I want to title my own thread, thank you

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Post by LPC »

fuzzrabbit wrote:Florida:
So what about 861(b) and 861(a)(3) fuzz?
What do they say? I no longer have a copy of the Code (Looking for one--anyone know where I can get a reasonably priced --*free*-- copy?).
Okay, here it is again, for the third time:
LPC wrote:in order to reach his conclusion, Larken has to ignore not only the plain words of sections 61 and 63, but also the plain words of section 861 itself.

Section 861(b) defines "taxable income from sources within the United States" as "the items of gross income specified in subsection (a) as being income from sources within the United States" less certain deductions. Subsection (a) states that "The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States: ... (3) Personal services.
Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States...."

In order to avoid the conclusion that "compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States" is included in "taxable income from sources within the United States," Larken is forced to argue that section 861 does not apply to citizens of the United States even though it does not say so.

And that's why he launches into his squirrelly argument about the Constitution, because he needs to find some way of explaining why section 861 doesn't actually mean what it says.
And if you want to read section 861 yourself, you can find it at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... -000-.html
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Post by LPC »

fuzzrabbit wrote:
LPC wrote:
fuzzrabbit wrote:Larken's central argument is that taxes must be specific: No one says the gov't doesn't have taxing power,
Larken does.
NO, Dan, he doesn't. CITE.
Okay:
Larken Rose wrote:While Congress is authorized to regulate interstate commerce (commerce crossing state lines) and international commerce, it has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce (commerce occurring entirely within a single state). By the simple logic above, that means Congress cannot tax income from intrastate commerce.
"Taxable Income" (4/15/2002), page 17.

And here's a puzzle for you: In Federalist #32, Alexander Hamilton wrote that "the power of imposing taxes on all articles other than exports and imports" is "manifestly a concurrent and coequal authority in the United States and in the individual States." He then goes on to discuss the possibility that the federal government and the state governments might both impose taxes on the same things: "It is, indeed, possible that a tax might be laid on a particular article by a State which might render it INEXPEDIENT that thus a further tax should be laid on the same article by the Union; but it would not imply a constitutional inability to impose a further tax." (Emphasis in original.)

Now, the Constitution plainly bars the states from imposing taxes on interstate commerce. (Article I, Section 10, clause 2.) So states can only tax intrastate commerce. And Larken says that Congress has no power to tax intrastate commerce and can only tax interstate commerce. And yet Alexander Hamilton that the federal government and the states could both tax the same things. How could he have been so wrong about the meaning of the Constitution he helped write?

(And one of the sentences I've written above is actually wrong, but I'm going to leave it to you to figure out which one.)
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Post by LPC »

fuzzrabbit wrote:silversopp:
There is nothing in the Constitutional that limits their power to tax income.
AMENDMENT X.
Wrong.

The 10th Amendment says that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" are reserved to the states and the people.

The power to tax is expressly delegated to the Congress of the United States by Article I, Section 8.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
User avatar
webhick
Illuminati Obfuscation: Black Ops Div
Posts: 3994
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:41 am

Post by webhick »

CaptainKickback wrote:Did Fuzzrabbit also take driving tips from Dale Earnhardt? Or boating advice from Capts. Hazelwood and Smith? Or investment advice from Barry Minkow? Probably not.

But, one gets the impression that he is willing to take tax advice from a convicted tax felon. If so, there is a bit of a disconnect and a serious incongruity.

Take a step back from the precipice PoliceBunny, take a deep breath and invoke logic. Otherwise, it is a short, step slide to taking career advice from Britney, or legal advice from D.A. Nifong........
Taking child rearing advice from Britney Spears
Taking acting advice from Kathy Ireland
Taking singing lessons from Yoko Ono
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
Nikki

Post by Nikki »

fuzzrabbit wrote:Nikki:
Wrong. Both at you and Rose's argument.

Rose ignores the clear statement of "whatever source" and argues that whatever doesn't mean whatever because whatever isn't specifically defined so that he can invent his own definition of sources.

Rose's argument (which isn't his because he's around the 3rd generation of evaders to use it) was discredited in court before he ever drank the koolaid.

Check Dave Bossett for historical precedence.
Source is never defined, but IS determined for taxpayer in 861. Subchapter N: Determines sources of taxable income from within and without the U.S. Do you know of any other kind?

Who is Bossett? do you Yahoo? Tell me more.
How does "whatever source" require any definition? If something is a source, it clearly falls in the category of "whatever", doesn't it?
Florida

Post by Florida »

fuzzrabbit wrote:Nikki:
How does "whatever source" require any definition? If something is a source, it clearly falls in the category of "whatever", doesn't it?
Boy, you've almost got it! That's just it, my man, IS IT a source??? HOW do you KNOW? You GO to the place, the ONLY place "SOURCE" is EVER discussed in the Code (besides with the MODIFIER---MODIFIER--MODIFIER---MODIFIER!!!!!!!!! "whatever"--- sorry: want to make SURE, SURE, SURE someone here gets this tonight): 861. Could just as well say "every goddamn source you ever frickin' saw" and it would still be a ....."source"...... Get it yet???? Titles are nice but the text is the law. What does it SAY? I don't have a copy of the Code in front of me (takes so long to call it up online), but I know it says to use 861 and followng "to determine the sources of income FOR PUROSES OF THE INCOME TAX." 1.861-1(a) I believe. About 6 other places; 1.863-1(c) I believe, etc., etc. Nothin' about special ANYTHING.

Just readin' the regs., doin' what they say...

jg says you have to read in context: "determine allocations of important sources of income to sources within and without the United States, as case may be..." or something like that. Quatloosers say that means for those "who need to determine this to allocate so they can know what of their income is taxable," but HOW DOES THAT EXCLUDE ANYONE? It doesn't SAY for ONLY those special persons with inome from within and without--it says "to determine the sources of income for purposes of the income tax." They can say red-headed monkeys use this section. Still DOESN'T exclude me from using it. I'm DOING what it SAYS to do: "USE it!"

Now--------IF ANY OF YOU AGREE WITH THIS OR NOT------- please understand THAT THIS IS LARKEN'S ARGUMENT. Why not address it? Again, I haven't made a decision that even *I* agree with it! THAT'S why I'm here. Yes, I'm ATTRACTED by it. That DOESN'T mean I BUY IT......

I won't even address any posts that don't from here on acknowledge the above. You are wasting your time and mine.
That was pretty slick of you - claiming you didn't know about 861(a) or (b), while still claiming to say 861 is the ticket to no taxes, while not knowing what 861(a) or (b) say, then asking for the text of these code sections, then taking off for a day, then coming back and then saying that unless you cover it in your posting, then you won't acknowledge it.

Sure, it seemed really fishy that you don't have the ablity to find section 861(a) or (b). I mean, you can find freaking regulations promulgated under the code sections, but you can't find the code sections?

Huh? WTF?

Think about this for a second - you say you'll address 861(a) and (b) but then decide not to (probably because you couldn't find the answer on Larken's website).

This is typical tax protestor behavior - irrational, illogical and uneducated.

How can you claim to know the 861 argument if you don't know what 861(a) or (b) says?

You've already made up your mind without knowing what those code sections say?

You have to ask US to show YOU what 861 says, but you already know the 861 argument works?

Huh?

Image
Florida

Post by Florida »

fuzzrabbit wrote:Florida:
That was pretty slick of you - claiming you didn't know about 861(a) or (b), while still claiming to say 861 is the ticket to no taxes, while not knowing what 861(a) or (b) say, then asking for the text of these code sections, then taking off for a day, then coming back and then saying that unless you cover it in your posting, then you won't acknowledge it.
Jeez, I was just asking for a quote. You act like I'm Attila the Hun or something. What's with you guys? I was weeding out off the point commentary with the above post. I want to get to the point, OK?
Sure, it seemed really fishy that you don't have the ablity to find section 861(a) or (b). I mean, you can find freaking regulations promulgated under the code sections, but you can't find the code sections?
Yes I can find them myself. I just looked at 861 (a). What about it? Do you see anything there about whose income?
Think about this for a second - you say you'll address 861(a) and (b) but then decide not to (probably because you couldn't find the answer on Larken's website).
Back off. I think for myself!
This is typical tax protestor behavior - irrational, illogical and uneducated.
Sorry--just an open mind. Is YOURS?
How can you claim to know the 861 argument if you don't know what 861(a) or (b) says?
Well, I do. What can I help you with?

WAIT, I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY SAY.

NOW YOU SAY YOU DO KNOW WHAT THEY SAY. HOW CAN YOU BE ATTRACTED TO THIS ARGUMENT WITHOUT READING THE CODE SECTIONS, UNLESS YOU DECIDE BEFOREHAND THAT THE ARGUMENT IS CORRECT WITHOUT FIRST CHECKING THE LAW.


You've already made up your mind without knowing what those code sections say?
I've NEVER said anything of the kind.
You have to ask US to show YOU what 861 says, but you already know the 861 argument works?
Tell me what your chemistry teacher said in college chemistry about covalent bonds....
Huh?
Go back to bed.

MUSTA UPSET YOU BECAUSE ITS THE TRUTH - YOU ASKED US TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE LAW. YOU WERE ATTRACTED TO AN ARGUMENT WITHOUT FIRST READING THE LAW.

IT'S OK. YOU CAN ADMIT IT. LOTS OF PEOPLE DON'T READ THE LAW, THEY ASSUME. JUST ADMIT THAT AND YOU'LL BE MAKING SOME PROGRESS. GOOD NIGHT JOHNNY.

Image
[/quote]
Florida

Post by Florida »

fuzzrabbit wrote:
GOOD NIGHT JOHNNY.[/b][/color]
You're not even funny. I want to talk with adults.Image
[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Still can't admit you found 861 attractive without first reading 861 huh?

Oh wait youre refusing to discuss that little point. :)

Good night.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Post by LPC »

fuzzrabbit wrote:LPC
(And one of the sentences I've written above is actually wrong, but I'm going to leave it to you to figure out which one.)
"international" not "interstate" commerce.
Wrong. Guess again.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Post by LPC »

fuzzrabbit wrote:
The power to tax is expressly delegated to the Congress of the United States by Article I, Section 8.
That is IRRELEVANT to Larken's argument. He agrees.
I think we've just gone in a complete circle.

But let's try again:
Larken Rose wrote:While Congress is authorized to regulate interstate commerce (commerce crossing state lines) and international commerce, it has no jurisdiction over intrastate commerce (commerce occurring entirely within a single state). By the simple logic above, that means Congress cannot tax income from intrastate commerce.
"Taxable Income" (4/15/2002), page 17.

Now, in order to support what Larken wrote, you cite the 10th Amendment, I respond by saying that the Constitution give Congress the power to tax, you say that Larken agrees, and I quote the passage above.

The fact that you don't see the circularity might explain why it is that you can buy into Larken's fraud, because his entire "argument" is based on a kind of verbal shell game. He's constantly moving the pea from shell to shell, and I can see him do it, but you can't.

There's a good example on the same page 17 of "Taxable Income." Larken proposes that, if Congress could tax everything, then Congress could CONTROL everything. He then cites a Supreme Court opinion (Bailey v. Drexel Furniture) for the proposition that "Congress could not control by tax legislation matters which they have no jurisdiction to regulate." That statement by itself is true, but Larken never addresses the real issue, which is whether Congress can tax something without regulating it. Larken conflates taxation with regulation, moves the pea back and forth from one to the other, and you're too dim-witted to see that there could be a difference.

You're also lazy, because you've obviously never read the Drexel Furniture decision. If you had, you would have seen what Larken never tells you, which is that the court itself drew a distinction between taxation and regulation.
The difference between a tax and a penalty is sometimes difficult to define, and yet the consequences of the distinction in the required method of their collection often are important. Where the sovereign enacting the law has power to impose both tax and penalty, the difference between revenue production and mere regulation may be immaterial, but not so when one sovereign can impose a tax only, and the power of regulation rests in another. Taxes are occasionally imposed in the discretion of the Legislature on proper subjects with the primary motive of obtaining revenue from them and with the incidental motive of discouraging them by making their continuance onerous. They do not lose their character as taxes because of the incidental motive. But there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty, with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.
All of the verbiage about the difference between taxation and regulation would have been unnecessary if Congress could only tax what it could regulate, but the power of Congress to tax intrastate commerce was accepted by all of the parties and never questioned in the Drexel Furniture opinion. The court was addressing a situation "when one sovereign [the United States] can impose a tax only, and the power of regulation rests in another" (the state). So the only way the court could strike down the tax was to hold that it was not really a tax but a regulation, and holding that would not be necessary if Larken were right.

So the Drexel Furniture decision actually contradicts Larken, but he never tells you that, and you're too gullible to figure it out for yourself.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Paul

Post by Paul »

Paul: Quote:
But to compute their taxable income? It would be a waste of time.
What, then, is the purpose of 1.863-1(c)?
You mean the subsection that says:

"The taxpayer's taxable income from sources within or without the United States will be determined under the rules of Sec. Sec. 1.861-8 through 1.861-14T for determining taxable
income from sources within the United States."?

It says absolutely nothing about what happens AFTER you've divided your income into the two piles. And, as I explained to you, there are times when it is necessary for a citizen to do so -- computing the limit on foreign tax credit for one -- but nowhere does the IRC or anything else make dividing the average citizen's income into two piles, one within and one without the US, necessary to determine the citizen's taxable income for purposes of computing the tax in IRC Section 1.

Now try actually doing the reading and you'll see my post is correct, and Larkin is full of it
natty

Post by natty »

fuzzrabbit wrote: This isn't a contest over who is right or wrong. I want to learn the truth and make this country better.
Therein lies the problem.
Just when you think you are having an academic discussion about the tax law, the tax protester nutjob is really discussing tax law advocacy.
natty

Post by natty »

fuzzrabbit wrote:I've read Section 1 many times. The tax imposed is on "taxable" income, not gross. Rules for determining tax on taxable income are ONLY in 861--no where else.
Wrong.
'Taxable income' is explained in sec. 63.
'Taxable income' does not mean "income that is taxable".
natty

Post by natty »

fuzzrabbit wrote:natty:
This isn't a contest over who is right or wrong. I want to learn the truth and make this country better.

Therein lies the problem.
Just when you think you are having an academic discussion about the tax law, the tax protester nutjob is really discussing tax law advocacy.
More namecalling. Something wrong with wanting better tax law?
What is wrong is you can't tell the difference between reporting what the law is and being an advocate for the law.
Randall
Warden of the Quatloosian Sane Asylum
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: The Deep South, so deep I'm almost in Rhode Island.

Post by Randall »

fuzzrabbit wrote:
Now try actually doing the reading and you'll see my post is correct, and Larkin is full of it
I've read Section 1 many times. The tax imposed is on "taxable" income, not gross. Rules for determining tax on taxable income are ONLY in 861--no where else. The tax isn't levied unless it states whose income, and where the income is earned. How could you know if Chinese were taxable, for example? STATUTE 861 doesn't say WHO. The regs. do. And they don't say domestic income is taxable for citizens, only foreigners, as best I can tell.
Try rereading section 1. it clearly explains WHO is taxed, ie, unmarried individuals, married individuals, HoH, trusts and estates.
Section 1. Tax imposed

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who
makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013,
and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),

a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

(table deleted for brevity)

(b) Heads of households
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a
household (as defined in section 2(b)) a tax determined in
accordance with the following table:

(table deleted for brevity)

(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual
(other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a) or the
head of a household as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a
married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in
accordance with the following table:

(table deleted for brevity)

(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married
individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single
return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined
in accordance with the following table:
(table deleted for brevity)

(e) Estates and trusts
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
(1) every estate, and
(2) every trust,

taxable under this subsection a tax determined in accordance with
the following table: (table deleted for brevity)
Florida

Post by Florida »

This isn't a contest over who is right or wrong. I want to learn the truth and make this country better. I think at the VERY least the IRS and Justice Department owe Larken better answers than he has gotten from them so far.
Why does it matter what you think? You didn't even know what 861(a) or (b) say - yet youre traipsing around like you know something about tax law. Youre throwing around buzz words without any clue what youre talking about. And whats making it worse is that youre trying to reason with educated tax professionals (or simply educated people) and its causing big problems because youre logic and analysis is all scrambled up.


And youre right, this is no contest...

Image
Brian Rookard
Beefcake
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 5:09 am

Post by Brian Rookard »

fuzzrabbit wrote:This isn't a contest over who is right or wrong. I want to learn the truth and make this country better.
And therein lies the problem with most tax protestors. They have this "vision" about some idyllic time that they fantasize about, and that they somehow believe we need to return to. They believe that there is some "constitutional crisis" that needs to be "fixed." Government has supposedly reached beyond its legitimate bounds.

The tax protesting gurus spout this vision to which people like Fuzzy gravitate.

The rank and file of the tax protestor movement now view it as some sacred obligation to return us to those halcyon days of (allegedly) perfect government (around the time of the founders).

At least, that's the "vision" which they use to justify their insanity. But the thing is, nobody wants to really go back to those times and the tax protestor is unable to convince the mass of people in order to legitimately bring about change.

Since tax protestors can't win at the ballot box, they turn to claiming that what the government is doing is "illegal" or "unconstitutional" and they want to turn to the law to demonstrate that everything the government is doing is illegal.

This is where Fuzzy is ... and he can't be convinced otherwise ... he *knows* that something is amiss ... and he justifies what he wants to do in the name of bringing about this change. Hey, the founders brought about change didn't they? Fuzzy views himself as stepping in to protect this pristine vision the founders had for all of us. Fuzzy views himself as a protector of the Republic - what he is doing is therefore right and just.

And this is why tax protestors will defend their lunacy to the bitter end. Their so-called patriotism is their religion. They cannot admit their error because the mental trauma in being proven wrong would be too great for them to bear. Hence, many of them will defend their beliefs to the bitter end.

Thus, there is nothing that can be done to convince the tax protestor of his error ... he is too emotionally wedded to his beliefs ... and to give up now would be too great a betrayal to these beliefs they hold.

Notice, Fuzzy says it is not about who is right or wrong. Thus, we can still be right ... and it is not about that. It is about his vision. Fuzzy doesn't really want to be convinced that he's wrong ... because he *prefers* the vision that people like Larken spout. He would rather be on that side ... and so he *wants* to stay there.
Randall
Warden of the Quatloosian Sane Asylum
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: The Deep South, so deep I'm almost in Rhode Island.

Post by Randall »

[quote="fuzzrabbit]Income from where?[/quote]

From "from whatever source derived, without apportionment"
-16th Amendment.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Post by LPC »

fuzzrabbit wrote:Nikki:
How does "whatever source" require any definition? If something is a source, it clearly falls in the category of "whatever", doesn't it?
Boy, you've almost got it! That's just it, my man, IS IT a source??? HOW do you KNOW? You GO to the place, the ONLY place "SOURCE" is EVER discussed in the Code (besides with the MODIFIER---MODIFIER--MODIFIER---MODIFIER!!!!!!!!! "whatever"--- sorry: want to make SURE, SURE, SURE someone here gets this tonight): 861.
Two problems:

1. Determining the source of income could ONLY be important if it was necessary to distinguish between income from any source and income from no source. After all, the word "whatever" has got to mean *something," and what it means is that *which* source is NOT important and ANY source will do. So even if a source is needed, it doesn't make any difference which source you have, as long as you have one.

But is there such a thing as income without any source at all? How could income just appear out of the air, without any money coming from any employer or any investment?

2. Second problem is that section 861(a) clearly states that compensation for services performed in the United States is from a source within the United States. So we KNOW that wages for services performed in the United States have a source, because section 861(a) says so. So what good does it do you to determine the source of your wages unless you can find something that says your wages are not taxable?
fuzzrabbit wrote:Could just as well say "every goddamn source you ever frickin' saw" and it would still be a ....."source"...... Get it yet???? Titles are nice but the text is the law. What does it SAY? I don't have a copy of the Code in front of me (takes so long to call it up online), but I know it says to use 861 and followng "to determine the sources of income FOR PUROSES OF THE INCOME TAX." 1.861-1(a) I believe. About 6 other places; 1.863-1(c) I believe, etc., etc. Nothin' about special ANYTHING.

Just readin' the regs., doin' what they say...
Okay, and as I've pointed out several times, section 861 defines "taxable income from sources within the United States" as including "compensation for services performed within the United States.

Now what? Why aren't your wages included in taxable income from sources within the United States?
fuzzrabbit wrote:Now--------IF ANY OF YOU AGREE WITH THIS OR NOT------- please understand THAT THIS IS LARKEN'S ARGUMENT. Why not address it? Again, I haven't made a decision that even *I* agree with it! THAT'S why I'm here. Yes, I'm ATTRACTED by it. That DOESN'T mean I BUY IT......

I won't even address any posts that don't from here on acknowledge the above. You are wasting your time and mine.
And I think you're wasting your time and mine if you don't address the definition of "taxable income from source within the United States" and the definitions of "sources" within the United States in section 861. You keep claiming your income is not taxable, but you don't point to anything in the statute that supports anything you say, and you don't respond to my repeated explanations of what section 861 actually says and why it doesn't do you any good.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Post by LPC »

fuzzrabbit wrote:Income from where?
What makes you think it makes a difference?

And does this mean you're giving up on the "who" argument and are now switching to the "what" (or "where") argument?

I ask because it is typical tax protester behavior to assert something, get pounded, switch arguments, get pounded again, switch arguments again, get pounded, and eventually repeat the first argument as though it had never been refuted. This is why we often compare arguing with tax protesters to playing "whack-a-mole."
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.