happening, or occurrence for which the derived income merely provides a means of measuring the amount of tax due from the persons made liable for payment. What part of THAT don't you understand?
Oh, and just when did they say that. Not that it matters since the 16th says they can.

If the IRS treats it as a direct tax, it must be apportioned. If apportioned, everyone who pays the tax pays the same amount. If not apportioned, then Congress must define the revenue taxable event, happening, activity. or occurrence that makes one liable for paying it. Where have you seen such definitions? Subtitle F maybe?
No, the IRS treats it as an INCOME TAX which does not need to be apportioned or treated as anything but a tax.

Who has the authority and duty to withhold the income tax from a stream of income?
Whoever the law directs.

What law specifically makes one liable for the tax imposed?
Old one Bobby, and long ago asked and answered.

As nearly as I can tell no US citizen domiciled, residing, and earning income in the US has any income tax liability for that income. But of course, the tax code is so hopelessly convoluted that nobody seems to understand it perfectly. How many disagreements have you had with your own colleagues over it's meanings?
You obviously can’t tell very much then. Nonsense and evasion. For most of the filing public the basis is quite simple, you have income above a certain level you are responsible for paying the tax on it as specified by law.

If it weren’t for the fact that this comedy routine has been tried enumerable time, and failed at each attempt you might be funny, but as it is, you are just pathetic, and more to the point boring.

[wserra]

Did you see any provision in the 16 Amendment for repealing the apportionment clauses of Article I? I didn't.

Ah. So in World o' Hurt, a constitutional amendment which supersedes a previous constitutional provision must, in order to be valid, expressly repeal that prior provision. So I guess John McCain is really the Vice-President, since the Twelfth Amendment did not expressly repeal Art.II sec.1. And I guess that none of the present members of the Senate validly hold office, since the Seventeenth Amendment did not expressly repeal Art.I sec.3. Oh, and none of the current Representatives hold valid office either, since the Fourteenth Amendment did not expressly repeal Art.I sec.2.

C'mon, Bob, you gotta be trolling. No one with a Moro reflex could believe this shit.

Just one other thing:

But of course, the tax code is so hopelessly convoluted that nobody seems to understand it perfectly. How many disagreements have you had with your own colleagues over it's meanings?

Concerning the liability of U.S. individuals to pay taxes on their incomes? None whatsoever.

But then, we have Moro reflexes.

[LPC]

Did you see any provision in the 16 Amendment for repealing the apportionment clauses of Article I? I didn't.

I'll highlight it for you:

“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.”

Can you see it now?

Furthermore, as the Supreme Court ruled, the income tax does NOT tax incomes because incomes constitute PROPERTY, and any tax on property, the court said, is a direct tax.

The Supreme Court never said that.

It's possible that you're trying to paraphrase the holding in Pollock, but that's not what the Pollock court said, and the Pollock decision was overruled by the 16th Amendment.

If the IRS treats it [a tax] as a direct tax, it must be apportioned.

The word "treats" conveys no discernible meaning in that sentence. The word is so vague as to be meaningless.

Even assuming that the word "treats" has some meaning, the conclusion is wrong for at least two different reasons:

1. How the IRS "treats" a tax is irrelevant. If the tax is on incomes, then the tax doesn't need to be apportioned because the 16th Amendment says it doesn't need to be apportioned.

2. A tax on incomes is a tax on incomes, and the IRS doesn't have the power to "treat" a tax on incomes as anything other than a tax on incomes.

If apportioned, everyone who pays the tax pays the same amount.

Which shows that you don't understand the meaning of apportionment or how it works.

From two of the opinions in Hylton (1796):

It appears to me, that a tax on carriages cannot be laid by the rule of apportionment, without very great inequality and injustice. For example: Suppose two States, equal in census, to pay 80,000 dollars each, by a tax on carriages, of 8 dollars on every carriage; and in one State there are 100 carriages, and in the other 1000. The owners of carriages in one State, would pay ten times the tax of owners in the other. A. in one State, would pay for his carriage 8 dollars, but B. in the other state, would pay for his carriage, 80 dollars.

And:

A tax on carriages, if apportioned, would be oppressive and pernicious. How would it work? In some states there are many carriages, and in others but few. Shall the whole sum fall on one or two individuals in a state, who may happen to own and possess carriages? The thing would be absurd, and inequitable.

(Incidentally, William Paterson was a member of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that wrote the Constitution.)

Anyway, if Congress were to impose a tax on incomes and if the tax had to be apportioned, the tax imposed would still be based on a person's income, but different rates would apply in different states. The residents of a state with a low population but a high average income would pay a lower rate of tax that the residents of a state with a high population but a lower average income.

If not apportioned, then Congress must define the revenue taxable event, happening, activity. or occurrence that makes one liable for paying it.

“From the beginning the revenue laws have been interpreted as defining ‘realization’ of income as the taxable event rather than the acquisition of the right to receive it.” Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112, 115 (1940).

The Supreme Court has also stated that Congress has taxed all "undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized...." Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955).

Where have you seen such definitions? Subtitle F maybe?

No, in IRC section 61, which refers to "all income from whatever source derived." As demonstrated by the Supreme Court opinions cited above, the requirement of a receipt or realization event is implicit in the meaning of the word "income," because something is not income until it is received or otherwise realized.

As nearly as I can tell no US citizen domiciled, residing, and earning income in the US has any income tax liability for that income.

Schiller!

[Duke2Earl]

You guys are SOOOO actual reality based. You don't get custom made reality thing. You see, it just isn't fair that the morons at the federal government and their storm trooping lackeys at the IRS can STEAL some of my hard earned cash. So therefore... They can't. The founders, blessed be thy names, would not have agreed with this theft. So whatever has to be read in whatever manner to reach the result that agrees with the FAIR result as intended by god almighty and channeling of the founders... thy will be done. And except for the corrupt courts and the communists at Quatloos, freedom would prevail, as intended, throughout the land and the IRS would fry in hell.

It's all a plot, don't you know?

Bob, you really need to see a medical professional. It's not a legal issue, with you and many of the other tax deniers here, it's really an emotional issue and all the research in the world will not begin to resolve it..

[Famspear]

.....Bob, you really need to see a medical professional. It's not a legal issue, with you and many of the other tax deniers here, it's really an emotional issue and all the research in the world will not begin to resolve it..

Bob Hurt, like other tax protesters, is in "denial."

I suspect that there could have been a triggering incident with either an IRS employee or court personnel some years ago. Maybe Bob can enlighten us as to how all this got started.

Why, Bob, did you start interacting with me in 2006?

And what was the purpose of the incident on June 26, 2007 in St. Petersburg, Florida? Bob, why were you trying to video tape federal law enforcement officers in the lobby? What event were you taping, and why?

[Okosh]

Bitcoin transactions bypass the central banking scam, in fact they bypass banks altogether. They're generally anonymous and involve no reporting. Bitcoins are not securities and as long as your bitcoins were purchased with lawful money, they're not income under the Revenue Acts (whether reported or not). Although the official Quatloser line is something like "they are includible as income" which I interpret as, includible if I so choose to consider them income, if I so choose to consent into the IRS tax scam. No thanks.

bitcoin is not anonymous. You can hide your identity to a point but it is traceable.
you can read more about that here...
http://anonymity-in-bitcoin.blogspot.co ... ymous.html

I doubt this will help Bob, but based on recent events, I would not consider bitcoin as a way to store value or conduct any significant transaction. I would not place significantly more trust in bitcoin than I would in paypal.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/16 ... e_forcing/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/19 ... pse_again/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/16 ... ft_claims/

bitcoin is far less safe then paypal.....
The hackers and thieves are all on to bitcoin....
They even developed a new trojan named,"Trojan.coinbitminer" designed specially to steal your bitcoin....
A recent hack saw the price fall from $17.50 to almost zero though it did later come back up...
We have also seen a hyip come(and go) which only took bitcoin........
And of course all the usual exchanges from the scam industry now deal bitcoin....

IMO bitcoin is rubbish and I wouldn't touch it....

[.]

Like MySpace and other flashes in the pan, Bitcoin will have come and gone with barely a ripple in reality.

I wouldn't even have been aware of its pitiful existence, were it not for Q, it gets no mention on even whacko-infested financial boards.

I won't even bother checking it out, because it's obviously of no consequence and a waste of time.

It does sound like the sort of crap that VonNutBall would be interested in. Is Bernie incarcerated? Does he have internet access? Is he missing an opportunity to participate in another scam and do more hard time when it all blows up?